New bar opened in old Topman,the Scotland Discussion

[scottish-guy]

Lose?
Lose??
Never!!!

Seen the latest polls? Where did that 30% "NO" lead go? :))

http://wingsoverscotland.com/a-casual-grenade/

The momentum is all one-way.
Result will be a YES vote of around 60-40 (unless Osborne makes another day trip to lecture us on what we can and can't do again - in which case it could end up more like 70-30)

Seen the latest polls? Where did that 30% "NO" lead go? :))

http://wingsoverscotland.com/a-casual-grenade/

The momentum is all one-way.
Result will be a YES vote of around 60-40 (unless Osborne makes another day trip to lecture us on what we can and can't do again - in which case it could end up more like 70-30)
It must be excellent news for the Scottish banking system to hear you'll be leaving your vast wealth in a Scottish bank http://leonclifford.com/2014/02/19/woul ... ependence/ (http://leonclifford.com/2014/02/19/would-you-leave-your-money-in-a-scottish-bank-account-post-independence/)

[scottish-guy]

Interesting opinion piece from Leon Clifford (who?) and I'm amused that you find it credible enough to quote it - but "opinion" is all it is and he's entitled to it however ill-informed it may be.

The minute I saw the words "Tartan Pound" I knew where he was coming from - a position of ignorance and arrogance, derived from subscribing to the little Englander mentality with its inherent racist overtones.

Since you see fit to quote him - what exactly are Leon Clifford's credentials? A search on Google brings up very little of substance and nothing that would encourage me to pay attention to a word he says. Where does he stand in the ranks of world renowned Nobel laureate Economists - like Sir James Mirrlees or Joseph Stiglitz (both of whom sit on the Scottish Government's Economic Advisory panel). Do tell.

Now, if you (like Mr Clifford) would rather "put your money" into a rump UK with ┬г1.6 TRILLION debt, an eye-watering deficit, a populist and racist immigration policy which limits potential growth of the Economy, a central bank which simply prints money to cover it all up, which stands to lose 30% of its lad mass and a minimum of 10% of its income along with one of the main assets that underpins much of the borrowing - than into an Independent Scotland which would be free of debt and in chronic surplus (assuming, as Leon Clifford opines, there will be no monetary union - thus consigning every rump UK business into paying transaction charges every time they conduct business in Scotland) I'd suggest you'd be cutting off your nose to spite your face. But feel free my dear.

You might also want to take into account that failing banks are the responsibility of the Country they TRADE in rather than where they originate from (hence the bailing out of Barclays by the USA Govt rather than the UK Govt) - which totally nukes the argument coming from your so-called expert. You might also want to remind yourself that these UK Banks failed under UK regulation, and don't forget the one that kicked it all off - Northern Rock - which the UK Govt never seems to mention, because it doesn't fit with the anti-Scottish propaganda.

:))

SURFCREST - I was initially replying to Arsenal on this issue, but since Kommie has now entered the fray you might consider moving these exchanges to the Scottish Independence thread in Open Discussion forum. Wouldn't want to be accused of gatecrashing anybody's thread you know.

[arsenal]

SG: I think you can put your case for an independent Scotland without resorting to anti-English gutter stuff.

Do you really believe that the UK will let Scotland go with all the oil and no debt because I for one don't. Alex salmand has stated that Scotland could be full members of The EU within 18 months. Not if The UK blocks their entry you can't. You need to accept that even with a 'yes' vote there will be considerable negotiations to be completed. Who for example is going to be your head of state?
The possibility of using the pound has been taken away whatever Salmand says. The president of the EU said there are real problems for Scotland to join the EU and if HE says it then.....At some point in the future it will be made clear that HM Queen Elizabeth II will not reign over an independent Scotland. Other things will follow.

[scottish-guy]

First of all, I'm anti the UK state, not anti English/Welsh/or N.Irish

But let's address your specific points - on every one you are simply wrong:

1. "The UK won't let Scotland go" - The UK Govt is already committed through the Edinburgh Agreement to respect the result of the Referendum and, more importantly, to act in good faith to implement it in the event of a YES vote. In writing. Signed jointly by Cameron and Salmond. In front of TV cameras. Are you seriously saying they would renege on that?? Seriously??? It would precipitate an International crisis - Salmond would be off to the EU (5 million EU citizens denied their rights) and the UN (a democratically expressed desire for self-determination being thwarted), and world opinion would heap opprobrium on the UK. Absolutely no chance.

2. The UK blocking Scottish membership to the EU: Under the terms of the Edinburgh Agreement, Cameron can not do this and hey, THIS JUST IN, has today ruled it out:
http://news.stv.tv/politics/265247-david-cameron-would-support-an-independent-scotlands-eu-membership/

3. Head of State: Queen Elizabeth II will obviously remain Queen of Scots.

4. Using the Pound: sorry to burst your bubble, but even the Financial Times admits you can't stop us!
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/23adb32c-9494-11e3-9146-00144feab7de.html#axzz2uGsy2qmB
The pound sterling is a fully tradeable/convertable currency. We would prefer a currency union but (and this IS Plan B - you heard it here - SGT exclusive :)) ) the rump UK can go to hell in a handcart if they don't agree it, we'll use the ┬г anyway.

5. Barroso (who is NOT the President of the EU - only of the Commission which is subservient to the Parliament) has been backtracking for the past week - where have you been. He made a major blunder in his statements and in comparing Scotland to Kosovo (to gain Cameron's support for his bid to be the next Secretary General of NATO when he leaves his current post - see below) and has been publicly rebuked by the European Commission and by his own deputy.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/kosovo-comparison-rejected-by-barroso-deputy.23525055

As mentioned above, Barroso will not be in post when any negotiations take place, he demits office in this Autumn - so his (disingenuous) view is immaterial. More significantly, Dr Fabian Zuleeg, Chief Executive of the European Policy Centre gave evidence to the Scottish Parliament on 20th February. Even the UK state broadcaster was forced to admit "European expert says vetoing Scotland's EU membership 'very difficult' "
http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/scotland-26272055

The Spanish Prime Minister has also said that Spain would not seek to veto an application from Scotland, before you toss that one in. So, the UK Govt have said they won't veto, and the Spanish have said they won't veto - so who do you imagine has a reason to use any veto?

And the over-riding factor - approx 5 million Scots are EU Citizens right now, and will continue to be EU Citizens immediately after a YES vote. As EU Citizens we have rights under ECHR laws which cannot be taken away as there is no mechanism to remove EU Citizenship (and no desire to create such a mechanism). The EU is about pragmatism and expansion, and a way will be found to accommodate Scotland - in the same way as 16 million East Germans suddenly became EU Citizens almost overnight, with a minimum of fuss.

6. Queen Elizabeth II is the Head of State of 16 sovereign countries including Tuvalu and St Kitts & Nevis. She is directly descended from Robert the Bruce and Mary Queen of Scots. Her mother was Scottish for Christ's sake! It is utterly inconceivable that given her sense of duty she would not wish to remain Head of State in an Independent Scotland. Given that the UK has no written constitution, there is nothing Cameron can do to prevent her accepting the role - nor will she.

NEXT!

:ymparty:

SURFY: Please move these exchanges to the existing Scottish Independence thread in Open Discussion forum.

[arsenal]

SG. Everything you say is conjecture. But if you think Alex Salmand is the man to lead you to the promised land then be my guest and follow him wherever he wants to go. But please, tone down the anti-English rhetoric. This is not the place for it.

[stevehadders]

Why oh why is this on gay Thailand page. I come here to read about Gay Thailand not to enter into a political argument......there are many other sites I can do that

[Manforallseasons]

They are limited where they can post now that Baht Stop is defunked.

There was that poster not so long ago who claimed that a "gay" forum was no place to discuss politics. Yet here we are, happily discussing the future of a country best known for the fact that its menfolk wear skirts.

[scottish-guy]

I do not know what Stevehadders is moaning about - as a blind man can see, I personally asked Surfy to move these exchanges out of the Topman topic - and he now has.

So...whats the problem?

Kommy - see above - and additionally, if you think there is no politics involved in gay issues, what have some of us spent 30/40 years marching for?

I'll ignore the slur about kilts, it's very poor and very cheap "Daily Mail" type shit.

Contrary to your assertion, I could post a very long list of Scots academics, innovators, scientists, business tycoons, who have made major contributions to the world in very many different areas.

Arsenal - How come when I assert something it's "conjecture", but when you make assertions you expect them to be accepted as cast-iron fact and get pissed off when you're challenged on them?

I don't believe there is anti-English rhetoric in anything I've said - see the first sentence of my last post.
People who take the least criticism of the UK state so personally, clearly have a chip on their shoulder (sound familiar?)

:))

[arsenal]

Mr Scotty. The only chips I have are those served with fish. I believe you attacked the English policy on immigration. However, millions have entered England over the last ten years or so and are entitled to all the benefits so that seems quite generous to me.

The only conjecture I mentioned was your head of state. Everything else (the currency, the EU membership) is a matter of public record. It would be very strange for an Independent Scotlnd to use the pound without a formal currency union, which all three Westminster parties say you won't get. A bit like a teenager demanding independence and pocket money at the same time.

And if other posters are unaware of Scotlands' contribution to the world thenI wouldn't bother trying to educate them. Just as Englands' contribution is immeasurable, which I am sure you would agree with, though perhaps through clenched teeth. (And a deep fried Mars Bar :)) )

[scottish-guy]

The difference is that I am unaware of any poster suggesting that the only thing England is known for is bowler hats and morris dancers - right?
So I think I'm entitled to respond to the "kilts" and "Deep-Fried Mars Bars" references.
I am happy to acknowledge that England has a long and proud history of innovation and much else besides.

Now, to your points:

1. There IS no "English policy on Immigration" - so how can I attack it. HELLO?
What I attack is a UK Immigration policy which is populist, racist, panders to Daily Mail and Telegraph readers, is designed for the South East of England and prevents the Economy from growing. You will not find any history of any support for the racist and xenophobic National Front, BNP, or UKIP in Scotland - their support lies in England whether you like to admit it or not.

2. It would not be at all strange for Scotland to use the ┬г without a formal currency union, but the panel of International economic experts including 2 Nobel laureates who are advising the Scottish Govt have said that a formal currency union is preferable and in the interests of BOTH countries. If the UK wants to be stubborn about it - fine - we'll use the ┬г without a formal currency union BUT if Scotland is to be denied a share of UK assets (which it has contributed to for 300 years) then we wont't be taking on any share of UK liabilities such as any part of the ┬г1.2-┬г1.4 TRILLION debt. The "quip" about the teenager makes no sense and does not equate to the situation in any way.

[arsenal]

If anyone has chips on their shoulders on this thread it's not me. Perhaps closer to home though SG. You are beginning to sound quite shrill so I shall withdraw from this thread as it is after all, a Scottish matter.

[egel]

Will the UK have to move out of RAF Lossiemouth, Kinloss, Leuchars etc. Cant possibly have our front line Squandrons based in a foreign land can we?
And, as for that submarine pen on the west coast...what our biggest nuclear deterrant based abroad?
Unthinkable...

[scottish-guy]

Arsenal, the truth is you've withdrawn from the debate because you've been exposed on the issues. The trouble is you get your mis-information from the Daily Mail (or maybe the Telegraph if you feel like splurging out) and anything they print about Scotland is utter shite.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and guess you may augment your news sources by listening to the State Broadcaster aka BBC who serve up a daily diet of anti-Scottish insult, am I right?
Just the other day we had a HAIRDRESSER on the BBC Daily Politics show telling us we should vote NO and that was quickly followed by Gryff Rhys Jones (a Comedian) telling us what we should do. For 24 hours we had blanket news coverage of David Bowie giving us his opinion (4 words worth) - so I think any outside observers can gauge the level the BBC is setting the debate at.

Nothing you have said on these matters, Arsenal, stands up to scrutiny - and the "chip on the shoulder" remark was made precisely because I knew you'd come away with that one (that's why I added "sound familiar?" when I posted it)

Now, moving on to Egel - Defence is not a strong suit for the Unionists, Egel, you ought not to have opened up that can of worms:

1. You don't have to worry about the nuclear Trident submarines being left in the Clyde - if there's a YES vote, the rump UK will be instructed (yes, instructed) to remove them forthwith. Will you enjoy having these weapons of mass destruction in your own back yard?
Devonport has been suggested - personally I'd like to see them based in the Thames - but I hear the Welsh First Minister wants them (amazing how some people will prostitute their principals for a few quid).
The big problem (for UK) though, is that a rump UK would have nowhere to move these nuclear submarines to, nor anywhere to store the warheads - oh dear, what will they do? If UK Tory Govts from Thatcher onwards hadn't pissed off the whole of Europe with their xenophobic attitudes they might have had options there :))

2.You suggest/threaten the removal of the RAF bases @ Lossiemouth, Kinloss, Leuchars etc ..... well my dear you really must try to keep up - RAF Kinloss CLOSED to flying operations in 2011, RAF Leuchars is scheduled for CLOSURE in Autumn 2014, and RAF Lossiemouth is to be reduced to an army barracks - so where are these "front line squadrons" you refer to :)) Did you stop keeping up-to-date in 1945?
AND these closures and downgrades have occurred under the UK Govt, so what are we supposed to be afraid of losing?
The latest available UK Govt figures for defence spending in Scotland show that in 2007/2008 Scotland contributed ┬г3.3 billion to the defence budget and received spending of ┬г1.9 billion - so, get your facts right before commenting. The UK does Scotland no favours in defence, or in anything else.

