Archive for justcycling.myfastforum.org Just Cycling
 


       justcycling.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> The Coffe Lounge
pantanifan

Scottish Independence - what do you think?

So it's one year until the Scottish referendum on becoming an independent country. I'm half-English, half-Scottish (tend to feel more English as I was born there and spent my childhood there), and would probably vote "yes" to independence, though I don't live in Scotland and won't have a vote...

Any views/comments?
MAILLOT JAUNE

I'm Scottish but have spent approximately half my life living outside Scotland. I am fiercely proud to be Scottish and when I was younger I wanted independence. Now, however, I do not feel that it would be a good idea from a financial/administrative point of view. I'm not eligible to vote either, but if I was, I'd vote No. There is not enough information about how it will actually work and I feel it is far too important a decision for people to decide based on the lack of information.
"They may take away our lives, but they'll never take our freedom!"
SlowRower

MAILLOT JAUNE wrote:
"They may take away our oil, but they'll never take our freedom!"


I've taken liberty of editing your quote to make it more topical. Smile
MAILLOT JAUNE

Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing
Wish I'd thought of that one!!!!
berck

I wasn't aware that this was going on. I've visted both Scotland and England. I noticed the following in Scotland.

Lake is a Loch
Bay is a Fjord
Burn is a stream

It's as if those Scottish have a different word for everything... Wink

How old is new? Who knows in Scotland. The Old Course at St. Andrews was built during the 1200's. The New Course was built int he 1400's.

When Quebec in Canada was wanting independence. I heard that the rest of Canada was ready to give it to them, until they heard Quebec's financial demands to essentially be paid to leave the rest of Canada. What I remember hearing was, fine if you want to leave the rest of Canada, but don't expect us to pay you.

Anyway, not knowing any particulars on how Scotland would reform as a nation, I have no opinion on this.
gerry12ie

I though Donald Trump had bought it anyway?

*ducks
MAILLOT JAUNE

gerry12ie wrote:
I though Donald Trump had bought it anyway?

*ducks

Laughing  Laughing  Laughing
Bartali

I voted yes ... so all the scottish politicians can mess Scotland up instead of my country! Smile

On a serious note, I'm not sure why I don't get to vote whether I want Scotland in the Union?
MAILLOT JAUNE

Because you're Italian and you know what the politics in Italy are like????!!!  Wink  Wink  Wink
Bartali

I wish I was MJ! Smile

The English don't get a vote on splitting up the union because it would get passed whereas the Scots are too smart to vote for independence.
MAILLOT JAUNE

The English don't get a vote, because the English would vote for the Scots to stay in the Union! Either to piss us off because they know most Scots would vote for independence or because they want to keep our oil !!!!  Wink  Wink  Wink  Wink
Slapshot 3

I'm a big NO, simply because I dread the thought of that clown Salmond in charge. I don't think Scotland is mature enough to be an independent nation despite my attempts to rebuild Hadrians Wall as a teenager... Wink

While I support the SNP and the fact that Scotland is doing pretty well with the ever reducing resources we have, I can't help but think going on our own would be financial suicide.

The oil thing is the biggy, who do you believe when it comes to the REAL revenues, I believe neither the SNP nor the UK government but would look at Norway and this place to see the real effect of Oil. Governments are lying to us when they tell the real values of the resource.

The UK is better as a sum of all the nations not as a disparate group of individuals.

PS No fjords in Scotland Berck, bays or sea lochs, Fjords are a Scandinavian thing
berck

Slapshot 3 wrote:

PS No fjords in Scotland Berck, bays or sea lochs, Fjords are a Scandinavian thing


First time I saw the term was when I was visiting Scotland. I saw a map of the land and saw it used. It's been a while since I've been there now.

Anyway, I just like to point out that there is at least one Fjord in Scotland... Wink
Slapshot 3

berck wrote:
Slapshot 3 wrote:

PS No fjords in Scotland Berck, bays or sea lochs, Fjords are a Scandinavian thing


First time I saw the term was when I was visiting Scotland. I saw a map of the land and saw it used. It's been a while since I've been there now.

