Just as it was in 1707.Quote:
Originally Posted by scottish-guy
Printable View
Just as it was in 1707.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottish-guy
Quote:
Originally Posted by [url=http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/13/scottish-independence-change-england-more-jk-rowling
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]
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.
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.
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.
Its a rapidly moving situation with lots of smoke, mirrors, and utter farce.Quote:
Originally Posted by thaiguest
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:
Au contraire - entertaining times.Quote:
Originally Posted by scottish-guy