So, I look forward to any rebuttal you care to make but I suspect there will be nothing of substance - it seems to me that when it comes to trading debating points instead of newspaper headlines and out-of-date generalisations, Arsenal and Egel "don't like it up 'em"

[attachment=0:1t5v4dun]arseegel.png[/attachment:1t5v4dun]

[scottish-guy]

A rare truthful article from the BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26327874

[arsenal]

SG. I wasn't aware I'd given you a list of my media sources.

If you use our currency (with or without a union) then how can you be truly independent? You will be hostages to the fortunes of another state. Decisions made by The Bank of England will have a direct bearing on your borrowing capabilities.
It's hardly surprising that the organisations advising Scotland aadvise that a currency union is in the interests of both parties, they are being paid by Scotland. You are a citizen of the EU due to the agreements signed by The UK, If you leave the UK then the citizenship will go with it, HELLO.

[Manforallseasons]

Surfcrest wrote:
The Scotland Discussion has been moved to the "Open Discussion" forum, the new topic is;.

New bar opened in the old Topman, The Scotland Discussion

new-bar-opened-old-topman-the-scotland-discussion-t30446.html (http://sawatdeenetwork.com/forum/new-bar-opened-old-topman-the-scotland-discussion-t30446.html)



This is Gay Thailand Forum.

There is a proper forum for this It's Global Forum.

[scottish-guy]

...SG. I wasn't aware I'd given you a list of my media sources.

Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure I'm right, and I note you haven't denied it :))


...If you use our currency (with or without a union) then how can you be truly independent? .....

Well well well - there we have it, and I've highlighted it to make it even more obvious - what arrogance !!
The ┬г Sterling is not YOUR currency!
The pound is the national currency of Scotland just as much as it's the currency of the rest of the UK.
The Bank of England has been nationalised since 1946 and for over 65 years revenues from Scotland have contributed towards its development.
It's a UK Asset - Scotland owns a share of it and as an independent state, Scotland would have just under 10% of a stake in the Bank of England, and we would demand 10% of influence. At the moment Scotland has NO influence. 10% of influence is a damn sight more than the 0% influence we have just now.

Similarly, it is accepted that for a currency union to work, some sovereignty would have to be ceded - but seeing as we have sod-all sovereignty at the moment, that seems quite acceptable.

But your argument is founded on a ridiculous proposition - are you seriously saying that France and Germany, because they share a Central Bank are not "Independent" countries? Maybe you should try telling the Germans and French that! What utter tosh!


..... It's hardly surprising that the organisations advising Scotland advise that a currency union is in the interests of both parties, they are being paid by Scotland....

I'm sorry Arsenal, we are talking about eminent, world-leading economists, including TWO Nobel laureates - are you seriously suggesting that these guys would risk trashing the international reputations they have built up over a lifetime by making untrue statements for the sake of a few quid in expenses (I believe they are actually unpaid, but I don't have a reference for that) They're not Lib-Dems you know!
Alastair Darling (Leader of the NO campaign) admitted the same thing some months ago (currency union in the best interests of both countries) - and he is hardly a friend of or paid by the Scottish Govt.
Just last week the Deputy Leader of the Scottish Tory Party said that although he wants a NO vote, if it's YES he will "man the barricades" to obtain a currency union.
Mervyn King (remember him?) ex BoE Governor, told the First Minister ' What they (Westminster politicians) say now, is quite different to what they will say after the event'


You are a citizen of the EU due to the agreements signed by The UK, If you leave the UK then the citizenship will go with it, HELLO.

HELLO. Please cite the EU mechanism for expelling approx 5 million EU citizens from the EU. Actually, don't waste your time looking - there isn't one, and there will be no expulsion - the idea is ludicrous. The entire history of the EU is about pragmatism and expansion - suddenly they're going to start throwing 5 million EU Citizens out? Crap!
Can you imagine the upheaval that would cause - all EU migrants and students would overnight have no right to stay in Scotland (you'd like that one if it were the UK, wouldn't you :)) ) and would all have to leave immediately. The Spanish and others would have to immediately stop fishing the hell out of our waters. The Germans would have to find a new oil source (they import much of it from what would be Scottish oil fields)

There will be an 18 month interval between a YES vote and Independence Day. Matters will be negotiated within that time-frame to ensure that at the point of Independence, Scotland transitions seamlessly into a sovereign member of the EU.

But there is something else you need to consider - when Scotland becomes independent, then the UK ceases to exist, and England-Wales-Northern-Ireland are in exactly the same legal situation as Scotland, because the state comprising England Wales and Northern Ireland didn't sign the EU accession treaties either. Who has pointed this out? A certain Mr Norman Tebbit!! What do you say to that?

[arsenal]

SG. I don't feel the need to deny anything just as you don't feel the need to confirm if you've ever actually been to Thailand.

So. Scotland is going to leave The UK. Take all the oil, have total ownership of the fishing grounds, leave the debt behind, seamlessly rejoin The EU, happily carry on using pound sterling, keep HM QE 2 as head of state, and everyone will ride off counting all their cash. Is there anything I've missed?

[scottish-guy]

You'll find plenty of confirmation that I've EVER been to Thailand, on this very board, going back 7 or 8 years - what a ridiculous thing to say. All that has changed during that time is that for the last year or two, with a nutter around, I have (wisely) declined to keep this board informed of any further trips to Thailand - and even when I report on trips elsewhere I change dates and certain details. I rather suspect there are several SGT posters who wish they had done likewise - and avoided having their personal details and photographs revealed to all and sundry. Why should I potentially put myself in that position? Of course, maybe you support the nutter, I don't know.

To answer your questions (assuming there's a YES vote):

YES, YES, YES, IF NECESSARY, YES, YES, YES, NO (like any normal country there will undoubtedly be problems along the way - but at least we shall be in charge of what we do about them).

What the Scottish people have to understand is that for one day (and for the first time ever) - on 18th September 2014 - they hold their sovereignty in their own hands. At the end of that day they will have voted either to keep it, gain some self respect, and move forward as an equal partner in the World - or to give it away and remain subservient to the interests of the South East of England.
If it's the latter, they should be in no doubt that the backlash from the UK will be substantial and devastating, and that with Milliband now matching Cameron's commitment to an in/out EU referendum, Scotland (as part of the UK) will be out of the EU -the ultimate irony of your current argument.

[arsenal]

Regardless of any result it will require ratification from Westminster and if Alex Salmand or whoever refuses to negotiate a decent deal then Parliament could drag it out for years or even decades if they want to. Who knows, it might even be the non SNP Scottish MPs who sit there who vote it down. Irony huh! A referendum is not legally binding. Remember the various countries that had multiple referenda until their people said 'yes' to the euro.

And this just in.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-26362321
And this is just the beginning.

[scottish-guy]

This particular referendum IS binding on the UK Govt - try googling the Edinburgh Agreement and, just for added clarity, try googling Cameron's interview last week on STV where he confirmed the result will be respected by the UK Govt.

In the absurd event that the UK govt refused to recognise, or tried to block the democratically expressed wishes of the Scottish people (is that seriously what you are advocating - SERIOUSLY?) then that would precipitate a constitutional crisis the likes of which the UK has never seen. As I told you, even the Deputy Leader of the Scottish Conservatives has said that whilst he is campaigning for a NO vote, should it be YES, he will "man the barricades" for Scotland. With talk of the UK Govt refusing to accept the result, you are playing a very dangerous game Arsenal, and it shows just how much your side are rattled. The 30% lead for NO has evaporated into thin air and only a single figure swing is required in 7 months to sweep YES to victory in September. Hence the threats and scare-stories are being ratcheted up.

Moving on to Standard Life - this is a Company which has form in threatening to pull out of Scotland ( and that isn't even what they have actually said - google the actual statement - it's selective reporting by the State Broadcaster). They threatened to do so almost 20 years ago and wrote sinister letters to their employees suggesting that if Scots voted for a Parliament, they'd pull out. Guess what, they're still here and they'll still be here in 20 years time.

Your entire argument consists of nothing more than a series of threats and predictions of doom. It is predicated on peddling the insult that somehow Scotland is uniquely too small, too poor, and too stupid to stand on her own two feet. I would not be in the least surprised if you told us next that the sky will fall down should Scotland become independent. Only the feeble-minded are being taken in by this disgraceful scaremongering from people representing your view, and that is why a pro-independence political website yesterday crowdfunded over $100,000 in less than 24 hours - a record for any British political website.

Finally, just to REALLY piss you off - you do realise that if Scots vote for Independence, there's one more thing we'll be keeping.....our UK citizenship and passports. Any Scot who has British citizenship on the day before Independence Day will have dual nationality and will be entitled to a UK passport forevermore, as well as their Scottish one. I bet that gets your gears grinding doesn't it :))

PS - to any members who has a parent/grandparent born in Scotland - it is proposed that you will also be entitled to Scottish citizenship even if you yourself have never lived in Scotland. You can read more about this and the Scottish Govt's plans for Scotland in their 670 page prospectus here:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/11/9348/0

[arsenal]

I predict a 60-40 win for the no vote. Quote any polls you like, the no campaign has only just got started whereas the 'yes' one has been going on for decades. There is no way the impetus can be maintained for 7 months. Not when your only real 'star' is Salmand. Much of what you claim will be picked apart. Nobel laureates or not.

By the way. I am not in any camp. Yes or No. I support England. Does it bother me that Scots will be entitled to UK citizenship? No it doesn't bother me, nor surprise me. Peoples from around the world would and do risk their lives in order to have the chance of a UK passport.
And no, I do not think that Scotland is too small, stupid or poor to stand on her own two feet. I do however think they are too canny to leave The UK. In the end, they will reject your arguments.

You began this debate with attacks on England and are now coming across as an almost hysterical xenophobe.

[scottish-guy]

the no campaign has only just got started....


This is hilarious - the Unionist/Dependency campaign has been going on for over 300 years.

Despite this, they have very few footsoldiers on the ground, which is where this campaign will be won and lost - amongst the ordinary citizens, not the fat cats.

What they DO have is the Westminster machine, the 100% Non-Scottish owned print media, and the State Broadcaster (BBC )in their pockets. But Westminster is largely discredited in Scotland and the media can only cry "Wolf!" so many times, people are seeing through it. They are now reduced to scaring pensioners.

Contrary to your assertion, there is far more to the YES campaign than Alex Salmond (note the spelling) - but he is an easy monstering target for the English (that's not racist, that's factual) media, which is increasingly resembling the Nazi propaganda outpourings of Der Sturmer - as these "hilarious" contributions from the Times, Express, and the laughingly-named Independent show:

[attachment=3:2nleu892]scexpress-460x293.jpg[/attachment:2nleu892]

[attachment=2:2nleu892]scindependent4-460x297.jpg[/attachment:2nleu892]

[attachment=0:2nleu892]sctimes3-460x306.jpg[/attachment:2nleu892]

[attachment=1:2nleu892]scindependent5-460x293.jpg[/attachment:2nleu892]

It's clear you have little idea of the breadth of the YES campaign (which encompasses the SNP, Greens, Labour for Independence, National Collective, Radical Independence, Solidarity, SSP, Business for Scotland, and many many more organisations). Alex Salmond is not even one of the Co-Chairs - but you wouldn't know that would you - and the sad fact is that you have no intention of educating yourself. Far easier just to throw generalisations about, irrespective of the actual facts.

As for your final point


....(you) are now coming across as an almost hysterical xenophobe.

I suggest you look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

:))

[egel]

You began this debate with attacks on England and are now coming across as an almost hysterical xenophobe.
Nah, just an easy wind up...probably too easy!

the YES campaign (which encompasses the SNP, Greens, Labour for Independence, National Collective, Radical Independence, Solidarity, SSP, Business for Scotland, and many many more organisations)A man is known by the company he keeps
I'll ignore the slur about kilts ...Clearly not, it seems to have got right up your ... um ... er ... kilt.

[scottish-guy]

the YES campaign (which encompasses the SNP, Greens, Labour for Independence, National Collective, Radical Independence, Solidarity, SSP, Business for Scotland, and many many more organisations)A man is known by the company he keeps

Sorry, I don't get it - the grouping above encompasses every political and social category from the disenfranchised to big business, from environmentalists to oil producers - what exactly is your point?



I'll ignore the slur about kilts ...Clearly not, it seems to have got right up your ... um ... er ... kilt.

Really, I don't think I've even mentioned kilts since I said I would ignore the remark - hardly a sign of being annoyed by it.

What a strange little man you are, Kommie.

[attachment=0:1aqjem07]Bhjg-gqIMAEJH6e.jpg[/attachment:1aqjem07]

[scottish-guy]

[attachment=0:zeakm9jn]YS1.png[/attachment:zeakm9jn]

[arsenal]

SG: Well I just hope this issue isn't your lifes' work.

[scottish-guy]

Life's work? Not at all - apparently I sell flashcard books for irate motorists so they can flash "FUCK YOU" at other motorists when somebody cuts them up or honks at them, well that's when I'm not sitting in Wetherspoon's all day nursing a half-pint and using the free wif-fi.

You can read all these invented details, and many more, over at Pariah Place - and you suggest I should keep them informed of my movements via this Forum??