Anyway, I just like to point out that there is at least one Fjord in Scotland... Wink


FFS!! I should have clicked!!! it is rather nice!!
Fontfroide

berck wrote:

Burn is a stream

It's as if those Scottish have a different word for everything... Wink
.


Life being a bit more complicated than one might think, in Yorkshire, a stream is a beck.  In Michigan we called it a creek, or a crick when I was a kid.  Gills, or ghylls, seem to have rather steep banks, as I recall.

Wiki "A stream is a body of water [1] with a current, confined within a bed and stream banks. Depending on its locale or certain characteristics, a stream may be referred to as a branch, brook, beck, burn, creek, "crick", gill (occasionally ghyll), kill, lick, mill race, rill, river, syke, bayou, rivulet, streamage, wash, run or runnel."
SlowRower

Back on topic, there appear to be many key financial items - other than oil - that have not been resolved and won't be before the vote on independence, such as:

- Who takes on the liabilities of RBS?

- What share of the UK debt pile would Scotland inherit?

- Would all the companies currently HQ'd in Scotland (and assumed to pay corporation tax to Scotland if independent) stay HQ'd there?

- What would the cost of Scotland's government debt be? Life being as it is, investors would most likely view a small, "start-up" country as more risky than the UK, with a correspondingly higher cost of debt.

Tricky to know how anyone could make a properly informed choice given the above and there's doubtless a lot more detail related devil as well.

I assume that despite Cameron appearing pro-Union, he really wants to get rid of Scotland and its 50 or so Labour MPs, but can't appear too eager.
Fontfroide

SR,
Having listened to a few debates about costs and benefits and how this or that future development might or might turn out, it is pretty clear that no one knows the answer to ANY of your questions.  Those who think that Scotland should stay UK, say it is a financial bust.  Those who think Scotland should go on its own, say Scotland would be better off.  Honestly, I don't think anyone knows.  To me the debate closely resembles debates about Europe and the UK, based on some kind of financial cost benefit analysis and some kind of false sense of "sovereignty and independence".  There is never any answer to the quantifiable questions.  NO real surprise at all.  Even at the most basic level, do you have any idea at all what kind of life your pension will buy you when you retire.  Answer ….  We just don't know any more.

So the question is down to what do Scots want for Scotland, run by Scots for Scots or not.  Scotland will never be isolated and independent, no country is.  I think Scotland would make a rather nice little country, nice size, not too many people, couple of grand cities, people who like their country, some good schools and universities, no big history of empire or oppressing people, fine health care, nice traditions, lovely geography, a bit of oil, good tourism prospects, it would be a fine country.  Probably.  The question is is nothing to do with one leader of one party or predictions of how tricky financial questions will be solved.  No one knows about stuff like that.

I hope they decide to try and make it as a Scottish country.  I would love to see how they do it.  Having met or lived with many Scottish people in my life, I have found very many of them really smart, good with grammar, well educated and with a cute accent.  a few seem to be not like that and have an impenetrable accent, but hey, variety is the spice of life.

Wink
SlowRower

Fontfroide wrote:
There is never any answer to the quantifiable questions.


I'd have to disagree with that - the party underwriting the RBS liabilities will have to be indentified and the split of the existing UK national debt will have to be quantified at some point if Scotland does "jump ship". They are not unfathomable concepts, as they will simply have to be negotiated. So far, the only such concept that has been discussed is oil, which will run out soon, whereas RBS will be around for ever, or at leasst its liabilities will be!

The point is that the two questions:

"Do you want Scotland to be an independent country with full responsibility to underwrite RBS's liabilities"; and

"Do you want Scotland to be an independent country with RBS liabilities split pro-rata according to population"

are very differnt indeed. Not that the questions would be posed that way, obviously.

