Well, kind of. People are pushing for it, but in the end we voted against independence from the monarchy.
I've just found out George Galloway is against Scottish Independence ... I'd like to announce I am formally switching sides, Scottish Independence is a wonderful idea. The best idea ever, in fact. Alex Salmond is a genius (despite losing in a debate against Alistair fucking Darling!) and a wonderful man, and a saint, and the leader Scotland needs in these dark, Galloway-infested times. Wait, Galloway is Scottish too ... his EVIL knows no bounds! In all seriousness, I think I am actually now pro-Scottish independence.
What I wanna know is when the English are gonna get a vote on independence from Scotland. It'd be like getting rid of a really annoying haemorrhoid.
I'm pro Scottish independence, but I know the 'No' campaign will win, easily - it won't even be close. Because when it comes down to it, more Scots benefit from being in the UK than those who don't. The only way Scotland would become independent would be if England itself decided it no longer wanted to be part of the UK
you could argue the English should have a say in the future of England as part of the UK and thus the Scottish independence. I think it concerns us all and its stupid to not let the people that are involved to have a say. That being said, as much as DC keeps repeating to the contrary, it probably wont effect the English that much. I personally don't care either way, i think that opinion is shared by the majority of English.
I loved this little satirical re-creation of the kind of 'debating' Alex Salmond had to contend with the other night. Of course that debate was rigged (even those in the audience admit it was rigged), Darling did nothing more than shout and point, because shouting and pointing are the only weapons he's got. He's fighting to keep his job, pure and simple. There are no real reasons why Scotland shouldn't be independent—are there? He knows it. We know it. Alex Salmond just looked tired. He probably is. Certainly tired of putting a good face on the kind of senseless nonsense that gets thrown at him every day. Here he is, facing a Labour co-architect of the Credit Crunch who now snuggles up to the Tories and seems to know it all about the Economy? (Wings over Scotland) WHY SALMOND ISNT AVOIDING THE QUESTION ON PLAN B IN A NUTSHELL It’s like asking me how I’m getting to work “I’ll take the car” - But what if you can’t - but I can. It’s the best option - but what if it’s broken and you can’t use it? What’s your plan B? I don’t need one, but if I did, I would take the other car, I could take one of three buses, I could take a taxi, I could walk” So which other method will you choose. I won’t I’ll take the car But what is your plan B? Well any one of a range of options So what transport will you use I’ll take the car But what if it’s broke It isn’t What’s plan B? Well there are a range of options So how are you getting to work? I’ll take the car What if you can’t? But I can What’s plan B? Well there are a range of options but I’ll be taking the car!!
The debate I saw didn't look rigged. Darling just knew what was worrying the undecided voters and pandered so hard he didn't bother taking things to Salmon's strengths. That's cheap as hell, but not rigged. A rigged debate, I'd say, is if they played Wagner if Salmond took too long, or employed a really annoying heckler.
Whilst i generally agree with you @jannert i dont think that analogy works, having a defined plan B on an up in the air issue such as the state of the economy is a very very good idea. Having a range of options that you might take...isnt. Thinking of business alone, try going to the bank with a 50/50 and then offering a range of undefined options of how you're going to start your new xyz business as a plan B just in case the 50/50 doesnt go your way. On a side note, i get the feeling lately that its becoming quite anti England on here, especially when concerning Scottish independence. btw, im aware of JB's comment, its not an opinion i come even close to sharing.