:))

Sorry, I don't get it - the grouping above encompasses every political and social category from the disenfranchised to big business, from environmentalists to oil producers - what exactly is your point?Apart from "Business for Scotland" that was a long list of the mad and the bad. "Barking" is the first adjective that comes to mind.

[quote="scottish-guy":1c2rh6po]I'll ignore the slur about kilts ...Clearly not, it seems to have got right up your ... um ... er ... kilt.Really, I don't think I've even mentioned kilts since I said I would ignore the remark - hardly a sign of being annoyed by it. [/quote:1c2rh6po]If I'm going to ignore something that's what I do, I don't say "Oh I see you mention X so I'm going to ignore the fact you mentioned X" - I just ignore it, actually, fully, really, treat it as if it never had been said. What a strange little man you are, Scotty.

Money talks and the bookies' money talks best. The lower the odds the more likely the result. Currently the No result is long odds on to get up, the best price for the Yes vote looks to be 7/2
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/bri ... um-outcome (http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-independence/referendum-outcome)

Put your money where your mouth is Scotty.

[scottish-guy]

Well, I'd tell you to put your money where your mouth is - but seeing as you talk out your arsehole, who would want your money after that?

Tell you what Kommy - you post your Betting Slip and I'll post mine.

And make it a big one.

[scottish-guy]

Barosso's EU membership scaremongering debunked.

http://archive.is/kPeZx

[giggsy]

I see the yes campaigners are keeping quiet about the fact that if Scotland does vote yes then the Shetland islands will want a vote to join Norway. They don't want to be part of that chancer and wanna be oligarch Salmand.
Scotty you really are beginning to sound like John Cleese going on and on and on. There are still more English people that would vote yes then Scots, I really think you missed a trick there not including the rest of us in your vote. You might see it as a vote for independence we see it as fucking off you ungrateful bastards.
[youtube:32bl2w1b]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso[/youtube:32bl2w1b]

[scottish-guy]

Giggsy - thank you for your contribution.

Now, how can I put this...................

Fuck off.

[thaiguest]

If you guys go it alone in Scotland (not a slam dunk by any means I think) get your own King/Queen of Scots back.; "Nemo me impune lacessit" as Scottish Guy might say.

[giggsy]

If you guys go it alone in Scotland (not a slam dunk by any means I think) get your own King/Queen of Scots back.; "Nemo me impune lacessit" as Scottish Guy might say.

In this "what's in it for me world" perhaps that is what Scottishindependence-guy is hoping for. He wants to be the new queen of Scotland and be fucked over and over by the new king Salmand. :ymparty:

[thaiguest]

If you guys go it alone in Scotland (not a slam dunk by any means I think) get your own King/Queen of Scots back.; "Nemo me impune lacessit" as Scottish Guy might say.

In this "what's in it for me world" perhaps that is what Scottishindependence-guy is hoping for. He wants to be the new queen of Scotland and be fucked over and over by the new king Salmand. :ymparty:

I ain't getting into a cat fight here except to point out that the Scots got the throne of England without firing a scottish shot through that roaring queen James vi (1st of England). They lost it later to the Germans under George 1st- again without a shot being fired. Maybe you're nearer the truth than you think- the era of the 2 queens may be at hand. Good money could have been made on the odds against the onset of the era of 2 popes.

[scottish-guy]

Our Jamesy-boy couldn't have been THAT much of a queen - he managed to father 7 children, and it's fair to assume that he didn't hit the pregnancy jackpot on his first attempt each time.

That adds up to a prodigious amount of fanny shagging - the very thought of which is making me quite nauseated. :ymsick:

:ymparty:

[thaiguest]

Our Jamesy-boy couldn't have been THAT much of a queen - he managed to father 7 children, and it's fair to assume that he didn't hit the pregnancy jackpot on his first attempt each time.

That adds up to a prodigious amount of fanny shagging - the very thought of which is making me quite nauseated. :ymsick:

:ymparty:

James was a comlicated man -straight for pay and duty but outraged the court (and the clergymen in particular) with his open gay lifestyle.
He was way ahead of his time and saw no contridiction between his strong religousity and his homosexual love. He even quoted from his bible in defence of his love for the handsome George Villier Duke of Buckingham-his absolute favourite: "As Jesus had John so Have I George" or words to that effect.

He didn't like Sir Walter Tobacco either and took his head partly for the following remark perhaps:
"King Elizabeth has been succeeded by Queen James"

Refer to the motto of the Kings of Scotland and see how much he lived by it when crossed.

I see you've been proposed for the post of Queen of Scots. Hek it's its pushing the caber a bit far but you never know in these crazy times.

Good point giggsy. There have been a number of articles speculating that Scotland, if independent, will get a rough ride in its application to join the EU, especially from countries such as Spain with their own strong separatist movements.

[scottish-guy]

That only works if you're gullible enough to believe what you see and read in a 100% Unionist and biased media - right through from the state broadcaster to the print media - and of course "gullible" is exactly what they hope you will be.

So, Kommie - it's a pity you're tarring yourself with the same brush as Giggsy in that respect.

*The official position of the Spanish government was given in January 2012 by Jos├й Garc├нa-Margall, the Spanish Foreign Secretary. Asked about reports in the UK press that Spain would veto Scottish membership of the EU, Mr Garc├нa-Margall replied that the reports were falso; that's Spanish for 'bollox'. Mr Garc├нa-Margall went on to explain that in the view of the Spanish government, the question of Scottish independence has ningun paralelismo to the Spanish situation; that's Spanish for 'it's nuthin like Spain, ya clown'.

Spanish opposition to Catalan and Basque independence is based on a clause in the Spanish constitution which refers to Spain as one indivisible nation. The Spanish cited a similar clause in the Serbian constitution when they refused to recognise the independence of Kosovo from Serbia. Unless Unionists can cite a clause in the UK constitution saying that the UK is one indivisible nation, they should callarse with the Spanish threat. That's Spanish for 'shut it'.

Unionists are asking us to believe that Spain would veto Scottish membership of the EU in order to discourage Basque and Catalan nationalism, when the Spanish government itself says that the Scottish and Spanish situations have nothing to do with one another. Then there's Gibraltar, the existence of which means Spanish conservatives aren't naturally disposed to do Westminster any favours on questions of sovereignty. As a successor state to the UK, Scotland has a share in Gibraltar and we could tell Spain we'd swap it for parts of Benidorm :))

It should also be noted that mariscos obsessed Spain, the country with the highest consumption of sea-food in Europe, depends on the access to Scottish waters allowed it by Scottish EU membership in order to keep Mercadona and Hipercor shelves stocked with bacalao, gambas and langosta. They're hardly likely to put that at risk just to keep in Westminster's good books and ensure continuing supplies of baked beans and Melton Mowbray pork pies.*

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-politics/4428-spanish-foreign-minister-confirms-that-spain-would-accept-scottish-independence

*Newsnetscotland

Little did I think that stirring Scotty's sporran would evoke a several hundred word response. I guess as the day of failure for the referendum draws closer the cries of despair grow longer and louder.

[thaiguest]

It's a little bit rich for conservative forces in the UK to be using Scotland's supposed isolation in Europe as an argument against Scottish independence when those self same people are themselves proposing that the UK leaves the European Community. In the (unlikely I think) event of a 'yes' vote for Scottish independence Scotland may (ironically) end up the only part of the present UK in the EU for I have no doubt that an independent Scotland would be welcomed into the community with opened arms.
Mr Cameron opened up a can of worms in bringing up the issue of the UK pulling out of Europe-"beware what you wish for" comes to mind- his conservative backbenchers and the UK Ind Party have taken up the running now with renewed vigour.
The French foreign minister Mons Fabius recently told a group of British businessmen "if Britain decides to leave Europe we will roll out the red carpet for you". Cameron has hedged a bit with his new proposal for a referendum on the "renegotiation" option. But the German minister Herr Westerville quickly stated that Britain could not "cherry pick" and stay in at the same time.
Could Hadrian's wall be be given a new lease of life -keeping the barbarian euro-using Scots at bay?

Could Hadrian's wall be be given a new lease of life -keeping the barbarian euro-using Scots at bay?One can only hope.

[scottish-guy]

1. After a YES vote, Scotland will be using the POUND.

2. After a YES vote and the subsequent loss of the Scottish pro-EU votes, there is absolutely no chance of the rump UK voting to stay in the EU.

This will be the ultimate irony - after having the Unionists screaming hysterically about Scotland being thrown out of the EU (no such mechanism exists), in the event of a YES vote and Independence - Scotland will be IN the EU and the rump UK will be OUT!

[thaiguest]

1. After a YES vote, Scotland will be using the POUND.

2. After a YES vote and the subsequent loss of the Scottish pro-EU votes, there is absolutely no chance of the rump UK voting to stay in the EU.

This will be the ultimate irony - after having the Unionists screaming hysterically about Scotland being thrown out of the EU (no such mechanism exists), in the event of a YES vote and Independence - Scotland will be IN the EU and the rump UK will be OUT!

I'm not sure that a future ind. Scotland using the pound sterling is guaranteed.

Only 3 regions outside the Uk and N.Ireland can use the pound and they are classed as DEPENDENCIES. They are: The Isle of Man, the states of Jersey and the states of Guernsey.

I presume that an Ind. Scotland will not be a "dependency" of the UK like Man, Guersney and Jersey so why do you think that the use of the pound will be automatically granted?
Having looked the matter up I see that though Scottish and N. Irish banks can issue pounds for their own regions since 1932 there is a limitation on the issuance of the notes i.e. the approval of the UK parliament.

I'm interested to know how this matter can be resolved in the event of a "yes" vote.

[scottish-guy]

Thaiguest, I do admire the fact that you seem genuinely interested, so I'll try to be as helpful as I can on these matters:

1. Post-Independence use of the ┬г sterling does not require the Westminister Govt to "grant" permission. We do not require permission to use something we already (partially) own. It's like you and I buying, furnishing, and maintaining a house together - I don't need your permission to enter the house at any time and if we decide to part company I will want my share of the house (and everything that is jointly-owned within it) whether that share be be 10%, 50%, or 90%.

2. Therefore, Scots own a share in the ┬г - and a share in the Bank of England to which we have contributed for over 60 years. The ┬г sterling is an asset of either the UK or the BoE (take your pick) - either way we own a share of that asset. In the event of a YES vote, negotiations must take place to divide up the assets of the UK, and in those negotiations Scotland will be demanding the retention of the ┬г sterling within a formal currency union. That's a red-line issue for Scotland, and is widely referred to as "Plan A"

3.The Westminster Govt is bound by the Edinburgh Agreement (with the Scottish Govt) to respect the result of the Referendum and, if YES, to work co-operatively to implement it. If however they decide to break that Agreement and to block a Currency Union, that does not prevent Scotland unilaterally using the ┬г sterling. Take it from me - this is "Plan B", although it is not being officially acknowledged (yet). There is also a "Plan C" and a "Plan "D" - but these will not be revealed for political reasons.

4. So, either way, it IS guaranteed that Scotland would be using the ┬г sterling immediately post-independence, because it is simply not within the power of the UK Govt to prevent it. The ┬г sterling is a fully tradeable, convertable currency. Ireland used the pound sterling as its currency from independence in 1922 until 1928 when the Irish Punt was introduced (which was essentially the ┬г sterling in a nicer wrapper) - so there is a precedent!

5. The worst the UK Govt could do is to refuse a formal Currency Union which would cause Scotland (and the rump UK!) some transactional difficulties. In retaliation, Scotland would refuse to take on a population share of the 1.6 trillion UK debt (projected figures for 2016). Hopefully it won't come to that and with the voting over, sense will prevail.

One more thing - you mention Scottish Banknotes: these are printed under licence from the BoE and the issuing banks (Bank of Scotland, Royal Bank of Scotland, and Clydesdale Bank) have to guarantee their notes by depositing the equivalent amounts with the BoE. In other words, every Scottish banknote is already 100% covered by deposits at the BoE.
Ditto with the NIrish issuing bank/s. Of course, if there was no currency union, we'd have to have those deposits back.

[thaiguest]

Interesting points.

I find the following points in particular persuasive;

Pt 3) That the UK Parliament has already agreed to "work cooperatively" in the case of cecession by Scotland.
Pt 4) The Irish case as a precedent. Most of Ireland left the union by agreement in 1922. The treaty must have covered the currency issue because the pound sterling was used in S. Ireland alone up to the 1928 and up to the 1970's alongside the Irish pound.
Pt. re deposits. Nobody likes to give back deposits. Ever try to get back a deposit from a Thai landlord? Probably the same in Westminister.

Good luck with the vote but I think it will be a 60/40 in the wrong direction for you.

[scottish-guy]

Thaiguest, you may be right about the result - or I might be right in the other direction - only time will tell.

One thing's for sure - if it's a NO, the UK backlash will be ferocious.

:-ss

[thaiguest]

Thaiguest, you may be right about the result - or I might be right in the other direction - only time will tell.

One thing's for sure - if it's a NO, the UK backlash will be ferocious.

:-ss

I think no backlash.

The gentleman in black velvet is no longer toasted in Scotland except among a few in the isles and highs.