Personally, I'm in favour of independence if the majority vote for it, though I think fear of the unknown will prevail.
Fontfroide

The various ways that debts have been dealt with throughout the world, in recent times have been legion.  Debts can be cancelled, rates cut, payment left for later, loads of ways.  Until you know the exact way and how it will work over the next years, then you can't figure out how much it will cost.  And you can't figure out how it will be dealt with over the next ten years, so you can't get clear answers.  Look how Iceland dealt with debts, they jut didn't pay.  Iceland still exists.

I also am a bit puzzled why the debts of a huge global bank like RBS, with savers and investments everywhere, is the responsibility of only the Scottish people at large.  Makes no sense.  Debts that were created by bad banking decisions should not be a good reason to stop thinking about independence (or as much independence as possible anyway).  Debt money and bank money is nothing to do with the money you and I buy food with.  We cannot create money by signing a paper, banks can.  Huge difference.
Bartali

Fontfroide wrote:
So the question is down to what do Scots want for Scotland, run by Scots for Scots or not.


Why is that the question?  Why is the question not put to the rest of the Union as to whether we want Scotland to be part of the Union?  What gives the Scots the right to pull out?  I don't have the right to opt out of the Union.
SlowRower

Fontfroide wrote:
The various ways that debts have been dealt with throughout the world, in recent times have been legion.  Debts can be cancelled, rates cut, payment left for later, loads of ways.  Until you know the exact way and how it will work over the next years, then you can't figure out how much it will cost.  And you can't figure out how it will be dealt with over the next ten years, so you can't get clear answers.  Look how Iceland dealt with debts, they jut didn't pay.  Iceland still exists.


I don't think anyone is suggesting the UK is going to default on its debts. The question is simply how they are allocated between Scotland and the rest of the UK if Scotland becomes independent.

Defaulting on debt is an option for any nation, but it's no panacea. The UK needs to borrow £120b per year, and if the UK was to default on the current debt then the chances of finding investors willing to lend this £120b per year would be reduced. In the worst case, there would need to be £120b of spending cuts immediately.

Iceland didn't default on its national debt - it simply refused to guarantee the Icelandic banks' liabilities.
SlowRower

Bartali wrote:
Why is the question not put to the rest of the Union as to whether we want Scotland to be part of the Union?


Representative democracy - we elect our MPs so that a government is formed to take these hard decisions for us. We peasants can't be trusted to vote sensibly, so we need our elders, betters and expenses scammers to vote for us!

There should at least be a General Election before Scotland became independent. Given that the referendum is late 2014 and the General Election mid 2015, this will surely happen, though I think this is a quirk of electoral timing rather than specifically so that we have a say.

If the Scots have voted to go, and the Coalition is proposing to allow this, then Labour or UKIP or a new party e.g. "Keep the Scots in their place" could oppose this and if it was a major issue for the non-Scots, they could vote for this party and independence presumably could not go ahead. My guess is that Scottish independence is like EU membership - it's not sufficiently important to change how people vote in General Elections, given the importance of "schools'n'hospitals".
pantanifan

Bartali wrote:
Fontfroide wrote:
So the question is down to what do Scots want for Scotland, run by Scots for Scots or not.


Why is that the question?  Why is the question not put to the rest of the Union as to whether we want Scotland to be part of the Union?  What gives the Scots the right to pull out?  I don't have the right to opt out of the Union.


But you would have the right to opt out if there was a strong groundswell of opinion for England to become independent - strong enough to create their own parliament and decide to hold a referendum, but most English people are happy with the status quo, and the complicated mix of being English/British/European - possibly resulting in a lack of identity? Just as Croatia and Slovenia decided to leave "Yugoslavia" (an artifical creation), any of the member "nations" could leave the UK (another artificial creation).
Fontfroide

SlowRower wrote:

Defaulting on debt is an option for any nation, but it's no panacea. The UK needs to borrow £120b per year, and if the UK was to default on the current debt then the chances of finding investors willing to lend this £120b per year would be reduced. In the worst case, there would need to be £120b of spending cuts immediately.

