Scottish independence

James

World Star
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Runs
50,565
Post of the Week
2
Scotland's future as a possibly self-governed nation is one of the key political issues in Scotland and the UK at present. The Diamond Jubilee, and the unity which it claimed to achieve amongst British people including Scots, has added yet more interest to this debate.

The social democratic Scottish National Party have for many decades spearheaded the campaign for Scottish independence, which is now supported by a range of public figures - other politicians, as well as journalists and writers - and famous Scots, including Sean Connery and Alan Cumming. And with the SNP's ascension to a majority seat holding in the Scottish Parliament, after the public showed their support in the 2011 elections, the possibility of independence is now a very real one.

The SNP and other arguments for independence - such as those in the British press, and those from the Scottish Greens - say that Scotland can survive economically and politically on her own, that there is no need for it to be a part of the United Kingdom. A fresh start is offered away from the British double-dip recession. Trade, education and law are proposed as better-run by an independent Scotland. The defence budget is seen as inflated by pro-independence arguments, and they also wish to remove the presence of nuclear-equipped Vanguard submarines from HMNB Clyde. So there are political, economic, military, legal and ethical debates going on here. SNP leader Alex Salmond, deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon and Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure Alex Neil are just three voices that strongly and convincingly argue for Scottish independence as an EU country. They are currently unsure of whether Scotland would use the Scottish Pound or the Euro as its currency.

Arguments against independence, which come from Conservative politicians and many Labour politicians - as well as our current British Coalition government - say that Scotland will be economically and politically better off if it remains a part of the UK. Defence, trade, law and education in Scotland are argued to be in a stable condition, with a tough defence policy in particular seen as important. Anti-independence individuals say that the SNP's vision of an independent Scotland would be less defended militarily, and appear to be weak. The anti-independence argument also worries that Scotland will have to officially re-enter the EU as an independent country and thus would be legally obliged to adopt the Euro, a currency in crisis. Ruth Davidson, leader of the Scottish Conservatives, consistently offers the most articulate anti-independence opinion, if the reader is interested in exploring that side of the argument.

If I have a personal observation that I am happy to be disagreed with upon, it is that some arguments for independence want to have the cake and eat it. Conservative commentators on both sides of the border assert that Scots cannot be independent whilst also maintaining their British identity and leaving the Union Jack unaltered, when Scots may wish for all three of these to co-exist. Indeed, an independent Scotland would be part of the British Isles, but technically so is Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles) and Irish people are not British, they are Irish.

Thus, Scottish independence is potentially a divisive moment in terms of the sovereign state of the United Kingdom, and of Britain, which are different things to the British Isles. Pro-independence arguments may not mind this sense of individuality and newness, however, perhaps seeing it as a good thing. And it could well be so. In Inverness on Thursday, Alan Cumming was challenged on this point on Question Time, which is well worth watching to hear both sides of the Scottish independence debate (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01jsxb3/Question_Time_07_06_2012/).

It is Scottish, EU and Commonwealth citizens that reside in Scotland whose views will ultimately count, and I trust whatever decision they go with. Though I have enjoyed my visits to the historically and culturally rich nation of Scotland on numerous occasions, and so would love for it to remain a part of the UK, my opinion is perhaps manipulated by this nostalgia. The residents know this debate best in real terms - they live there.

Currently, most reports suggest that there is a 65-35 split amongst the Scottish electorate in favour of remaining a part of the UK. The Scottish National Party referendum in Scotland - 'Yes' or 'No' to independence - is set for the autumn of 2014, which gives the SNP and other pro-independence arguments just over two years to win over the Scottish public. This referendum has been called the most important event in Scottish politics for three hundred years.

Scotland's projected independence day, if a 'Yes' majority is achieved, would be in 2016, after terms are laid out and also negotiations with the British government have taken place. The islands on which many of us reside would afterwards be very different. So I hope you would agree from my article that Scottish independence is an issue for many of us to take an interest in.

Therefore, I would particularly like to hear from Scots here, but also anyone else who is interested in the issue. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Are you pro or anti independence, and why?
 
Definitley pro independence.

Scotland has the potential to become a world leader in renewable energy and a lefter leaning almost socialist state.