[giggsy]

I see Sean Connery has said from his homes in Greece and the Bahamas that he would return to Scotland if there was a yes vote. Listening to Scottishindependence-guy he must be shitting himself. ;))

[giggsy]

There are an estimated 900,000 Scots living outside Scotland who do not get to vote (mind you the ones living in England seem to be tramps/hobo's so no place of abode) and 500,000 English people living in Scotland who do have a vote. That is going to be the difference between a no vote and a yes vote. You've really messed it up there Scotty a bit like the Lib Dems with their proportional representation vote. L-) L-) L-)

[scottish-guy]

I thought your position was that the English wanted shot of us?

If that's the case, surely these "English settlers" should provide an extra 500,000 votes for YES.

Make your mind up.


As for Sir Sean Connery (the best James Bond by miles) - if he wants to buy a residence in Scotland after a YES vote, that's up to him - maybe he fancies a Scottish passport.
I'd be far more impressed if he'd enfrachise himself by doing it BEFOREHAND - like Alan Cumming.

[giggsy]

It doesn't matter what I think since I don't have a vote in the referendum but as for non Scottish people living in Scotland the words turkeys voting for Christmas comes to mind.
You still haven't answered the question of if Scotland does vote "yes" do you think the Shetland isles should have a vote to join Norway or in fact any other country of their choosing ?
Also in the event of a "no" vote would you vote for coming out of Europe in a referendum or is it just England you want rid off?

[scottish-guy]

It doesn't matter what I think since I don't have a vote in the referendum but as for non Scottish people living in Scotland the words turkeys voting for Christmas comes to mind....

Well, that's your opinion/assertion and I'm sure you'll be very happy together. As for the "turkeys" - if there's a YES vote and they don't like it, we are not planning to close the M74 or our airspace, so they are perfectly free to leave at any time.



...You still haven't answered the question of if Scotland does vote "yes" do you think the Shetland isles should have a vote to join Norway or in fact any other country of their choosing ?...

I did answer it - I said quite clearly that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Shetlanders want to have such a referendum (really you're just making stuff up now).

You would do well to remember that the only reason Scotland is having a referendum is that the SNP won a landslide in the 2011 election with the Referendum as the central plank in their manifesto.

So, the position is that if the Shetlanders do indeed want a referendum, then they need to find candidates willing to stand on that platform and then to elect them! That's how democracy works! Once they have done that, they can discuss a referendum with the Government of an independent Scotland.



...Also in the event of a "no" vote would you vote for coming out of Europe in a referendum or is it just England you want rid off?

It's the UK state we want rid of. As for having a referendum on leaving the EU, hang on a minute, haven't the Unionists (like you) spent the last 2 years telling us we are going to be expelled anyway :)) - again I say to you, make your mind up.

Again, the way to go about securing a referendum in an independent Scotland would be to elect people standing on that platform - unless of course we copied the UK by having a totally spineless Prime Minister who bent over for a Party (UKIP) who had never won a single UK parliamentary seat!!

It's the UK state we want rid of.All these 19th century mentalities still wittering on about the nation state. All of that should have been killed off by the First World War whose centenary we "celebrate" this year. But we still have pathetic creatures ranting about their little piece of turf and its importance. No better than Suthep and Thaksin.

[scottish-guy]

It's jaw-dropping that someone who (presumably) originates from Australia - a former colony and Dominion of the UK which transformed itself into a very successful Independent sovereign state - makes an attack on the principle of self-determination.

Further, since you say that you thought a desire for self-determination (19th Century mentality as you put it) died with the 1918 armistice, I feel obliged to point out that Australia did not finally free itself from the UK state until over 20yrs later. I'd say there's more than a little confused thinking there.

I'm not sure whether you're a deliberate hypocrite - or just a cretin. (No offence)


:o)

There's a very interesting article about Irish independence - and why Salmond has stopped citing it as a model for Scotland -n a recent New Stattesman. In summary, the Irish aiming for self-rule were desperate to get out before the UK introduced broad reform measures for social benefits http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics ... l-time-low (http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2014/03/letter-belfast-support-irish-unity-all-time-low)

It's jaw-dropping that someone who (presumably) originates from Australia - a former colony and Dominion of the UK which transformed itself into a very successful Independent sovereign state - makes an attack on the principle of self-determination.
[quote="scottish-guy":2ksj4n9q] It's the UK state we want rid of.All these 19th century mentalities still wittering on about the nation state. All of that should have been killed off by the First World War whose centenary we "celebrate" this year. But we still have pathetic creatures ranting about their little piece of turf and its importance. No better than Suthep and Thaksin.[/quote:2ksj4n9q]An interesting use of "the end justifies the means" argument.

[scottish-guy]

Well, Kommie, I read the "very interesting article" and I simply can not agree with your "summary" of it at all. All I took out of it was that Ireland was, at the point of Independence, so keen to escape from the UK that a cut in public spending was a price well worth paying. Either I missed something or you hallucinated something.

Further, the fact that the author (John Bew) lumps Norway (whose central bank is struggling to handle their enormous wealth fund) in with Ireland and Iceland, made me choke on my porridge. After a howler like that, I trust you'll forgive me if I decline to be as interested in his opinions as you obviously are.

Well, Kommie ... I trust you'll forgive me if I decline to be as interested in his opinions as you obviously are.Oh c'mon Scotty, don't you realise that we're all here just to kick you in the ghoulies (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ghoulies) under that kilt of yours? And it's going to be even more fun when the referendum fails and you're down on the ground? I've always believed in kicking a man when he's down.

[scottish-guy]

Well, Kommie - we don't know what the referendum result will be, do we? Talk is cheap as they say

All we know is that after 2 years of solid scaremongering from the NO camp, polling for a die-hard LABOUR/UNIONIST newspaper has the YES vote is at its highest level yet:

YES 45% NO 55%

So, the first thing to note is that the 30% NO lead has vanished like snow off a dyke.
The momentum is all one-way, and a 5% swing in 6 months will be more than enough for victory (since YES supporters are far more likely to actually vote than NO supporters).

Time will tell, one way or another.

:ymparty:


PS: I've always found that the kind of person who "kicks a man when he's down" is invariably the kind of person who didn't have the balls to kick him when he was standing.

So, the first thing to note is that the 30% NO lead has vanished like snow off a dyke.Lesbians everywhere will find this offensive.
I've always found that the kind of person who "kicks a man when he's down" is invariably the kind of person who didn't have the balls to kick him when he was standing.Oh I've never claimed any desire to be a hero, merely a winner.

[scottish-guy]

So, the first thing to note is that the 30% NO lead has vanished like snow off a dyke.Lesbians everywhere will find this offensive...

Only those who are cocaine addicts!

:ymdevil:

[thaiguest]

There's a very interesting article about Irish independence - and why Salmond has stopped citing it as a model for Scotland -n a recent New Stattesman. In summary, the Irish aiming for self-rule were desperate to get out before the UK introduced broad reform measures for social benefits http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics ... l-time-low (http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2014/03/letter-belfast-support-irish-unity-all-time-low)

The newstatesman link has an interesting take on Irish independence I have to say. Needs further debate but interesting.

The irony is that the country that has retained its native language most successfully-Wales- and thereby the essence of its culture- has given up on the strident nationalism of the 60's and 70's and seems quiet content living cheek by jowl with Mother England.

The gaelic language of the Scots (the original name for the Irish) is on the verge of extinction in the native country ( "independent" Ireland) and in west and insular "Scotland" to which the Irish gave the name,

To me the lynchpin of culture and identity is language. Wales has approx 1 million native speakers. Scotland and Ireland can now claim approx. 200,000 native gaelic/gallic speakers at best.

The decline of a language is a complex process I know but the least that can be said is that independence alone has not saved the Irish language-the 3rd. oldest written language in western Europe after Greek and Latin.

The truth can be bitter.

[scottish-guy]

....The truth can be bitter....

Indeed it can - and the truth is that whilst the number of older Scots Gaelic speakers are in decline due to centuries of suppression by successive Unionist governments, there has been, (due to money invested by the SNP-led Scottish Govt), a small but steady rise in the number of Gaelic speakers under 20.

What has to be understood is that whereas in Wales there has long been a promotion of the Welsh language, e.g. with dual-language road/public signage and a Welsh Language TV channel since 1982 - in Scotland, Gaelic has been deliberately suppressed by the Unionists, was actually banned after 1745 (alongside mass-clearance of the native speakers from their land), was not taught in schools (in fact was actively discouraged) - and a Scots Gaelic TV Channel did not arrive until 5 yrs ago.

To give you an idea of how suppressed Scottish identity has been, I imagine you'd find it quite astonishing that it is only since the SNP victory in 2007, that Scottish History was restored as a formal subject within the national school curriculum!! Prior to that, Scottish schoolchildren were taught more about the Battle of Hastings than the Battle of Stirling Bridge.

Scots Gaelic is never going to be a majority language in Scotland - but at least now there are increased opportunities to learn and develop it amongst those who are interested, and with the unstoppable progress towards independence there has been and will continue to be a re-flourishing of Scottish identity and culture.

http://nationalcollective.com/

[RonanTheBarbarian]

Regarding the views of Paul Bew.
He is a respected historian in Queens University in Belfast, but he is also, as is well known, a staunch Ulster Unionist. He was a close adviser to David Trimble in the run-up to the Good Friday Agreeement, and he is still a UUP supporter I believe (and actually he writes more often for the Spectator than the New Statesman).
Not saying that being a Unionist his views should be ignored, but his biases should be kept in mind.
The Ulster Unionists are in a state of horror at the thought of Scottish independence as (out of the four UK regions)they are culturally closer to Scotland than England. They worry, I think, that Scottish independence would create the suggestion that as the two major cultural groups in Norther Ireland look to southern Ireland and the Scotland respectively, why is NI in a Union with the London govt. rather than Edinburgh or Dublin?

[thaiguest]

Regarding the views of Paul Bew.
He is a respected historian in Queens University in Belfast, but he is also, as is well known, a staunch Ulster Unionist. He was a close adviser to David Trimble in the run-up to the Good Friday Agreeement, and he is still a UUP supporter I believe (and actually he writes more often for the Spectator than the New Statesman).
Not saying that being a Unionist his views should be ignored, but his biases should be kept in mind.
The Ulster Unionists are in a state of horror at the thought of Scottish independence as (out of the four UK regions)they are culturally closer to Scotland than England. They worry, I think, that Scottish independence would create the suggestion that as the two major cultural groups in Norther Ireland look to southern Ireland and the Scotland respectively, why is NI in a Union with the London govt. rather than Edinburgh or Dublin?

I agree that being a unionist colors the viewpoint and his take may be not hold much water but it's interesting.

To say that "Ulster" Unionists (not all the counties of Ulster are in N. Ireland) are culturally closer to Scotland is an over-simplication.

The NI Unionists are close to Lowland Scotland, not to Gallic Scotland.
The Lowland Scots derive from England and would historically have nothing to do with the Gaelic language, highland kilts, bagpipes etc until Walter Scott became the darling of Victorian Britain.
Now even the royal family like to do the highland fling in a kilt though their antecedent the Duke of Cumberland did more to wipe out Scottish culture during and after Culloden than perhaps any other individual.

Interestingly a section of the Unionist population in NI speak a language called "Ulster Scots"-a dialect once spoken in Lowland Scotland (and maybe still is) having no connection with Gallic/Gaelic. It's now being fostered under the Good Friday Agreement getting equal recognition as Gaelic.

My head is in a spin with all this nuance.

[scottish-guy]

There's another "nuance" as far as the Ulster Unionist Party and other similar parties are concerned - sheer religious bigotry.

Whilst there may be some respectable, moderate people within the UUP and DUP and within the ranks of their supporters - it is difficult to find much evidence of them. What we routinely see instead is a bunch of angry, shouty, bigots being egged on by other elected bigots in suits. The truth is that both the Ulster Unionists and the Democratic Unionist Party (in NI) are sustained by bigotry, their connections to the anti-Catholic Orange Order, and both have historic links to "loyalist" terrorism.

In relation to Scottish Independence the UUP and DUP are promoting what they see as the Protestant agenda, which is "God save the Queen" "Three cheers for the Red, White, and Blue", "No Surrender", and "Fuck the Pope". However, the more these odious organisations become involved, the more the YES vote increases, because anything these retards are against, must therefore be a good thing!

Right-minded Scots have no truck with their agenda, but unfortunately it finds traction with (an increasingly small) minority of Scottish knuckle-draggers who retain or manufacture some bizarre attachment to the Ulstermen (not to mention the BNP and other racist organisations) and some rather obscure battle fought in 1690.

Evidence of these wonderful examples of human intelligence can be seen in the clip below (note the Red Hand of Ulster flags, Union Jacks, and the England football top wearer)

This is the unacceptable face of BRITISH nationalism - prepare to be shocked both by the bile and hatred that spews out of those who call themselves "the people" and the sheer lack of any education, not to mention grasp of any facts. It is quite amusing to hear them "threaten" to move to England if Scotland votes YES. The reality is that the vast majority of Scots would welcome their self-exile and would encourage them to make it permanent.

[youtube:3myrcbe2]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SR53bcBDOGg[/youtube:3myrcbe2]



I

[thaiguest]

Very strange that these pro-union people would use the ancient gaelic symbol -the Red Hand of Ulster as part of their regalia.

The Red Hand was and is the symbol of the Ui Neill Clann (including the MacNeills of Barra) and was carried into battle by the O'Neills against the English many times especially during the 9 years war to the war cry: "Lamh Dhearg Abu!".