Iceland didn't default on its national debt - it simply refused to guarantee the Icelandic banks' liabilities.


Many countries have defaulted on debts in history.  And certainly that and that alone is not a solution to all problems.  I sure does help though.  I will look up examples if you need proof.  There have also been banks who have allowed defaults, they have "forgiven" debts.  All I am saying is that there are many options with debts, most of which are not predictable, and therefore not terribly interesting as an argument to do one strategy or another.  Overall I am guessing you treat debt for countries and banks a bit like debt for you and me.  There is almost no relation, except they are both called debt.  Banks just don't follow the rules for individuals, neither do countries.   Icelandic institutions did not pay back their debts, they just didn't.  Iceland still exists.  Admittedly it is a tiny country, and for the most part,no one cares about it.

I am trying to make a simple point.  The future, even with money, debts, inflation, exchange rates, interest rates and so forth is SOOO uncertain that it is not a good idea to make decisions about something like independence based on figures which could change tomorrow.  The decision should be based on something else, like what Scots want.  If they want independence, they should have it.  If they don't they shouldn't.  Scotland is a solid place with plenty of identity, not huge minorities that I know about, it would make a great country.  People like being Scottish and are proud of it.  Give them a chance if they want it.

A lot of this assumes that if a given nation (which is pretty clearly a nation) wants its own state, thereby becoming a nation-state, they should be able to do it.  Kurds, Scots, Palestinians, whoever.  If they want it, ask for it and don't get it form the ruling power, they have a revolt of some kind.  Been happening for many decades now, all over the world.  Usually, but not always, in the case of British Empire, the independence process has been a little less bloody, overall, than, for example, the French Empire.  So if the Scots vote for it, they should have it.  

I still think it would be a fine country.  Way better than Luxembourg, which is mostly based on being a place for rich people to hide their money.  Scotland has a solidity and a future.  Why not let them get on with being Scottish in their own country.  They got conquered when, 400 years ago or so.  Let em loose.
SlowRower

Fontfroide wrote:
All I am saying is that there are many options with debts, most of which are not predictable, and therefore not terribly interesting as an argument to do one strategy or another.


Allocating the UK's existing debt between Scotland and the rest of the UK isn't necessarily that interesting, but it is of huge financial significance to Scottish (and to a lesser extent, English and Welsh) taxpayers. If Bart is annoyed about not getting a vote, imagine how angry he'll be if Scotland tries to take on none of the debt, leaving English and Welsh taxpayers to pay off debts raised to fund roads, schools, hospitals and electoral bribes in a foreign country!

Conversely, would Scotland want to be independent if the only terms the UK government would allow this to happen under was if Scotland took a disproportionately large share of the debt, leaving the Scots to pay for English roads etc?
Bartali

And what's all this about Scottish oil?  They don't have any oil.  It's UK oil and belongs as much to the rest of us as it does to the Scots.  So not only do I expect the Scots to pay the fair share of the debt ... but I want our fair share of future oil revenues.

As for there being a groundswell of public opinion etc ... how big does the area have to be?  It's a 100% in favour of independence in my house so presumably I can opt out of the UK?  Who do I have to notify?
pantanifan

Bartali wrote:

As for there being a groundswell of public opinion etc ... how big does the area have to be?  It's a 100% in favour of independence in my house so presumably I can opt out of the UK?  Who do I have to notify?


I guess it has to be big enough to form a viable state - interpretations would vary, but there are plenty of precedents in my region for breaking away into nation states, otherwise we'd still have the Soviet Union  
Shocked  

In any case, Bart, I would have thought you'd want to leave the UK and become part of Italy (as mentioned by MJ)   Wink
SlowRower

Bartali wrote:
Who do I have to notify?