In terms of domestic policy I think the SNP are fantastic. At times when major political parties in England have lurched to the right and singled out multi-culturism and immigration as one of the problems facing the UK, the SNP has reached out to minority groups and has made them feel included in the party and as Scottish as any white person. I think you will be hard pressed to find any political party with the word "nationalist" in it that is so accommodating of people of an immigrant background. The party also is staunchly anti-war, Salmond even tried to impeach Blair for war crimes and has called for sanctions against Israel. No other major politician has had the balls to do this! It earned him huge respect in my eyes.

In these tough financial times it has put extra officers on the beat, slashed prescription fees, kept university education free, frozen council tax and given major assistance to small businesses. Really demonstrating how they want to take care of the Scottish public. I have met Salmond and other high ranking party officials and they are genuinely good sincere people who want to serve the public and are not the professional politicians you see in Westminster who are the products of a private school system and help their buddies in the city out whenever they can.

The 65-35 split gives them a good platform to push the independence cause in two years time. There will be a patriotic atmosphere as it coincides with the anniversary of Bannokburn and the commonwealth games plus in Scotland there is a strong Anti-Tory feeling. Two more years of Tory policy and scandal might just push people towards independence.

Ultimately though its all about the numbers. There are many conflicting arguments about Scotland Financial future after independence, so an independent cost benefit analysis is needed so the voters can make an educated decision.
 
I thought that in the Year of our Lord 1314, Mel Gibson's patriots of Scotland - starving and outnumbered - charged the fields of Bannockburn, fought like warrior poets, fought like Scotsmen, to win their freedom?
 
Last edited:
what ever the scots want imo, but in the end it will lead to a more devolved scotland still within the kingdom imo. i like scotland though, so id be happy enough with that result.
 
I thought that in the Year of our Lord 1314, Mel Gibson's patriots of Scotland - starving and outnumbered - charged the fields of Bannockburn, fought like warrior poets, fought like Scotsmen, to win their freedom?

Hollywood history is unreliable.

Scotland joined The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1705.

As for the Scots getting independence, I am opposed because The UK of England, Wales and NI will get a Tory govt in perpetuity!
 
Last edited:
I don't think that Scotland should be independent, but it's not difficult to understand why people there feel that way. England really does feel like a different country with a much better road infrastructure. Scotland seems very cut off from the rest of Britain. I don't know if that's due to the geography or not, but the UK is hardly a massive land mass to begin with.
 
.

In these tough financial times it has put extra officers on the beat, slashed prescription fees, kept university education free, frozen council tax and given major assistance to small businesses. Really demonstrating how they want to take care of the Scottish public..

Would you be willing to pay higher taxes in order for the above to continue in Scotland?
 
Last edited:
As for the Scots getting independence, I am opposed because The UK of England, Wales and NI will get a Tory govt in perpetuity!

This is a myth. Scotland has 59 parliamentary seats.

In 1997 Labour won by 179 seats, in 2001 they won by 167, in 2005 then won by 66 seats.

So even without the Scottish seats Labour would have won in each of the above elections.
 
This is a myth. Scotland has 59 parliamentary seats.

In 1997 Labour won by 179 seats, in 2001 they won by 167, in 2005 then won by 66 seats.

So even without the Scottish seats Labour would have won in each of the above elections.

It'll still be a great deal harder for Labour to win in the new UK. Without the Scots there would be a (wafer-thin) Tory majority now, not a coalition.
 
Ultimately though its all about the numbers. There are many conflicting arguments about Scotland Financial future after independence, so an independent cost benefit analysis is needed so the voters can make an educated decision.

Thanks for your replies man, really interesting, and to others as well.

The above point is the most important for me. Ruth Davidson claims that an independent Scotland would be legally bound to adopt the Euro if it re-entered the EU in 2016, assuming the Euro is still around of course. I would like to find out if this is true or not, because if this legislation a) exists and b) remained in place then it would surely affect the vote. Who would want the Euro?
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your replies man, really interesting, and to others as well.

The above point is the most important for me. Ruth Davidson claims that an independent Scotland would be legally bound to adopt the Euro if it re-entered the EU in 2016, assuming the Euro is still around of course. I would like to find out if this is true or not, because if this legislation a) exists and b) remained in place then it would surely affect the vote. Who would want the Euro?