To present times; my contacts in Scotland tell me that many of the Catholic faith in Scotland will be voting "no" to independence (ironically) because of the biggotry you mentioned.
I'm told that they fear that in an independent Scotland the signicant anti-Catholic population there will have too much power. The feeling is that Westminister ,though more distant and English based, will be a more neutral administrator when it comes to dealing with localised sectarianism.

[scottish-guy]

Thaiguest, I suggest that you change your "contacts" as they seem to be giving you some skewed information.

Firstly, there is no evidence whatsoever of an "anti-catholic population" in Scotland - unless you count some neanderthal supporters of a certain football club as significant?
True, Catholics are in the minority - but non-Catholic does not equate to anti-Catholic by any stretch of the imagination. You might as well say that there is a "significant anti-Hari Krishna population"!!!

Secondly, all the evidence is that, contrary to what your contacts tell you, the Catholic vote in Scotland is pro-YES.

See this from a Unionist newspaper (there is no other kind) just last week:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/catholics-are-most-pro-yes-religious-group-in-scotland.23704996

In any event, we do not want or need religion brought in to the debate - which is exactly the motivation of the UUP and DUP, and why their views are utterly disregarded by the vast majority.

[Nirish guy]

In any event, we do not want or need religion brought in to the debate - which is exactly the motivation of the UUP and DUP, and why their views are utterly disregarded by the vast majority.

Even though you just ripped the shite out of the entire UUP / DUP membership who are of course mainly protestants, your own lets say strong dislike of them equals anything I see from them that's equally hate driven I fear (even though I don't disagree with you that most of them are 100% arseholes - but that goes for BOTH SIDES HERE which is something you fail to address at all I see - oh and as for utterly disregarded views etc - aye except by the people who actually voted for them all i.e. the majority of unionist voters here so not quite utterly disregarded now is it.

Anyway I'll leave you all to it, religion and politics - as boring as shite and a topic best avoided at all costs in my view, especially on a gay forum thats meant to be fun but hey if that's how you get your kicks knock yourselves out, you should move here as there's any amount of people here who just love and live to have the same type of conversations here over and over and over again, which is half the reason I go to Thailand so often !

[scottish-guy]

NIrish, what us under discussion here is not the politics of Northern Ireland per se, but the intervention/interference of the UUP and DUP in the Scottish referendum debate - which given that 99.9% of their supporters and members will be ineligible to vote in the referendum, causes me to question their motives. Do you find that unfair or unreasonable?

My argument is that, as far as their contribution to Scottish politics is concerned, their sole motivation at this time and in this debate is one of religious bigotry. Feel free to advance other reasons for their intervention - I can't think of any. From where I view it their "Unionism" is almost entirely borne out of historical and ingrained religious bigotry - and when I consider their close ties with other sectarian organisations in Scotland (such as the repugnant Orange Order), it only strengthens my opinion

I have no interest in N Irish politics whatsoever unless those involved in them seek to stick their nose into matters which really are none of their business. If they choose to do so, then they therefore place themselves under scrutiny.

As for the "other side" - I do not take sides - but I will say that the only comments I have heard expressed from the Republican "side" (e.g. via Sinn Fein) is that the Scottish Referendum is a matter for the people of Scotland. As the republicans have not intervened/interefered in the Scottish referendum, I saw no need to involve them in my post - which was entirely a response to the interference.

For the avoidance of doubt, when I say that nobody sensible is interested in the thoughts of the UUP OR DUP, I mean nobody in Scotland and on the issue of the forthcoming referendum. Obviously their views and those of the Republicans find traction with, and are relevant to those in N Ireland- but they are utterly irrelevant and unwanted in the context of the Scottish independence debate.

For the further avoidance of doubt, I do not make my comments from a partisan stance. I was brought up as a Protestant and having had the capacity to form my own opinions for over 40 yrs (including observing events on the island of Ireland over that period) I am a confirmed athiest and can assure you that I despise all organised religions quite equally and abhor ALL political parties who use religion as a sectarian means of winning support.

As for your dislike of political subjects being discussed on a Gay forum, well it is of course your privilege to dislike them.
I, on the other hand, find these discussions a welcome distraction from gossiping about the cock sizes of assorted male prostitutes and discussion of how little some members feel they can get away with paying them. Not that I'm suggesting that you find such topics interesting but you must admit they do regularly feature on this forum. It was myself who asked Surfy to place the discussion in the Open Forum so that those who do not wish to participate would not be encouraged to do so because it was in a more popular sub-section.

:-T

[thaiguest]

The contribution of the last two posters is interesting.
Scottish guy rejects my contention that there may be an (ironical) anti -independence vote among many of those who claim to be of the Catholic faith in Scotland.
N Irish weighs in with charges of uneven treatment of one side in the N Ireland sectarian conflict by Scot Guy and laments the introduction of sectarianism into the debate on this "open discussion" forum.
You know what?
Sectarianism needs open discussion as part of the cure for the social disease in question. England has a much larger sectarian issue to deal with now vis.a.vis radical Islam versus the rest than it ever had since the intra-christian conflicts of the 17th and 18th centuries.

Yes, Scotland has a sectarian issue to deal with-an intra-Christian conflict- partly imported from Ireland but not exclusively. It raises its ugly head in sport and politics all the time-admittedly in particular locations only.
Many of the "hard men" of N Ireland "loyalism" have fled to Scotland as their "Rebublican" opposite numbers have fled to S. Ireland.

I think that the few "pink" followers of this topic can take all this in without too much of a hissy-fit.

[scottish-guy]

Thaiguest - I really, really wish your "contacts" would give you some accurate, up-to-date information.
Any "sectarian issue" there may be in my country is exclusive to the West of Scotland - and to two particular football clubs.

The "green side" (in football) may well sing Irish republican songs and wave the Irish tricolour (which I frankly find bizarre and I cannot comprehend why one would wish to wave the flag of a foreign country - even allowing for the history of that football club) but I do not regard that as being on the same level of bigorty as their "blue" rivals who sing about the joys of being "up to our knees in fenian blood" throughout the football match.

On the East coast, there is very little (if any) sectarian element to the Hearts/Hibs rivalry and there is nothing at all in the north or south of the country. What we are talking about here is a bunch of in-bred, indoctrinated nutters whose behaviour is an affront to, and condemned by, the vast majority of the population.

Fortunately, in the new politics of Scotland, such behaviour as I have described above now attracts a prison sentence, although there is (unbelievably) pressure to overturn this law.

Now, you made a statement that the Catholic vote was a "NO" vote, did you not?
I countered by linking you to a newspaper article of no more than 2 weeks old, which reveals the exact opposite.
If you are going to continue asserting that you are correct on this matter, would you please produce some evidence rather than making unsubstantiated claims and citing as your sources some un-named third party "contacts"

Just one other thing - you introduce the "anti - Islamic" dimension of sectarianism.
I would simply point out that this is peculiar to England (where they have a far higher immigrant count), but you might also want to consider that there is a certain English football team who routinely sing and chant anti-Semitic songs and chants. I'm just making the point that sectarianism in the UK is not confined to Scotland, but at least we are doing something about it.

[Nirish guy]

I swore I wasn't getting drawn into this discussion any further - and I'm not, but just let me add that as someone who played in a cabaret band here at least four nights a week for well over 15 years and has played everywhere from top hotels and classy venues right down to the hardest UDA / UVF / IRA clubs and Orange and GAA halls etc, with the former coming complete with armed men in balaclavas on stage during the bingo making announcements about up and coming events in their communities and also my returning within the last year from a weeks trip to Vegas where I joined a mate "for the Craic" along with an organised group of Celtic supporters clubs, who assumed ( incorrectly) because I was there, wearing one of their tee shirts and was "obviously" one of them and one of "the boys" that ( as I've said before) BOTH sides I can assure you are and can be just both as hateful, bigoted, sectarian, mentally dumb and full of bile towards each other and their respective religions as each other and those quaint republican songs you speak of also contain lyrics that can easily turn ones stomach in terms of inciting murder and other such acts etc - but that is of course the nature of some of those types of songs - again on both sides.

Anyway, this is my last comment on the matter as I've no wish to get drawn into this type of conversation, but it would be nice for just "some" balance perhaps SG as whilst actually I mainly but not totally agree with most of what you say about the DUP etc ( who I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire) and also have nothing but comtempt for the knuckle draggers here of which there are many ( on both sides) that really DOES stretch right across the spectrum here and to single out just one side really paints a false picture - IMHO opinion of course, but I should state that as I live here most normal decent thinking here would agree with me that both sides here are as bad as each other and need to knock it on the head - not just one side.

Ok, that's me all done in this topic, enjoy the rest of your discussion.

Ps SG - ya can expect yer windies put in by 6 clack the night !!!!! :-) ( which I'm sure YOU know is a joke just in case anyone else doesn't !)

[thaiguest]

Thaiguest - I really, really wish your "contacts" would give you some accurate, up-to-date information.
Any "sectarian issue" there may be in my country is exclusive to the West of Scotland - and to two particular football clubs.

The "green side" (in football) may well sing Irish republican songs and wave the Irish tricolour (which I frankly find bizarre and I cannot comprehend why one would wish to wave the flag of a foreign country - even allowing for the history of that football club) but I do not regard that as being on the same level of bigorty as their "blue" rivals who sing about the joys of being "up to our knees in fenian blood" throughout the football match.

On the East coast, there is very little (if any) sectarian element to the Hearts/Hibs rivalry and there is nothing at all in the north or south of the country. What we are talking about here is a bunch of in-bred, indoctrinated nutters whose behaviour is an affront to, and condemned by, the vast majority of the population.

Fortunately, in the new politics of Scotland, such behaviour as I have described above now attracts a prison sentence, although there is (unbelievably) pressure to overturn this law.

Now, you made a statement that the Catholic vote was a "NO" vote, did you not?
I countered by linking you to a newspaper article of no more than 2 weeks old, which reveals the exact opposite.
If you are going to continue asserting that you are correct on this matter, would you please produce some evidence rather than making unsubstantiated claims and citing as your sources some un-named third party "contacts"

Just one other thing - you introduce the "anti - Islamic" dimension of sectarianism.
I would simply point out that this is peculiar to England (where they have a far higher immigrant count), but you might also want to consider that there is a certain English football team who routinely sing and chant anti-Semitic songs and chants. I'm just making the point that sectarianism in the UK is not confined to Scotland, but at least we are doing something about it.

Thanks for the reply.

I did not say that the Catholic vote was "no". I wrote "many of the Catholic faith will be voting "no" to Scottish Independence" for the reasons I outlined.

I have to admit that my evidence is anecdotal but comes from solid business type people there who have no axe to grind and they generally predict a 60/40 "no" vote overall.

It will all come out in the wash in the end.

[scottish-guy]

Fair comment, Thaiguest.

But surely, as an intelligent person, you must realise that "solid business types" do not hold the key to winning the Referendum - nor are their views representative.

The Referendum will be won in the streets and on the doorsteps amongst the working-class and the disenfranchised. People who have to live in the real, ordinary, hard world, and who do not trust what a partisan media and multi-millionaire "captains of industry" tell them - i.e. that Scotland is (uniquely in the world) somehow incapable of running itself and that if she decides to do so the sky would fall down within a week. That is why the momentum is all one way - away from NO and towards YES - the YES camp have thousands of trained activists out on the streets night after night while NO tries to run a media scare campaign because they have next to no activists on the ground.

So, maybe take the views you are hearing with a pinch of salt.

Further the prediction you make 60/40 for NO, is quite bizarre since NO is under 50% at the moment and YES is over 40% (with "don't knows" excluded). To reach the result you suggest would require a complete reversal of the momentum which has taken YES from just over 20% to over 40% and NO down from 70% down to less than 50%. Just doesn't make sense - and I'd advise that you don't put too much money on it! But as you suggest, time will tell.

Meantime, thanks for interesting debate.

[thaiguest]

Fair comment, Thaiguest.

But surely, as an intelligent person, you must realise that "solid business types" do not hold the key to winning the Referendum - nor are their views representative.

The Referendum will be won in the streets and on the doorsteps amongst the working-class and the disenfranchised. People who have to live in the real, ordinary, hard world, and who do not trust what a partisan media and multi-millionaire "captains of industry" tell them - i.e. that Scotland is (uniquely in the world) somehow incapable of running itself and that if she decides to do so the sky would fall down within a week. That is why the momentum is all one way - away from NO and towards YES - the YES camp have thousands of trained activists out on the streets night after night while NO tries to run a media scare campaign because they have next to no activists on the ground.

So, maybe take the views you are hearing with a pinch of salt.

Further the prediction you make 60/40 for NO, is quite bizarre since NO is under 50% at the moment and YES is over 40% (with "don't knows" excluded). To reach the result you suggest would require a complete reversal of the momentum which has taken YES from just over 20% to over 40% and NO down from 70% down to less than 50%. Just doesn't make sense - and I'd advise that you don't put too much money on it! But as you suggest, time will tell.

Meantime, thanks for interesting debate.

Don't get me wrong I'm not against Scottish Independence .
The feedback I'm getting is not looking good for your hopes. My sources are people involved in the tweed trade.
Perhaps they make up a certain demographic but if they do one of them is a Scottish Pakistani if that's the correct term.
Good luck with the campaign.
Slainte!