I think this tells you all that you need to know!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passport_to_Pimlico
Fontfroide

When all is said and done Bart, I think you will find that anyone can start a state as long as a few important big states recognise it.  If you can get Obama and Putin to recognise you as a state, you are away.  Are there any serious resources in your back garden?  Maybe you could become a sink for dirty money like so many small ex colonies of the Grits, the French and so forth.
Fontfroide

Bart, there are international recognised, and frequently disputed rules bout who owns what in the ocean.  Something like a hundred or two miles or kilometres off the coast of a piece of land a country owns.  Hence silly battles over tiny islands where no one lives here and there in the oi; rich areas of the world.

It would be, without doubt Scottish oil.  But really they all sell the rights to multinationals .  They pay taxes on it to countries, unless they have a state owned oil company.

The oil only belongs to the UK if there is not independent Scotland.
Bartali

Pantanifan - maybe some sort of Italian Principality would do.  Prince Bart ... I like the sound of that. Wink

FF - I beg to differ.  The oil is of the coast of the UK and those rights you mention were granted by the UK.  Scotland had nothing to do with it.  If an independent Scotland want the oil then, as I see it, they have to buy it from the remaining part of the Union.  Being close to something doesn't make it your ... otherwise Alaska would be Canadian.

Even if it was Scottish oil, then I say, grant them independence, then we can immediatiely invade Scotland (which will be easy as they won't have an army) and take it off them - result!
Slapshot 3

Bartali wrote:
Fontfroide wrote:
So the question is down to what do Scots want for Scotland, run by Scots for Scots or not.


Why is that the question?  Why is the question not put to the rest of the Union as to whether we want Scotland to be part of the Union?  What gives the Scots the right to pull out?  I don't have the right to opt out of the Union.


This....I don't want an option to opt out, I have no desire to be part of something new. Mrs Slapshot's favourite way of describing me about nationality is that "he bleeds tartan and is Scottish to the core" but that doesn't mean I am not British and proud of it. We all have our regional identities and that for me makes us Brits what we are.

Lets get this straight, Independence is a political agenda that's been the main aim of the SNP since it's formation however within the party you will find people with similar views to mine. Until the previous two Scottish elections the SNP were a minority party in Scotland but became popular due in large part of the ineptitude of Labour. Labour paid the price and lost their heartland in Scotland, I doubt they will ever get it back. Independence is still a minority viewpoint in Scotland, the last poll I saw before I left put support at around 36% and that's been a steady number since the start of all this nonsense.

On the face of things the SNP are doing a fair job at home, they have a lot of support for the policies they have applied and use the public purse reasonably well, however that would change hugely under an independent government. We'd face massive tax hikes initially, up to 5% or so, public services would change drastically and we'd have no resource to actually attract inward investment. When Salmond talks about it just now, it because we have the backing and resources of a great nation to be able to attract that investment. Scotland as a nation isn't mature enough within itself politically or in terms of it's people to be Independent.

Lets also set the record straight on the Banks. Scotland has NO "Scottish Banks" left, RBS and Bank of Scotland may have fancy HQ's in Edinburgh but what goes on in Scotland is a minor part of the banking infrastructure. BoS is part of the Lloyds group and 97% of the shares in RBS before the credit crunch and bailouts were owned outwith Scotland. Does Scotland have a share of the repayment burden; yes it does again depending on who you listen too. My local MSP couldn't argue the fact that Independence would hand Scotland a £3 billion pound share of debt before they started.

I have said rather bluntly that if the country votes yes as they have a freely agreed right to do, I'll move. I'll choose not to live in Scotland.
SlowRower

Bartali wrote:
Even if it was Scottish oil, then I say, grant them independence, then we can immediatiely invade Scotland (which will be easy as they won't have an army) and take it off them - result!


Prince Bart,

Scotland is planning to join NATO, I understand. If a NATO country is invaded, then other NATO countries are obliged by the treaty they signed when they joined to assist in efforts to free their fellow NATOite from the yoke of oppression and occupation.

Thus, the part of the UK's forces that hadn't initially invaded would be obliged to invade Scotland again, and drive out the part that had initially invaded. As the closest NATO member to Scotland, this would make a lot of sense, as both invasions and the ensuing fight could be used as training exercises.