Sorry for my ignorance James but who is Ruth Davidson? There has been a lot of noise from the Scottish Tories (lol) and Scottish Labour that Scotland will be compelled to join the Euro.

The SNP are adamant that this is not the case as the current UK and Denmark do not have to join it, they believe that after independence the exemption will carry over to us too. Again we need to see some independent analysis of this to see if it is we will be made to join the Euro.

It’s quite likely that we will keep the Sterling but that has to be done with the agreement of Westminster and poses the logistical problem of having one central bank but two different financial policies from two states.

Salmond in 2009 said that Sterling is sinking and advocated joining the Euro post-independence, for obvious reasons he is now backtracking!

A Scots Pound is also a potential option but doesn’t seem to be popular.

As you have noticed from my previous posts I am staunchly anti-monarchy, something which Salmond and the SNP are not (at least openly), so if we are stuck with the Queen and have a financial policy dictated by England it makes you wonder if it is really independence?
 
Ruth Davidson is leader of the Scottish Conservatives. She's a pretty good speaker actually, and has pressed the SNP very hard on the key issue of a stable economics post-independence. I can't imagine there are many other notable or even non-notable Tories north of the border though.

The big question for the SNP regards the good old Euro, and their rumoured obligation to adopt it if they re-enter the EU as an independent country. If forced to admit that this would be the case in accordance with law, as D-Day approaches it will kill the SNP in my view. Harsh, unfortunate...but could be for the best (?)

Anyway, it'd be interesting to see an opinion poll in Scotland on its independence three months since this thread was created. The Olympics was such a roaring success that it is likely to have helped the Unionist argument.
 
Indepdendence for Scotland is a retarded idea.

The currency question can't be ignored. The European crisis has shown that a small country on the periphery of Europe is not going to benefit by being in the Euro.

Iceland and Greece had similar economic crashes. Iceland has the Krona - it was able to massively devalue its currency (from 85:1 to 150:1) against the Euro. This resulted in a reduction in the real value local currency denominated debt, boosted exports and cut imports. Greece wasn't able to do any of this - as a result it has been unable to come out of the crisis.

Having Scottish dollar isn't a good idea either. Being such a small currency it would fluctuate quite a bit. That adds to uncertainy for people and businesses based in Scotland. For example - to survive the financial crisis Iceland had to devalue its currency by 100%. As someone living in Scotland that would not be acceptable to me. It effectively reduces the value of my assets by half.

So the only logical option would be to stick with the pound. It is a large and relatively stable currency which is more in sync with the Scottish business cycle. Currently, as part of the UK we have a say in how the pound is valued and how it behaves. If we go independent and keep the pound, we're effectively giving up that say.

Add to that the fact that we have a good deal as it stands - free university education, free prescriptions. An independent Scotland would not be able to rely of oil reserves forever to pay for such stuff. One that runs dry we will have a difficult time providing these services to our people.

If it ain't broke - don't fix it.
 
David Cameron and Alex Salmond have signed the referendum deal. If Scotland are to retain the pound and become independent, its economic policy would be dictated to by the Bank of England.

Its hardly a good time to join the Euro either. The integrated British economy is more capable than an independent Scotland would be of meeting the challenges of globalisation. Likewise, having independent defence and security structures would overstrain Scotland's resources.

After independence, UK debt levels would be share on a per capita or per GDP level. This would leave Scotland with a national debt of £80bn and growing. There is also the issue of higher bond yields. In the Euro, there is no lender of last resort. Markets would be more reluctant to be buying Scottish bonds. Debt levels would be much more closely scrutinised and would invariably have higher interest payments.

The irony is that joining the Euro could severely curtail the fiscal freedom on an independent Scotland. It may find there is no room for Keynesian expansion in recessions or generous welfare payments.

Regarding whether it would be more likely that a Conservative government would be elected in the UK, Labour’s recent electoral record in England does not suggest that the Tories would possess an innate advantage there. In 1997, for example, Labour obtained a majority in England alone of 127; in 2001 they had a majority there of 117; and in 2005 they secured a majority of 43.

Also where a Labour government may have greater difficulty as a result of Scottish independence might be in getting contentious bills passed in Parliament. On two occasions in recent memory a Labour government has had to rely on its Scottish support to help pass bills in the face of a rebellion from its own English backbenchers.
 