[scottish-guy]

Clearly, the Japanese get it:

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2014/04/04/commentary/scotland-a-nation-not-a-region/#.Uz6gfSxOXIU

Note to scottish-guy - read the caption on the first pic - http://bangkokbois-gay-thailand-blog.co ... -friday-8/ (http://bangkokbois-gay-thailand-blog.com/2014/04/04/aloha-friday-8/)

[scottish-guy]

You mean "Real Men Don't Wear Kilts"?

Well.....whatever.............I've never laid claim to being a "real man" (whatever that might be), I've always been quite happy to be 100% unnatural.

IMHO the Bangkokbois author needs to get back to working on the Sunday Funnies - I'm sure we all miss them. Then again, with the almost total demise of Beachlover I guess the material has substantially dried up!!

[catawampuscat]

IMHO the Bangkokbois author needs to get back to working on the Sunday Funnies - I'm sure we all miss them. Then again, with the almost total demise of Beachlover I guess the material has substantially dried up!!

"The almost total demise of Beachlover".......now the demise of tbb. Sweet!!

It seems the young have great common sense: less than a third will vote for Scottish independence (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10879545/Less-than-one-in-three-teenage-Scots-will-vote-for-independence.html) and we all know who Obama's rooting for - "Yes We Can" is now "No, You Shouldn't (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10878492/Barack-Obama-says-Scotland-should-remain-part-of-United-Kingdom.html)"

[giggsy]

...You still haven't answered the question of if Scotland does vote "yes" do you think the Shetland isles should have a vote to join Norway or in fact any other country of their choosing ?...

I did answer it - I said quite clearly that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Shetlanders want to have such a referendum (really you're just making stuff up now).

You would do well to remember that the only reason Scotland is having a referendum is that the SNP won a landslide in the 2011 election with the Referendum as the central plank in their manifesto.

So, the position is that if the Shetlanders do indeed want a referendum, then they need to find candidates willing to stand on that platform and then to elect them! That's how democracy works! Once they have done that, they can discuss a referendum with the Government of an independent Scotland.quote]

Hey Scotty are you still pretending to be blind and deaf about the question of Shetland Isles wanting a referendum on independence from Scotland. Others are clambering to join Shetland with the Western Isles and Orkney wanting to stay within the UK and I repeat have nothing to do with that chancer and wanna be oligarch Salmond. I think he has reached his peak now and the dirty tricks will start soon finding dirt on him and discrediting him. I hope you didn't put too much money on a yes vote victory now Neal is no longer around and its safe for you to go back to Thailand.
You may (or not) enjoy some reading on the subject.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-i ... -1-2841537 (http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-independence-northern-isles-devolution-bid-1-2841537)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/sho ... dence-vote (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/shortcuts/2014/mar/24/will-orkney-shetland-join-micronationalists-independence-vote)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... tland.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10705477/Shetland-and-Orkney-should-get-vote-on-whether-to-leave-Scotland.html)

[scottish-guy]

Why on earth would I wish to read English-owned Unionist newspapers for a view on the Scottish Independence referendum? :|

By the way, THIS is what you're defending:

[attachment=0:3geyqeun]Br0Q6HpIUAAEgv3.jpg large.jpg[/attachment:3geyqeun]

Latest odds from the bookmakers:
NO vote 1/7 (ie. unbackable odds-on)
YES vote 5/1 (ie. why-would-you-waste-your-money odds against)

[scottish-guy]

And yet the latest poll put only 4% gap between YES and NO (undecideds excluded), therefore only a 2% swing is required for parity and 3% for YES to win

Three separate polls last weekend had YES up 4% in a week and NO down 4%

Plus, YES voters are far more likely to vote than NO, and pundits think that could be worth 2% to YES

Also, Wm Hill saying over 90% of bets in Scotland are for YES.

So, it's credible to suggest there's some manipulation of the odds going on from south of the border - with 2 widely reported (in the mainstream media) huge bets of ┬г200,000 being placed by NO supporters. ┬г400,000 on NO is bound to affect the odds.

Bookmakers odds reflect the money placed on each possible outcome, nothing more.

http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/

You're doubtless familiar with Burns' To A Louse

[scottish-guy]

My dear boy, I'm as familiar with the Burns poem "To a Louse" as he must have been to you when he wrote it.

:))

[attachment=0:3kjco7mc]wishful_thinking180.jpg[/attachment:3kjco7mc]

[scottish-guy]

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/world/429423/support-for-scottish-independence-growing-poll-shows

[thaiguest]

Some months ago I would have put the prospect of Scottish independence at 60/40 against.
I get the feeling that the difference is as thin as a haggis skin now that decision time is nigh.

Some months ago I would have put the prospect of Scottish independence at 60/40 against. I get the feeling that the difference is as thin as a haggis skin now that decision time is nigh.For me the most entertaining outcome would be a win for the "Yes" vote of something like 50.1%. We'd then be able to watch Alex Salmonella running around trying to make it work while anyone with any money or/and an ounce of self-preservation would be moving their money and probably themselves to England.

[scottish-guy]

That would be the rump UK (England) ┬г1.6 trillion in debt, governed by a Tory/UKIP coalition/confidence & supply Govt after 2015, devoid of North Sea Oil revenues, 1/3 of its land mass, 9% of its population, saddled with unwanted unaffordable and unusable WMDs, and fast tracking itself out of the EU?

That would be the rump UK (England) ┬г1.6 trillion in debt, governed by a Tory/UKIP coalition/confidence & supply Govt after 2015, devoid of North Sea Oil revenues, 1/3 of its land mass, 9% of its population, saddled with unwanted unaffordable and unusable WMDs, and fast tracking itself out of the EU?Dinna fash yersel, laddie. North Sea oil revenues are falling and the 9% of the population is greying more rapidly than us. I'm not sure of the logic of someone who wants to fast track his own country out of a common market (the UK) but sees England fast tracking itself out of the other common market (the EU) as a significant problem. I'd join the dots, if I were you. Your argument reminds me of the gaggle of blondes who enter a bar chanting "24 weeks, 24 weeks". When challenged by the barman their spokeswoman replies "We did the jigsaw in only 24 weeks but on the box it says '2 - 4 years'".

[scottish-guy]

1. Oh, what a burden it will be when the "falling oil revenues" from the remaining 24 Billion barrels of oil (UK Oil & Gas UK estimate) have to be shared amongst 5 million ppl instead of 65 million :)) What utter tosh!

2. This just in - people age at the same rate the world over. Problem for Scotland is that currently our young people have to LEAVE to find opportunities, and we are saddled with an inappropriate immigration policy which e.g. throws qualified students out as soon as they graduate - therefore we have fewer working age people to support the retired. With full control we can reduce economic emigration and also have a controlled immigration policy in place to suit Scotland rather than the South East of England. Our country is half empty - plenty of scope to grow the economy. Our older people don't age quicker, but unfortunately they do DIE a lot sooner, so with a growing workforce the problem is manageable.

3. How exactly would an independent Scotland be fast-tracking itself out of the UK market? Are you advocating a Scottish trade boycott by the rump UK? If so, you realise that would be illegal under EU law? Ridiculous argument!

You are the personification of the NO campaign - all doom and gloom and nothing positive to say whatsoever. Scotland can be an extremely successful independent nation, but all you want to do is be 100% negative and run us down. Well the response to that is in the polls today narrowing yet further - we are going to win this, YES has the momentum. NO has nothing to offer except austerity and despair - and you're welcome to it.

:ymparty:

Scotland can be an extremely successful independent nation.Just as it was in 1707.

[scottish-guy]

Are you referring to the Darien Scheme?

The English put pressure on their allies/colonies not to deal with the Scots (nobles) who had invested heavily in this scheme - precisely to force Scotland into Union. Scotland was not broke - it was a case of influential people having been shafted, having lost money, and then being offered substantial bribes to recoup their losses by selling their country down the river.

The myth that Scotland entered the Union willingly is simply that - there were riots in the streets - but ordinary people had no say in the matter.

So, if you're going to bring up stuff from 3 centuries ago, at least be knowledgeable in the subject and, secondly, realise it has fuck all relevance to 2014

Surely the relevance is that a small country is always at risk from larger countries acting against the small country's interests, no matter whether it is three years or three hundred years ago. Look at Russia and Ukraine (or even Russia and any of the countries that formerly made up its empire). Whenever a decision comes up that could go either way, are you convinced the decision never goes (never explicitly stated, of course) as "Oh, fuck 'em"? An independent Scotland got right royally fucked over in 1707; there's nothing to stop that happening over and over again for an independent Scotland in the future. It's called realpolitik.

That would be the rump UK (England) ┬г1.6 trillion in debt, governed by a Tory/UKIP coalition/confidence & supply Govt after 2015, devoid of North Sea Oil revenues, 1/3 of its land mass, 9% of its population, saddled with unwanted unaffordable and unusable WMDs, and fast tracking itself out of the EU?
The kneejerk, sentimental, victim-mentality, Hate-the-English-colonisers patriotism that some Scots display is pretty much the most unappealing of Scotland's products.

[scottish-guy]

In response to your first post above - nobody in Scotland is saying Independence will be easy, but we think we have ability to create something new.

Of course we accept there are dangers in the world, but we are not about to be invaded by Russia or anybody else (nor by aliens as one prominent NO campaigner recently alleged).

Tell you what, Kommie, name me just ONE of those countries which has gained its Independence from UK (or anybody else) and which wants to revert to being subservient?

Last week I listened to a BBC radio sketch report on Slovakia. That country has had its problems, including establishing a new currency and central bank (something iScotland would be uniquely incapable of, apparently) - but the BBC reporter had to scour Bratislava to find ONE guy willing to suggest that they would be better off re-uniting with the Czechs.

In response to your second post, you spectacularly miss the point - I'm merely illustrating why rump UK will be not only amenable to, but desperate for, negotiation.

Even now the UK currency is tumbling as the markets face up to the likely** prospect of UK (┬г1.6tn in debt by 2016) losing 8.25 of GDP (without counting Oil and Gas revenues), ~90% of those Oil & Gas revenues, 1/3 land mass, & 8.3% of population.

The current UK position of non-negotiation and NO to currency union, simply cannot hold. My prediction is that a loose form of CU (not full CU, as UK colours have very stupidly been nailed to the mast on that one) will be agreed as a transitional arrangement (say 10yrs) until iScotland introduces its own currency. The markets will demand it. The comedian Kevin Bridges suggests we call a new Scottish currency the "Smackeroonie", but I'm open on the name :))

** Finally, Kommie, hope you didn't bet your shirt, when you were crowing about those bookies odds: I'm delighted to show you the front page of today's Sunday Herald (reporting the Times of London's latest poll)

[attachment=0:15cgces8]Bw4fErQCIAACg3g.jpg[/attachment:15cgces8]

[thaiguest]

I see on the news today that the British government has offered greater power to Edinburgh if Scotland votes "no".
Sounds like panic on the government benches to me. If this goes on Alban may be independent BEFORE the referendum.

[LoveThailand]

I have read a piece on this at BBC site - comments by readers being the most interesting part. There is a lot of (thinly covered) animosity and one recurring theme: the effect of the vote result on the rUK politics. Everyone is expressing their views on how the Labour will be done in case of "yes" and how the Conservatives will be celebrating. Seems to me many still do not think there is a possibility that Farange will be writing the Queen's speech for the opening of the Parliament very soon.

[scottish-guy]

The next UK General Election must happen in 2015. Following a YES vote, Scotland will not become independent until 2016.

Therefore, a full contingent of 59 Scottish MPs must be voted into the UK Parliament in 2015 and, since an MP can not be sacked or forced to resign, they'd be technically entitled to sit there until 2020 - although it would be ridiculous for them do do so if Independence occurs in the target year of 2016. However they would certainly sit in Parliament until the point of Independence if it ran into delays. At the point of independence, the UK parliament would have to hope they would do the decent thing and resign en masse.

The political complexion of that "intake" is of course unknown but in the recent past it had benefited the Labour party to the tune of around 40MPs. That may not be the case in 2015 as the SNP may make a powerful case for electing their candidates for the purposes of strengthening their hand in the ongoing independence negotiations with the UK Govt.

However, lets assume it IS the case and Labour loses 40 MPS - will it effect the overall result? Recent history says no - without Scotland, Labour would still have won in 1997 (with a majority of 139, down from 179), in 2001 (129, down from 167) and in 2005 (43, down from 66), but those were very good years for Labour and a future close result could certainly see their bid for power thwarted by the loss of those 40 MPS.

Having said all that, lots of things could happen to upset the applecart - for example, if he loses Scotland, Cameron might resign (resulting in a more popular Tory leader who might revive their fortunes) or force an early General Election by conspiring to lose a vote of confidence - which might well result in a Tory/UKIP coalition or confidence & supply pact (current polling has Tory/UKIP at 48% v Labour on 36%)

Also, its entirely possible that Scotland votes NO, and none of these possibilities comes to pass.

Interesting times.

[scottish-guy]

I see on the news today that the British government has offered greater power to Edinburgh if Scotland votes "no".
Sounds like panic on the government benches to me. If this goes on Alban may be independent BEFORE the referendum.

Its a rapidly moving situation with lots of smoke, mirrors, and utter farce.