So 2 invasions for the price of 1, plus we get the oil. That will be just payback for when the marauding northern hordes wrecked the goal posts at Wembley and would also make Alex Salmond look like a twot. It's a win-win-win situation as far as I can see.
Bartali

I like your thinking!  It just gets better and better. That said, we must make sure we get SS out safely ... I don't want him caught in any cross-fire.

PS - Thank you for addressing me by my proper title.  much appreciated.

PPS - I'm glad there's no oil in the principality ...

PPPS - I'll have to sigh-up to this NATO thing.  Is it free?
berck

SlowRower wrote:

Prince Bart,

Bartali wrote:

PS - Thank you for addressing me by my proper title.  much appreciated.


I didn't realize the royal blood linage there. I suspected that he messed up and was suppose to address you as 'Sir' Bart. Wink
SlowRower

Bartali wrote:
I'll have to sign-up to this NATO thing.  Is it free?


I've checked the membership requirements.

Firstly, you need to be a sovereign state, but I think you have this under control.

Secondly, you need to maintain a functional army, navy or airforce. Not unmanageable if you get the Butler, Gamekeeper, Gateman and Housekeeper to retrain and bike-mounted troops are acceptable instead of tank divisions.

Thirdly, you'll have to be nice to the French as they are members as well.

You might have more luck if you rename yourself Ernst Stavro Bartali, and try and pass yourself as the legitmate heir to the terror network of Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Prince Bartali sounds like a foppish continental playboy to me, which certainly wouldn't impress the Frogs, as they have plenty of those of their own!
Fontfroide

Bart, I think you are just plain wrong.  But to be honest, I am more interested in hearing what you and I have to say about cycling.  

I tried to find an article or a map of national control, by law and practice (such as it is) about how some kind of sovereign bottom line control of oil in the ocean drilling rights goes to the sovereign nation closest to them drawing a line into the ocean for some distance.  After that distance, I think you can't actually OWN the middle of the Pacific or even Antarctica.  I think.  But no doubt after all that "who owns what, when" argument, it is fairly obvious that it is genuinely "Common Wealth".  The production and storage of oil under the ocean happened long before anyone even thought of the idea of ownership.  We people have nothing to do with it getting made, in contrast to iPads which we are entirely responsible for producing.

Best I could find was this, but then at the end suddenly other issues come into the verdict which are never mentioned in the article.  http://www.theguardian.com/politi...es-if-scotland-became-independent

But I could not find the map.  I give up on searches for stuff liek taht after ten minutes, life is way too busy.  The usual procedure (I guess you might well know this, sorry) is Nation-States cream off taxes and choose which company drills where and when and where they can take away the oil.  Scotland would own the oil, or 90% of it.  It would be the nation closest, and I presume in the case of Scotland, everyone would recognise it.  After all, nice job, ambassador to Scotland living in Edinburgh.  No, it would become a full fledged country recognised by everyone that counted, in no time at all.  However, if England forces it to make a prior deal about oil revenues, England could continue to keep control of oil and money.  I mean England (including NI and Wales).  Half the recent kerfuffle in Libya was who would own the oil and gas rights, and which part of the country they were in.  The rebels roots were in oil rich part, and one part of a complicated story was that they got sick of the dictator who lived in the no resources area keeping control.  Ocean stuff is a little more contested, fish rights are not the same distances as oil rights, and whether a tiny uninhabited rock gives oil rights to some nation-state who planted a flag on it in 1847 or 1647 is not always an easy question.

The actual reality of the negotiations between Sctoland and the Slightly less United Kingdom, of what will really happen in the Scottish independence will no doubt involve many parties, including of course all the big oil companies, who will want to have some say.  Then there are the tax lawyers, the platform manufacturers, the heloipcopter guys.   No one knows how that will go.  Basically in the end, any deal other than Scotland controlling menarly all the oil, will simply show that Scotland was too weak and not smart enough to get a better deal from the rest of the UK.  Who is strongest?  And why should England etc give up any more than they want to?  And that is how it will turn out, who is the smartest and strongest negotiator, regardless of the technical lines on a map of the North Sea.