David Cameron and Alex Salmond have signed the referendum deal. If Scotland are to retain the pound and become independent, its economic policy would be dictated to by the Bank of England.

Could they not set up a Bank of Scotland and keep their own non-Sterling pound?
 
Could they not set up a Bank of Scotland and keep their own non-Sterling pound?

Scotland owns 8.4% of the Bank of England and if they refused to be a lender of last resort they could perhaps take 8.4% of the banks reserves and use those to set up a Scottish Central Bank that would print Scottish notes pegged to the pound.

The way I see it Scotland have four options.

1) Keep the Pound Sterling in a common monetary zone.
2) Start up their own currency 'Pound Scots' and peg it to the Pound Sterling
3) Start up their own currency 'Pound Scots' and let it float on the foreign exchange market.
4) Join the Euro.

There is the 'Kosovo option'. Kosovo is not a member of the eurozone but uses the euro. It is legal tender but the country is not even a member of the EU and has no formal currency agreements with the ECB and other European institutions. Such a path would be one way to keep the pound without having to wrangle with Westminster.
 
SNP members vote to ditch the party's anti-Nato policy

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-19993694

Members of the Scottish National Party have voted to ditch their 30-year policy of opposition to defence alliance Nato.

Members debated the issue at their party conference in Perth.

Angus Robertson MP put forward a resolution saying an independent Scotland should become a member of the pro-nuclear weapons organisation.

That was opposed by several MSPs and rank and file members, but the new policy was voted through 426 to 332.

Mr Robertson told the conference that the fresh approach was developed following discussions with other countries.

He added that a change of view was dependent on Trident nuclear weapons - which are currently based at Faslane Naval base on the Clyde - being removed from Scotland.

It would also be dependent on Scotland's refusal to host nuclear weapons in the future, Mr Robertson.

He told the gathering: "This defence policy sends a very important message to people in Scotland and to friends, neighbours and allies.

"We are preparing for a referendum and for a sovereign, independent Scotland, with a defence and security policy that is best for Scotland."

Speaking against the policy change, SNP Highlands and Islands MSP John Finnie said if the party voted to back Nato in an independent Scotland then it would not get rid of Trident nuclear weapons from Scottish shores.

He said: "Scotland has a very distinctive education, health and justice system and I think the SNP government has got different priorities from the UK government."

"This self-styled defence policy update is not in that distinct social justice vein - it's more of the same UK."

Looking over to SNP leader, Alex Salmond, and his deputy, Nicola sturgeon, Mr Finnie said: "You vote to join Nato, you will not get rid of trident.

"You vote to join Nato and there will be pressure and there will be phone calls to this man and his deputy not to be involved in CND, not to support the Palestinians and similar causes around the globe."

SNP leader Alex Salmond has said he believed it was "perfectly feasible" to join Nato while maintaining an anti-nuclear stance.

The resolution before conference said: "On independence, Scotland will inherit its treaty obligations with Nato. An SNP government will maintain Nato membership subject to an agreement that Scotland will not host nuclear weapons and Nato continues to respect the right of members to only take part in UN sanctioned operations."

But that proposal found opposition from eight SNP MSPs - including Mr Finnie, Jamie Hepburn, Marco Biagi and Sandra White - and a number of local SNP councillors.

In an amendment, they aksed conference to keep the status quo because "Nato continues to be a nuclear-based alliance".

Speaking at a conference seminar in Perth on Thursday evening, Mr Robertson said he was asked on a fact-finding trip with the first minister to neighbouring countries if the Scottish government understood the importance of Nato air cover to the North Sea.

He said: "I asked what the impact would be of Scotland not being in Nato.

"The answer came that the simplest way to describe it is pulling the plug on the radar. Everything that is around Scotland turns into a black hole where we have no idea what's going on, and that worries our neighbours intensely."

Mr Salmond told BBC Scotland ahead of his party's conference that changing policy "was the right thing".

He explained: "All parties should change their policies to equip them for the modern world and the long-term consistency in SNP policy has been opposition to nuclear weapons.

"The SNP, in my lifetime, has been pro-Nato, we've been anti-Nato, we've been in favour, as we are now, of Partnership for Peace, which is a Nato organisation, so that's been an emphasis on the policy. But the underlying consistency is our opposition to nuclear weapons and the best way to remove Trident from Scotland.