But that's the thing. Anybody who reads the large book (the white paper) put out by the Scottish government in 2013 (Scotland's Future: Your Guide to an Independent Scotland - 649 pages long) will know that the range of options for the Scottish economy has been explored quite thoroughly. Listen to John Swinney, who has spent a lot of time working out this issue, and you'll know that the SNP is the ONLY party with a real, worked-out plan. If these questions were being asked in a spirit of genuine interest, the SNP could easily go into all the permutations of currency possibilities and what each option offers. However, these TV questions are not aimed at getting 'real information.' They are aimed at making the SNP 'admit' that they have a Plan B because that means Plan A won't work. Of course it will work. There is no reason why Scotland can't use the pound. It's just another scare story trap the media uses to try to drag Salmond into a can't-win debating situation. Which is why he refuses to rise to the bait. There is no reason why Scotland can't be a successful independent country. None. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the march of history, and the numerous other countries, both in and outwith the Commonwealth (rich and poor, large and small) who have achieved it over the years—and do not want to go back. And many of them use the pound. However, there ARE actually lots of legitimate reasons to vote NO. Anybody who is happy with the way things are going regarding the Westminster's leaning towards a UKIP coalition after the next election should vote NO. Anybody who wants to keep nuclear weapons stationed 25 miles from Glasgow and keep spending billions on them, under the thumb of the USA's stake in them, vote NO. Anybody who is happy with a Tory or Tory-coalition or Tory-lite (New Labour) government in power for the forseeable future should vote NO. Any Scottish politician currently ensconced at Westminster will lose their job in an independent Scotland, and have to start all over again getting elected to the new Scottish Parliament. If losing this position and those perks bothers them, they should vote NO. People who think the unemployed (because there aren't enough jobs to go around,) the poor and disabled should pay, big-time, for their position in life should vote NO. People who want to see all public services—including the NHS—diverted into private hands should vote NO. People who think the unelected House of Lords is a wonderful way to spend excess tax money should vote NO. Lots of reasons to vote NO.
If you want to present a balanced argument and show that you've looked at both the positives and negatives of both outcomes writing stuff like that wont help. You present only one real option (which coincides with your opinion) by showing loaded pro's of the No vote. I wont go on about it because i've not bothered to read much about it because quite frankly, the Scottish and their independence arent important to rest of us. On the world scale, given the current climate, this is up there with naming Kim jong-un's next goldfish. In regards to the debate or question time TV stuff, i didnt watch it, i think i caught a clip on the news or somewhere i cant remember. The idea that the SNP or their leader didnt answer the question of a plan B because the question wasnt aimed at getting 'real information' is ludicrous. The way to shut up your opponent and win a debate is to definitively answer their questions with clear concise well thought out answers. Why any party would avoid this option is beyond me. To show the people (and a wider audience that may not read the independent gospels) that you have plans and back ups, show that you can go toe-to-toe with your opponent and answer all their questions is the point of these TV question debate things. There is no positive spin on them not taking this option, IMO it either falls down to he couldnt answer it, or he bottled it.
Well, if (and I say IF, because it's not a done deal) Scotland does become independent, this will have a beneficial effect for the rest of the UK as well. Especially because of Trident. The UK maintains there is no other place to put it, so by inference, if/when Scotland refuses to subsidise it any longer or to house it any longer, presumably the UK will have to give it up as well. (A situation the USA is NOT happy with, hence the opposition to a Yes vote in the referendum.) This will be billions of pounds from English taxpayers diverted into the economy, rather than wasted on this monstrosity. If the English people look across the 'Border' and see a government that is actually working to make their citizen's life better, this might well prove a catalyst for change. We live in hope.
The UK believe they need trident, it wont go away, it will be moved. Scottish independence wont effect the UK's nuclear policies. I worked for the government a while back in a civil capacity and more recently as a contractor and ive seen the work being done. The government does try to improve conditions and the country, this constant government bashing is tiresome. On a side note, if im honest, i don't know many English that look at Scotland to see how anything is being done. Scotland need to get a government first, then figure out how to run it, then try and be successful and improve lives etc etc etc. All not guaranteed in the slightest. Additionally, governing 5.3million is an entirely different task than governing 57.5 million.