Chancellor Osborne at 9am carelessly suggested that a "new offer" would be made by UK Govt next week - unfortunately forgetting the UK Govt simply cannot do that as we are in a period of "purdah" whereby no new offers can be made by either side, and that tens of thousands have already voted by post. "Purdah" is normally voluntary but Alex Salmond had craftily got the UK Govt to agree to commit to it in the Edinburgh Agreement which legitimised the referendum (probably expecting that NO would make a last-minute offer.

The Secretary of State for Scotland then had to be wheeled on to the BBC at 11am and confused everybody by suggesting that these powers were the same ones being talked about for months. After that did not clarify the situation, the leader of the NO campaign was forced on to SKY news around 3pm (appearing an hour late after frantic behind the scenes discussions) and has now said that only a timetable for implementation and NO NEW POWERS will be announced.

Its a further shambles for a campaign that has let a 20-25% lead slip

:ymparty:

Interesting times.Au contraire - entertaining times.

[thaiguest]

Some months ago I was sceptical about an ind Scotland remaining in sterling and you were adamant that it could not be prevented from doing so.
TODAY no lesser personage than Mark Carey, governor of the Bank of England declared that Scotland could not keep sterling because it would be "incompatible with sovereignty"
Don't shoot me as a mere messenger please.

Me son is over in the Old Country at the moment and he called me up the other night. He said theyd had a vote down at his pub after some of the folks their made some speeches. The YES vote won about 70% to 30%.

[scottish-guy]

...no lesser personage than Mark Carey, governor of the Bank of England declared that Scotland could not keep sterling because it would be "incompatible with sovereignty. Don't shoot me as a mere messenger please.

Not shooting you but you have misheard/misinterpreted - what Carney is saying is that a Currency Union between iScotland and rUK would, in his view, be "incompatible with sovereignty". This is because rUK would inevitably demand controls over iScotland's fiscal policies etc. - therefore iScotland would have to (in his words) "cede some sovereignty". Given that Scotland has zero sovereignty right now, that seems acceptable as a short-term measure.

What Carney specifically did not say, is that iScotland could not use the ┬г sterling!
This can done outside of formal currency union, is known as "sterlingisation", and was conceded on live TV by the leader of the Unionist campaign, no lesser personage than former UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alastair Darling.
That is the point I was making and to which you refer. Even the dogs in the street know this is the Scottish Govts "Plan B"
It's our ┬г as much as it's the rest of the UK's ┬г, and we're keeping it.

BrisbaneGuy - it certainly wont be 70/30 (I wish) - what we have seen in the past few days is the entire co-ordinated might of the British establishment being unleashed against the YES campaign, with favours being called in from big business to tell us how shite we are. I will settle for 50.1%

BrisbaneGuy - it certainly wont be 70/30 (I wish) - what we have seen in the past few days is the entire co-ordinated might of the British establishment being unleashed against the YES campaign, with favours being called in from big business to tell us how shite we are.Well it was in a London pub and the YES vote was based on "Pleased to get rid of them" I hear.
I will settle for 50.1%A great way to start a new country 49.9% of people against you.

[scottish-guy]

BrisbaneGuy,

Firstly - iScotland would not be a "new" country - we've been around since well before Australians arrived off the prison ship, and were independent for several hundred years before some powerful people were bribed to sell us down the river.

Secondly - ethnic Londoners would be pleased to get rid of anybody who doesn't live within a 30 mile radius. You will hear them say exactly the same about people from the North of England. They're a pretty intolerant bunch, not at all the friendly, singing chimney-sweeps you saw in Mary Poppins, dear.

Thirdly - if the UK is so wonderful, when will Australia be proposing to rejoin mother England? Do let me know so we can send some of OUR politicians over during the campaign to tell Australians what they ought to do.

Fourthly - funnily enough, it seems that self-determination is a "good thing" for everybody except the Scots. Even the Americans whose former President, Woodrow Wilson (maternal grandparents both Scottish) so vociferously expounded the principle of S-D have given us their tuppence-worth with Obama having had his balls squeezed by Cameron and provided with suitable pro-Union rhetoric to mouth.

Finally - it seems rather curious that you seem to regard a minority ~35% of the vote as a sufficient democratic mandate for Tony Blair to sanction the murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, yet a majority 50.1% of the vote for independence would be sneered at.

I think you have a few opinions you need to think through.

:ymparty:

Firstly - iScotland would not be a "new" country - we've been around since well before Australians arrived off the prison ship, and were independent for several hundred years before some powerful people were bribed to sell us down the river.Having a chip on your should is not a cahearant philosophy.


Secondly - ethnic Londoners would be pleased to get rid of anybody who doesn't live within a 30 mile radius. You will hear them say exactly the same about people from the North of England. They're a pretty intolerant bunch, not at all the friendly, singing chimney-sweeps you saw in Mary Poppins, dear.So? Are Scots? Not from what I see you right.


Thirdly - if the UK is so wonderful, when will Australia be proposing to rejoin mother England? Do let me know so we can send some of OUR politicians over during the campaign to tell Australians what they ought to do.Australia done share a contiguarse boarder with England.


Fourthly - funnily enough, it seems that self-determination is a "good thing" for everybody except the Scots. Even the Americans whose former President, Woodrow Wilson (maternal grandparents both Scottish) so vociferously expounded the principle of S-D have given us their tuppence-worth with Obama having had his balls squeezed by Cameron and provided with suitable pro-Union rhetoric to mouth.Self determination is a illusion you still end up with politicians running things there snouts in the troff.


Finally - it seems rather curious that you seem to regard a minority ~35% of the vote as a sufficient democratic mandate for Tony Blair to sanction the murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, yet a majority 50.1% of the vote for independence would be sneered at.I am very pleased to here that Scots will be able to decide in 5 years from now to stop being independent which is what basing an argument on the transistery nature of elections does.

I think you have a few prejudices you need to think through.

[scottish-guy]

Are you dyslexic, or just retarded?

No offence.

Hold the front page! Scotty has discovered The Facts Of Life.

1. Capitalist enterprises act in their own self-interest and speak up when they believe those interests are threatened. They also engage in what economists call rent seeking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking)
2. Parliamentary democracy means that when you elect a government you entrust it to act in what it sees as the national interest and you may not like the decisions they make

As we all know the Scottish Nationalists want independence from England to regain their (superior) moral purity. You would never find someone who favours independence for Scotland travelling to a Third World country to exploit poor young men for his own sexual gratification, for example - way too immoral.

Let me make a bold prediction. Scotty will be a very poor loser should the unlikely event of a Yes majority emerge on Friday. If the Yes vote does win, that chip on his shoulder will just grow and grow as Facts Of Life #1 & #2 are reinforced during the subsequent negotiations.

[scottish-guy]

...travelling to a Third World country to exploit poor young men for his own sexual gratification, for example - way too immoral.

Let me make a bold prediction. Scotty will be a very poor loser should the unlikely event of a Yes majority emerge on Friday. If the Yes vote does win, that chip on his shoulder will just grow and grow as Facts Of Life #1 & #2 are reinforced during the subsequent negotiations.

Well really, Kommie, in regard to your first accusation - do be careful in that glass house, won't you.

It is perfectly possible (in fact, such has been the deluge of Unionist propaganda from the print media and BBC it's probable) that NO will win next Thursday and I will be extremely disappointed - but we just simply wait for the next opportunity. It's important to understand two things: 1) the genie is out of the bottle, and 2) we shall never give up.

...travelling to a Third World country to exploit poor young men for his own sexual gratification, for example - way too immoral.Well really, Kommie, in regard to your first accusation - do be careful in that glass house, won't you.You think it bothers me? I don't pretend to the moral purity of the Limousine Left. I know what I am - a predatory homosexual, exactly the sort of person mothers warn their sons about. What's your excuse?
It is perfectly possible (in fact, such has been the deluge of Unionist propaganda from the print media and BBC it's probable) that NO will win next Thursday and I will be extremely disappointed - but we just simply wait for the next opportunity.I did tell you, months ago, what the betting markets said the outcome would be. It's no good bleating about these recent actions as if they were entirely unexpected.
It's important to understand two things: 1) the genie is out of the bottle, and 2) we shall never give up.I'm sure the Shetlander Islanders felt the same way about the mainland Scots
Shetland remained under Norwegian control for around 600 years. In 1469, King Christian I of Norway mortgaged Shetland to the Scottish crown to raise part of the dowry for the marriage of his daughter Margaret to King James III of Scotland. HeтАЩd done the same with Orkney less than a year earlier. James went on to annex Shetland to the Scottish crown in 1472. Attempts by Denmark to take Shetland back didnтАЩt succeed, nor did Denmark accept offers by Scotland, in the early 16th century, to return the islands in exchange for military support. The law, economy, architecture and religion of Shetland became Scottish. Language, too, changed; it became essentially Scots but with many borrowings from Old Norse. Scottish landowners moved in, too.It sounds awfully familiar, doesn't it.

[scottish-guy]

Why do Union supporters have this obsession with trying to drive a non-existent wedge between Scotland and the Shetland Islands - couldn't be the oil, could it?

I'd be far more convinced if they also publicised and supported the situation of Cornwall - but I guess getting their hands on Clotted Cream is somewhat less financially attractive to them

:))

It will be interesting to analyse the referendum results area by area. You are, by the way, mistaken in assuming that I am a Union supporter simply because I am mocking you and pointing out the inevitability of the defeat of the question. Politically I incline to the Swiss model of government, where almost everything is put to a referendum. Acknowledging reality is something that seems ATFH for people like you and Salmonella.

I'm still deeply interested in the contortions you may come up with to justify your moral superiority over Tony Blair while at the same time (possibly contemporaneously?) exploiting the Third World poor for your own sexual gratification.

[MiniMee]

I'm still deeply interested in the contortions you may come up with to justify your moral superiority over Tony Blair while at the same time (possibly contemporaneously?) exploiting the Third World poor for your own sexual gratification.

That's a bit harsh. Scottish-guy hasn't done anything like that for about 5 years now.

[joe552]

MiniMee - you only ever seem to post about Scottish-guy's travels to Thailand - what's that about? Nothing else of interest to contribute to the forum, like details of your own travels?

[thaiguest]

Re the issue of the pound sterling surviving independence in Scotland I went -huntin' and 'chasin' for info.
Low and behold I found that S . Ireland -left the union in 1922- kept sterling until the early 70's when it voluntarily withdrew. I didn't know that so I stand corrected Mr Scottish guy.

[scottish-guy]

....I'm still deeply interested in the contortions you may come up with to justify your moral superiority over Tony Blair while at the same time (possibly contemporaneously?) exploiting the Third World poor for your own sexual gratification.

No "contortions" necessary - I simply don't see the validity in conflating the murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians with paying a Thai rentboy 1000B for a wank.

I'd imagine few others would see the validity either, but .... up to them.

Meantime, for MiniMee's benefit - I'm in Tunisia.

[scottish-guy]

Re the issue of the pound sterling surviving independence in Scotland I went -huntin' and 'chasin' for info.
Low and behold I found that S . Ireland -left the union in 1922- kept sterling until the early 70's when it voluntarily withdrew. I didn't know that so I stand corrected Mr Scottish guy.

No problem Thaiguest, and I admire your willingness to do your own research

If only others would do likewise - instead of readily swallowing the bilge from the British mainstream media

:ymhug:

I simply don't see the validity in conflating the murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians with paying a Thai rentboy 1000B for a wank.Ah yes, your Catholic upbringing shining through. Tony Blair has committed mortal sin; your peccadilloes are minor in comparison. It's the morality of the speeding driver - "I wasn't going as fast as the other guy". Hypocrisy is something other people do, isn't it!

Besides the issue isn't about Tony Blair but the Scottish Nationalists in-built assumption that they, somehow, are more moral than the rest of the UK, and regaining independence will return them to a state of moral perfection somewhat akin to Before the Fall of Man.

[scottish-guy]

Except I'm not a Catholic - never have been, never will be. So, that part of your argument is as specious as the rest.

I know of no-one in the official YES campaign who has said that Scots are any better people than anyone else - what we reject is the suggestion that we are any worse than anyone else, and somehow uniquely incapable of running our own country. However, if you can provide quotes from such people to support your case, I'll be most interested to see them.

You know, from all these adverse comments you make, it's looking more and more that you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder, Kommie. I'm no psychologist but I think people who boast of being "sexual predators" often have issues they need to work out via professional intervention. Now, don't take offence - I'm only trying to help :x

I'm no psychologist but I think people who boast of being "sexual predators" often have issues they need to work out via professional intervention.Agreed, you are no psychologist. I'll go further - guys who like Asians do so because Asians look younger. There's an obvious inference there about what forbidden desires they may be sublimating. As for Scotland's moral superiority, it's implicit in every comment you make about why would Scots want to be "stuck" with politicians like Blair. An independent Scotland would, of course, never produce a politician of his like.

[a447]

guys who like Asians do so because Asians look younger.

Really? I didn't know that. Are you taking it upon yourself to speak for all "guys" in general, or do you have some statistics to back up that ridiculous claim?

[scottish-guy]

a447 - Kommie is clearly talking for and about himself. He boasts he's a sexual predator after all

I'm sure I read very similar comments, snide remarks, and thinly veiled accusations, over on another (now defunct) board.

How sad.

[a447]

You're not wrong, SG.

Anyway, let's just sit back and wait for him to post his statistics. I mean, he wouldn't post such dribble with all it's nasty innuendo if he didn't have figures to back it up, would he?

Well, would he??