Sorry for that length, I really should not participate in these things.  but then I do go on in my cycling posts too.  I must be the kind of person who makes things complicated and makes arguments.  My wife says that.  Probably true.
berck

Territorial waters issues (link)

Not everything is strait forward though Senkaku Islands Dispute
berck

Do they still have a £1 note in Scotland? I still have a few of them.
Fontfroide

berck wrote:
Do they still have a £1 note in Scotland? I still have a few of them.


We have moved over to coins a long time ago.

One and two euro coins also.
berck

Fontfroide wrote:

We have moved over to coins a long time ago.

One and two euro coins also.


When I visited Scotland in the late 90's, one bank was still printing them. The other one didn't.

EDIT:
Found out that RBS still prints them to this day... (link)
Nolte

what is funny is that scottish people are more pro europe than the rest of the uk but if they left the uk, they would also be leaving the eu while the less supportive of the eu, remainder of the uk would remain in the eu.
Slapshot 3

Nolte wrote:
what is funny is that scottish people are more pro europe than the rest of the uk but if they left the uk, they would also be leaving the eu while the less supportive of the eu, remainder of the uk would remain in the eu.


Oh no we're not.... why would any sensible person want to leave the rabble of shysters in Westminster to join up with a bigger bunch in Europe.

This is where Salmond has misjudged the Scots, we don't want to be part of Europe, we don't want what limited resources we might have as a starting point to be spent bailing other Euro states out of their mess only to put us in the same position.

Independence is a bad idea, Independence within the EU is just fecking stupidity
Fontfroide

Slapshot 3 wrote:
Nolte wrote:
what is funny is that scottish people are more pro europe than the rest of the uk but if they left the uk, they would also be leaving the eu while the less supportive of the eu, remainder of the uk would remain in the eu.


Oh no we're not.... why would any sensible person want to leave the rabble of shysters in Westminster to join up with a bigger bunch in Europe.

This is where Salmond has misjudged the Scots, we don't want to be part of Europe, we don't want what limited resources we might have as a starting point to be spent bailing other Euro states out of their mess only to put us in the same position.


Was looking for some data, actual opinion polls on whether Scots do or don't want to be in this or that Union.  I think there must be lots of polls, but I found one which seemed to say more Scots want to be in Europe than not.  We won't know until there is a vote, and even then lots of people won't vote.  

I figure Scots should be allowed to be in the UK Union, or the EU Union or both or neither.  One finds out by asking them.  No doubt a few people would leave or come back to Scotland as a result of the specific policy adopted, but I figure most Scottish people like living in their own country.  Everyone should live in their own country, unless they don't like it, and then they should move somewhere else or stay and moan about it or try to actively change it.   Personally, I have moved countries more than once, but I always criticise both my old coutnry and the new one and also try to change them.  I would almost never move just becasue one policy or another was not to my liking.  I could never live anywhere, if I moved countries every time an important policy went against me.  I don't like Capitalism, Environmental Destruction and Patriarchy, for example.  Where could I live?

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles...-eu-membership-european-union.htm
Bartali

Fontfroide wrote:
Everyone should live in their own country, unless they don't like it, and then they should move somewhere else or stay and moan about it or try to actively change it.
 I think you've covered all the bases there FF!
Fontfroide

Bartali wrote:
Fontfroide wrote:
Everyone should live in their own country, unless they don't like it, and then they should move somewhere else or stay and moan about it or try to actively change it.
 I think you've covered all the bases there FF!


Although there are many people in every country who get pissed off with people who are natives or not, when they criticise a place.  "Love it or leave it" is a kind of default attitude.  

Moaning and doing nothing about it is generally accepted.  Brits are always moaning, but the French think they moan exceptionally.  I expect moaning is pretty universal.  