"An independent Scotland would not have possession of or allow nuclear weapons in Scottish territory.

"Twenty-six out of the 29 countries in Nato are non-nuclear countries, it is perfectly feasible for Scotland to be one of these but still engage in collective defence for friends and allies."

The question about Nato was part of a wider debate about the SNP's proposed foreign, security and defence policy in an independent Scotland.

Mr Salmond signed a deal with Prime Minister David Cameron on Monday which lays down the ground rules for holding a referendum on Scottish independence.

Mr Robertson detailed to the Perth conference that a go-alone Scotland would commit to an annual defence and security budget of £2.5bn - which he said was nearly £1bn less than Scots taxpayers currently contribute to UK defence spending.

It is projected that Scottish armed forces would comprise 15,000 regular and 5,000 reserve personnel operating under a joint forces headquarters based at Faslane.
 
A campaign has begun to give thousands of people in Northamptonshire the right to vote in Scotland's independence referendum.

Conservative Corby Borough councillor Rob McKellar proposed the idea, which will be discussed at a council meeting in December.

If agreed, the borough council will write to Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond requesting the vote.

Mr McKellar said the decision would affect 12,000 Scots living in Corby.
Scottish culture

He said: "Expatriates who have lived in the country for the last 15 years are entitled to vote in British general elections and Scottish Assembly elections and I believe it should be exactly the same for the referendum.

"I think anybody who is entitled to hold a Scottish passport under the Scottish National Party's (SNP) regime should be allowed to vote."

The referendum will decide in the autumn of 2014 whether Scotland should leave the UK.

Scottish families started coming to Corby in the 1930s, with the development of the iron and steel works.

Mr McKellar, who is a second generation Scot, said Corby was influenced by Scottish culture, dialect, food and places of worship.

The first minister's office in Edinburgh has said there are no plans to extend voting beyond those who are normally resident in Scotland.

But Mr McKellar said he would pursue his call for Scots in Corby to be given the vote.

"This will affect people in Corby as it does in Scotland so they should have their say," he said.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-20122435
 
It should be permanent residents of Scotland only IMO. Else you get people like Alan Cumming who sit comfortably in Hollywood being left-wing for the sake of it.

Independence movement seems to have lost a bit of pace this season. The Olympics has hurt if not killed the case for Independence; Salmond and co need to get their acts together.
 
It's not looking good for the pro-independence camp at the moment. Although I guess a year is a long time in politics so things could change.

Support for Scottish independence is at its lowest level since the creation of the Holyrood parliament in 1999, a survey has suggested.

A total of 23% of people who took part in the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey said they favoured independence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-21167573


And independence may not even mean independence in its truest sense because the Bank of England will still have a massive input when it comes to fiscal policy north of the border.

Economists have said an independent Scotland would need a formal deal with the rest of the United Kingdom on how to run a joint currency.

The panel of experts, established by the Scottish government also said agreement would have to be reached on how much it could tax and spend.

Their first report suggests there would have to be rules and new institutions created to manage the economy.

They said this would require continued integration with the rest of the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-21408335
 
A year later and the Yes campaign are still struggling big time in the polls.

And the major parties at Westminster have just said that there is no chance of a formal currency union happening should the yes vote succeed.

K Chancellor George Osborne has said a vote for Scottish independence would mean walking away from the pound.

He said there was "no legal reason" why the rest of the UK would want to share sterling with an independent Scotland.

The Scots government wants Scotland to retain sterling as part of a currency union with the rest of the UK in the event of a referendum "Yes" vote.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26166794

Independent Scotland: Treasury warns of 'unbridgeable challenges' over pound
George Osborne, Ed Balls and Danny Alexander form rare alliance to insist independent Scotland could not keep pound

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/12/uk-parties-rule-out-currency-union-scotland

So what now for the SNP?

Use the pound unofficially and risk massive economic uncertainty and rampant inflation or join the Euro (this would take 2-3 years as Scotland would have to meet certain economic conditions).

Why would any sane person now vote 'Yes' given all the unanswered questions and economic uncertainty?
 
Westminster has pulled a masterstroke. The 'Yes' vote was creeping forward in the polls and thats why Westminister has detonated this bomb.