If you have closely followed the progression of this issue ever since the referendum was put in place (as I have) you will know that every utterance from Alex Salmond gets twisted out of proportion by an unfriendly media, linked financially to London. I repeat ...the answers Darling was after HAVE ALREADY BEEN STATED in Scotland's Future, p 109-114. Can YOU think of any reason why Scotland can't use the Pound? The Bank of England was formally nationalised for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland in 1946, and is an institution AND ASSET jointly owned by Scotland and the rest of the UK. "The Scottish Government supports the Fiscal Commission proposals that, after independence, monetary policy would be set by the Bank of England, according to economic conditions across the entire Sterling Area, and that the Bank should be accountable to both Scotland and the rest of the UK through a shareholder agreement." This means easy cross-border business—which will benefit both sides of the border. Many independent countries around the world share currencies. No reason why Scotland can't be one of them. It's not the only option, as stated in the white paper, but it's the best one, and the one the Scottish government has every intention of implementing in the event of a Yes vote. If you are going to get embroiled in this debate at all, I think you need to become more informed on what has been happening and on how this opposition has been working. You're entitled to have an uninformed opinion, of course, ie However, if you want us to take YOU seriously, maybe you need to get your head around the issue. If it's not important to you and you can't be bothered to learn about it ...well ...your opinion won't carry much weight. BTW, regarding the 'debate' and the 'poll' that came afterwards: http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/concerns-mount-over-role-of-no-friendly.html?spref=fb
Firstly, the media twisting stuff really depends on which media you get your information from. Not using a national TV debate to air unedited views is stupid, it cant be twisted if its directly live from the horses mouth. As i previously stated, not everyone has read the great independence tomb.....using the most widely accepted form of communication with your voters to further promote your great plan B's, C's and D's is a damn good idea. He ballsed up, he could have used this to show he was serious, instead he lost. More fool him. Secondly, i've read a little bit about it, enough to make an opinion, i might not know all the facts in their entirety and i dont fully understand how economics work in this situation, id wager neither do you or most people on this board. with my limited economic knowledge, a problem i see would be England surging ahead with the pound and making it stronger, using the capital to its fullest as one of the worlds major hubs. Scotland doing relatively nothing on the world stage and benefiting from the strong pound. Just a guess though. Lastly, my opinion should be taken seriously in the context of this forum regardless. It isn't important to me, and considering the platform i'm using to air my opinions, you're right, i cant be bothered read in depth articles and lengthy white gospels about a subject that essentially is irrelevant to the world bar Scotland. If i was on questiontime, i would read more about it. Im not, i'm on a writing forum. P.s. you're quite aggressive, for no apparent reason.
England is, when all is said and done, a pretty right wing country. If an independent Scotland inspires some kind of reawakening of the left here I'd be very very surprised indeed, happily surprised of course - if totally baffled. Scotland was always torn between Labour and SNP in years gone past, the damned Tories never made a foothold there, really. I don't generally like to have negative feelings about people. But there are no two ways about it: George Galloway is one of the few people I genuinely hate with all my little, misshapen soul. On paper I agree with a lot of the things he advocates. It's nothing to do with politics, it's personal.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I admit to being very passionate about this subject. I feel I'm well informed. And unlike you, I live in Scotland and have a vote, and will need to abide by whatever decision Scotland takes on the 18th of September. So this issue does matter a lot to me. I admit to getting annoyed when people enter into the debate and become snide and insulting (Kim Jong Il's goldfish) after admitting they aren't really interested in it. If that's me being childish, well I apologise. However, I'm not backing down either. This is Scotland's future, and I do hope that when the day comes, the verdict is a transformational "Yes."
For people who are against Scotland's independence, quick question: can you think of a single country that went independent and ultimately regretted it? Scotland will still remain in the commonwealth too, if that is what matters - the queen will still be officially the head (how I wish otherwise though). It'll just not be bound by the rules of a country that bought it out in some mercantile-capitalist deal after the Darien expedition went so horribly freaking wrong. Those who don't know about the Darien expedition do not know your Robbie Burns! Essentially the subjection of Scotland was no different from the countries of the Soviet block. The UK isn't a family of nations, it's an empire - though now primarily an economic one.
Well, that's it in a nutshell isn't it? Even countries going through a bad patch (like Ireland and Iceland) don't want to 'go back.' It's just ludicrous that, out of all the nations on earth, Scotland gets ridiculed for seeking to govern itself.
Oh don't worry, Scotland is far from unique in that respect. In history class we were told about the things the intellectuals on Grub Street said about the Patriot Movement in Boston during that little war for the 13 colonies. Some of them are pretty contemptible. Ireland too, comments from London are not even that hard to find these days, saw one or two bitter comments in the vain of them being 'bog trotting farmers'. Scotland is far from unique in that respect. In fact, I'm more amazed there isn't similar condescension aimed at Australia trying to get rid of the English Monarchy. I don't want to come across as anti-English, despite the fact I've said all that and I want to one day emigrate from the England. I live in England, I'm half English, and England has been good to me - helped me go to university for one thing. I like northern England a lot too. But England as a nation is one I cannot support.