[newalaan2]

Re the issue of the pound sterling surviving independence in Scotland I went -huntin' and 'chasin' for info.
Just back from casting my pro-Scotland vote.......in the NO box of course! A self-governing Scotland being run by SNP with Alex Salmond as leader within the UK is the perfect scenario for any true Scot. But sorry you went through that pointless exercise 'thaiguest', as everyone in Scotland was already aware....... that there is, and never was any chance whatsoever of a YES vote winning from day one of the build up to the referendum.

I imagine a landslide NO will be the result, I have yet to meet anyone up in my neck of the woods (north of Perth) or among my family and circle of friends who have indicated they will be voting yes.

I am a long standing supporter of SNP and was even a party activist in my late teens, that early naivety thankfully now replaced with a balanced understanding of what actually makes Scotland and the great benefits Alex Salmond's inspirational leadership has given to Scotland with a now much fairer society, as it was he who managed to break the stranglehold of the "West of Scotland/Central Belt Bias" which held back the country for so long. Many outside Scotland have not taken the "West/Central Belt Bias" issue into consideration, but that will be a huge relevance for many outwith that area in their voting decision. While Salmond is in charge that fairness throughout Scotland will remain in place, however if, or rather when, he finally goes....who will follow him with strength of character to stand up to the bullying and self-interest of the "West Coast bias". Within the UK it can be dealt with, under a free Scotland with no political ties to the rest of the UK it would have been more of an issue and that is why there will be a huge % turnout throughout the whole of Scotland.

I hope Alex continues his leadership of Scotland within UK we will still be part of from tomorrow onwards, and enjoy the benefits of being a nation within the UK following our own agendas with a strong leader yet with the benefits of belonging to the UK, the Kingdom we Scots set up when our king invited England to join us a few years ago.

The only chance of a YES win would have been NO voters taking a win for granted and not bothering to make the effort to get to the ballot on the day, by all accounts that won't be happening with a huge turnout predicted.

[scottish-guy]

What a load of self-serving pish.

Had Newalanna's card marked already - no surprise, nothing to see - just one more so-called "proud Scot" who has betrayed his country today. Congratulations.

I'm no psychologist but I think people who boast of being "sexual predators" often have issues they need to work out via professional intervention. Now, don't take offence - I'm only trying to help.While it takes a lot to offend me, I am reminded that various national Psychological Associations for many years classified homosexuality as an illness. It's not surprising therefore to find someone like you using the same tactics against those whose ideas you find dangerous.

As for rice queens and other lovers of Asians sublimating their "forbidden desire" I suggest you and AK47 discover a handy little tool called "the Internet search engine". I should hate to run foul of Surfcrest's paranoia about discussing such things.

Why do Union supporters have this obsession with trying to drive a non-existent wedge between Scotland and the Shetland Islands. The first three results are all from the outer regions (formerly part of the old Kingdom of Norway??) - a very convincing No vote. Mind you, their percentages - almost 60/40 to the No side - may yet turn out to be in line with the rest of Scotland so scottish-guy could well prove to be correct - the wedge between the Shetland Islands and Scotland may well be non-existent. Anyone know where I can get Interflora to send a wreath to Salmonella?

It's important to understand two things: 1) the genie is out of the bottle, and 2) we shall never give up.Based on yon results, here's a wee thought for ye, laddie - The People's Republic O' Glasgow.

[scottish-guy]

Well, it seems we have lost by around 10% and I guess Kommie and others are entitled to gloat, as I would surely (and magnificently) have done had my view prevailed.

Alas, it did not - and although Glasgow and Dundee voted YES, it seems Edinburgh and the country bumpkins were unconvinced.

As for myself - profoundly ashamed to be Scottish this morning. We are now (deservedly) the laughing stock of the world and the Scottish people deserve every bit of the derision, and every bit of the English backlash which will now be landed on them.

Had our chance, and blew it. Shitebags at the end. Hell mend us.

Will the last-minute offer of a package of powers be delivered - well, let's see - but I strongly suspect the only gains for any Scots will be knighthoods for the quislings named Darling and Brown.

[pennyboy]

What a sad post by what appears to be a very embittered SG. As a Scot I was a proud one yesterday and remain one today. I am overjoyed that the majority of the Scottish electorate voted NO and the Union remains intact today.

[scottish-guy]

Well I'm just saying what I feel at this time Pennyboy. I appreciate you feel differently, but I'm not sure exactly what it is you're "proud" of.

For 15 hours yesterday, and irrespective of which side people were on, you must agree that ordinary Scots for the first time ever held their own sovereignty in their own hands. They voted to give it away forever.

In my view that deserves no respect, no sympathy, and no future support. I therefore opt out - and when they get fucked in the arse as I fully expect - too bad, they have bent over and can take what's coming. I completely disown them.

I could have just slunk away, disappeared from this forum, and never commented again (no cheering please!) - but I'd much rather just call it as I see it. If that's sad and embittered, so be it.

[joe552]

The result clearly show a nation divided. How that divide can be healed (if it can) will take better politicians than I've seen evidence of.

[LoveThailand]

It must be frustrating for those who supported the No vote.
However, the results are what the majority wants.
Because of the referendum Scots will not suddenly become 2 nations in one, so both camps need to find a way forward.
At any rate if the UK gov to be believed, the result will still be much more powers to the Scots.

I see Salmonella has done the honourable thing and resigned. Quiet satisfaction at High Table that another Scots troublemaker has been seen off.

[thaiguest]

The result clearly show a nation divided. How that divide can be healed (if it can) will take better politicians than I've seen evidence of.
I suggest everyone relax. If one is free from cancer and is not otherwise terminally ill what matters politics?
Scotland has been a complex place for a long time what with picts, scots(irish), norse(danes/norwegians) lowland english with their cheviots, asians, americans and so on adding their genes to the Albanach pool.
The almost total destruction of highland society during the infamous clearances was partly due to the GAELIC chiefs putting profit before the welfare of their loyal tenants. That secession turned out to be a step too far for this complex country doesn't surprise me.

[homeseeker]

Nothing to be ashamed of Scottish-guy. I wanted a "no" only because of the pound as I live in Thailand. Had I been a Scot and entitled to vote I would have said "yes".
And had "yes' prevailed it would of been that arse-hole Cameron resigning and not Salmon.

[giggsy]

Surprisingly all I am going to say on the result is if the no vote won with Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown running the campaign it might have well been a landslide with a couple of decent politicians.

I've just been reading some of the things Scotty has said on this topic and he was a bit nasty to our Australian contributors but he was right about one thing, after the vote Scotland will be keeping the pound.

LATEST NEWS...... BP as just found another oil field in the North Sea estimated to hold 80 billion barrels of oil. What are the chances of that 2 days after the no result.

Oh well, that other tower of Scotland, Jim Dobbin as just died and its all of to Heywood and Middleton. Isn't that where the Pakistani grooming gang and the satanic abuse started ?

[marti]

I am very thrilled by the Scottish decision against independence if for no other reason than it is shoved up Scottish guy's "know it all" ass.

[scottish-guy]

Oooooohh thanks, Marti - it's been a long time since I had it shoved up my arse for free!

If only you'd been a bit bigger dear ......

:-*

[lego]

I think the Scottish electorate has demonstrated common sense and deserves some praise. Not coming from the UK (including Scotland) myself, I think both the high level of participation in the referendum and the outcome as such are laudable. On the one hand, breaking away from the UK is fraught with risk and uncertainties, so it's not surprising to me that most Scots (and the older ones in particular) didn't want to take a chance. On the other hand, to achieve a higher level of autonomy from Westminster - a vision that many NO voters seem to share - it was probably necessary to stage a credible threat of separation.

The way I'm reading it, the result of the vote is reflecting just that. Promises can be broken, but I think the Scots have shown that they're prepared to go all the way in case that happens. It will be interesting to see how the negotiations will go, and more likely than not, the YES supporters will have achieved something in the end.

[Nirvana]

I see the rivalry between Glasgow and Edinburgh still exist , Glasgow voting yes and Edinburgh voting no .
Which brings me to Royal Bank of Scotland (owned by Lloyds of London ) and Standard Life Ins....and the NO voters
reminds me of the Scottish Nobles who betrayed Wallace for .."30 pieces of silver " and estates and land in England
to secure there loyalty for a better future !!

I think the Scottish electorate has demonstrated common sense and deserves some praise. Not coming from the UK (including Scotland) myself, I think both the high level of participation in the referendum and the outcome as such are laudable.Ah yes, in your mind democracy is a Good Thing for white people, it's the Asians who aren't up to it?

[scottish-guy]

Promises made to secure NO vote, already falling apart.

Gordon Brown appoints himself unelected Governor General, and with no power whatsoever, expects us to believe Westminster will dance to his tune.

Scots voted freely to give their sovereignty away - hell mend them

Promises made to secure NO vote, already falling apart.

Gordon Brown appoints himself unelected Governor General, and with no power whatsoever, expects us to believe Westminster will dance to his tune.

Scots voted freely to give their sovereignty away - hell mend themOh no! Back to Business As Usual?!!

[scottish-guy]

Not quite - the victors have the opportunity to deliver on their promises. If they do that, nobody can validly complain.

[lego]

I think it doesn't make sense to expect results within days after the referendum. As much as I understand that the YES camp is disappointed, now there's really no need to rush anything. Wait and see what will happen, and if it isn't satisfactory, hold another referendum in 10 years.


Ah yes, in your mind democracy is a Good Thing for white people, it's the Asians who aren't up to it?
One thing is for sure, when I'll need to hire another spokesperson you don't need to apply. I've had nothing but praise for Indonesia's latest presidential election. That's an Asian country I think, with a large Asian electorate. They didn't give me the impression they weren't up to it.

[scottish-guy]

I don't disagree Lego, but here's the thing - the referendum momentum swung when the 3 Unionist party leaders raced up to Scotland about 10 days ago and published an agreed "Vow" of future, additional powers which they guaranteed to introduce. There was even questions asked at the time (and I think I referred to it) as to whether this was even legal given that both Govts had entered a period of purdah and were prevented from making new policy announcements.

Anyway - Within that signed document was a specific timetable of events that were guaranteed to happen at certain times along the devolution timeline.

Aware that they would be challenged on their intention to deliver (since the UK Govt reneged on promises in 1979) and to demonstrate good faith - they STRESSED that immediately after the referendum - and they stated the date - 19th September - the process would begin by a Parliamentary motion being introduced on that day by former UK PM Gordon Brown. It's important also to be aware that whilst Brown is still an ordinary, backbench MP, he holds no position in either the UK or Scottish Govts - and the means by which he can guarantee anything is anybody's guess.

This Vow and the timetable are credited with turning the YES momentum back, at a time when YES had drawn level and even taken the lead in 2 polls.

Now, following the victory for NO, the timetable has already been broken - no Parliamentary motion was lodged on the very day they guaranteed to do so. The labour leader, Milliband, has now refused to sign up to Cameron's plan altogether, and the wheels seem to be falling off the wagon already. It's far from a good start and people are naturally asking questions since the campaign swung on this intitiative.

So, whilst they MAY still deliver the goods, and whilst you may well be right in what you say about being patient - I think if you take into account what was explicitly guaranteed in terms of timescale, you'll perhaps see where the anxiety in some quarters is arising from. If you choose to make an explicit and time-sensitive guarantee, you better deliver on it - no ifs, no buts.

However, time will tell.

[latintopxxx]

u couldnt seriously have been looking forward to having an inbred toad like salmond as your "leader".

[scottish-guy]

Inbred? Explain

[arsenal]

The people were asked and the people have spoken, it's time to be quiet for a while Scotty and wait and see what Westminster proposes. That is the problem with democracy, sometimes those darned voters just won't do as they're told.

[scottish-guy]

Oh I accept the result Arsenal, as I hope I've made clear, but the specific promises made in "The Vow" must be kept and the promised timetable must be adhered to - that's democracy too.

Scotland waited 20yrs for the last Unionist promises to be delivered, I doubt that would be allowed to happen again.

[attachment=0:1wca94pc]The-Vow.jpg[/attachment:1wca94pc]

[arsenal]

I absolutely agree that all promises must be kept but I think it will take longer than originally planned. During the campaign two debates seemed to emerge and were going along in tandem. One for Scottish independence and the other for equal devolution for England, the latter gaining weight almost in the last week and reaching a crescendo as the results came in. It is this, devolving the two nations that will take longer and let's be honest, there are some huge questions to answer.

[latintopxxx]

inbred?! isnt it obvious...look at him...clearly hails from cousin kissing territory.....and has the intellect to match.

[scottish-guy]

Ah - its just ignorant abuse then?

I'd hoped you might have something intelligent to say.

More fool me.

[Manforallseasons]

SNP rejects today's parliamentary vote to enter coalition against ISIS, U.K. confirms pitiful contribution of 6 jets flying from Cypress.

I think it doesn't make sense to expect results within days after the referendum. As much as I understand that the YES camp is disappointed, now there's really no need to rush anything. Wait and see what will happen, and if it isn't satisfactory, hold another referendum in 10 years.
Ah yes, in your mind democracy is a Good Thing for white people, it's the Asians who aren't up to it?One thing is for sure, when I'll need to hire another spokesperson you don't need to apply. I've had nothing but praise for Indonesia's latest presidential election. That's an Asian country I think, with a large Asian electorate. They didn't give me the impression they weren't up to it.Just the Thais then.