Now doing something about it is a little bit tricky, both in figuring out what to do and then also in actually doing it.
berck

Fontfroide wrote:
I expect moaning is pretty universal.  


Yep, I've noticed that everywhere I've traveled, and/or lived.
mr shifter

Slapshot 3 wrote:

Oh no we're not.... why would any sensible person want to leave the rabble of shysters in Westminster to join up with a bigger bunch in Europe.

This is where Salmond has misjudged the Scots, we don't want to be part of Europe, we don't want what limited resources we might have as a starting point to be spent bailing other Euro states out of their mess only to put us in the same position.

Independence is a bad idea, Independence within the EU is just fecking stupidity

I will drink to that. (and I've had a few in Scotstoun & Clydebank)
Christ, without you we wouldn't be GREAT BRITAIN.   Rolling Eyes
Fontfroide

mr shifter wrote:

Christ, without you we wouldn't be GREAT BRITAIN.   Rolling Eyes


It would make things a lot more simple and less ambiguous and easier to learn for nearly everyone on earth if there were just England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.  One name for each place instead of Great Britain, United Kingdom, England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man, and all the other places that few people can understand, except people that score high on exams about British government.  Who gets to be in the UN, who gets a separate football team in the World Cup, who gets to have an army, who gets to have a passport.  Just keep it simple.  What is a proper nation-state anyway?

I still remember coming the the UK in 1970 and asking a few people, thinking they would all know.  They didn't.  A bit like asking French people what all the religious holidays mean, and they don't know either.  

Still it is kind of cute as people in the United Kingdom have to wrestle a bit with their identity, loyalty, historical and financial questions.  Fun to watch.

{not sure which of these things is serious and which is not, so I didn't use iconettes}
Occasionalsweeper

Interesting debate. I have always been in favour of Scottish independence (since before the oil) and feel that I have more in common with the Irish and Bretons than those in the South East of England.

Many of us in Scotland, perhaps not including Slapshot, feel that the policies adopted by successive UK Governments have not been in the best interests of Scotland or possibly Northern England, Wales or Northern Ireland.

Alex Salmond may not be everyone's cup of tea but he is generally acknowledged as being head and shoulders above most other politicians in Scotland.
gerry12ie

Friday.

http://dotsub.com/view/6c5d7514-5656-476a-9504-07dd4e2f6509
Occasionalsweeper

Another along the same lines, although you may need to understand Scots to fully appreciate it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM2DVuRMY6s
Fontfroide

gerry12ie wrote:
Friday.

http://dotsub.com/view/6c5d7514-5656-476a-9504-07dd4e2f6509


That was so funny, I laughed out loud, several times.  Thanks.  Very much.  Even posted it on FB.
Fontfroide

Occasionalsweeper wrote:
Another along the same lines, although you may need to understand Scots to fully appreciate it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM2DVuRMY6s


I remember doing a favour for pal of mine, fluent English speaker, writes articles in English.  But he knew that he would be ringing and get an Indian sub-coninent based call centre.  He was doing it on a slow connection, and he knew that the combinationof accents and connections woud make it impossible for him to understandand be understood.  I barely managed.

But I have to admit a fondness for a fairly light Edinburgh Scottish accent.  And although I might have mentioned this before, if something is said in a gentile Scottish accent I believe it more than many others, for example a posh Southern English one.
berck

Fontfroide wrote:
gerry12ie wrote:
Friday.

http://dotsub.com/view/6c5d7514-5656-476a-9504-07dd4e2f6509


That was so funny, I laughed out loud, several times.  Thanks.  Very much.  Even posted it on FB.


Me too! Smile Laughing
mr shifter

SlowRower wrote:
Bartali wrote:
Who do I have to notify?


I think this tells you all that you need to know!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passport_to_Pimlico

Very Happy  Very Happy I'm one of the children in that film.

I'll get my coat.

Just lay an oil pipe line to south of Berwick. ?
       justcycling.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> The Coffe Lounge
Page 1 of 1