This could backfire although its unlikely. I expect a full SNP attack and the news to be spun as proof of England attempting to hold Scotland back.
 
Westminster has pulled a masterstroke.

Yep! Now they will either have to create their own currency (risky), or join the Euro and prop up all the dead men walking in Southern Europe and across the Irish Sea!
 
Scotland was never going to be allowed to keep the pound anyway.
 
its for the good of scotland, there is no independence without an independent economy, just ask the greeks. if scots want independence go the whole distance.

none of salmond's smoke and mirrors, who would happily have a scotland subservient to the BoE so long as he can call himself king.
 
Westminster has pulled a masterstroke. The 'Yes' vote was creeping forward in the polls and thats why Westminister has detonated this bomb.

This could backfire although its unlikely. I expect a full SNP attack and the news to be spun as proof of England attempting to hold Scotland back.

I don't think that's enough though. Currently Salmond, Sturgeon and co are sticking to the 'this is just scaremongering/bullying and in the end of course the English will agree to a currency union'. That's not enough - people aren't stupid. The SNP need a plan B.
 
I am not in favour of Scotland gaining independence. If they do, it is possible others regions of the UK will vote to secede, such as Wales.

There are already over 200 countries on the planet, adding ever more to the list increases divisions amongst humankind: more armies, more (artificial) boundaries and borders, more flags, more national anthems, more security apparatus, more politicians, more governments, more 'nation-states' at the Olympics, and so on.

I am firmly non-nationalistic, and am really saddened to witness the further fragmentation of nations and societies into ever smaller ethnic-centred 'countries'.
 
Yep! Now they will either have to create their own currency (risky), or join the Euro and prop up all the dead men walking in Southern Europe and across the Irish Sea!

We will find a solution inshAllah.
 
I don't think that's enough though. Currently Salmond, Sturgeon and co are sticking to the 'this is just scaremongering/bullying and in the end of course the English will agree to a currency union'. That's not enough - people aren't stupid. The SNP need a plan B.

I dont know. A quick scan of twitter and other social media suggests that people have reacted quite angrily and firmly believe that this is bullying tactics from the England.

Remember that unfortunately a rather high percentage of people are stupid and will vote based on emotion,advertising and marketing.

Henry McLeish, a former Labour first minister of Scotland, said there would be an immediate backlash in Scotland against Osborne's attack on the currency proposal. It would increase support for independence, by angering many wavering Scottish voters and building up their sense of alienation.

Insisting he would vote no to independence, McLeish told the Guardian: "The great danger for them is that the no campaign now is losing votes because it's so relentlessly negative, with no empathy for Scotland at all. [A lot] of people will say 'we're sick of this, these threats won't work'.
"
 
Last edited:
I am not in favour of Scotland gaining independence. If they do, it is possible others regions of the UK will vote to secede, such as Wales.

ive already read pbly 10, 15 articles in the last year in mainstream papers about the feasibility of London being an independent city state highlighting a larger population and economy than Scotland.
 
There are already over 200 countries on the planet, adding ever more to the list increases divisions amongst humankind: more armies, more (artificial) boundaries and borders, more flags, more national anthems, more security apparatus, more politicians, more governments, more 'nation-states' at the Olympics, and so on.

Why is this a bad thing?
 
if Scotland do gain independence i demand a picture of DV in a kilt #justsaying
 
if Scotland do gain independence i demand a picture of DV in a kilt #justsaying

:))

I dont feel comfortable appropriating another culture just for your amusement.

I'll be like the PP miley cyrus.
 
Why is this a bad thing?


If you re-read my post, you will find the answer to your question: more (fake) nations lead to more division of humankind. I am a Muslim(ah), and believe in unity not separation.

Incidentally, and entirely off-topic: In Sha'a Allah is comprised of 3, and not just 2, words.

IN - IF

SHA'A - TO WILL, WANT, DESIRE

ALLAH - THE GOD.
 
Apparently this all boils down to the shetland islands and who wants it more

The positives to come out is having summer time all year around
The negatives is waiting another 99 years for someone to win wimbledon

I've heard scotland has a 'socialist economy' with education, healthcare and other extras completely free, whether they can sustain this is something the figures and forecasts can probably elaborate on

Whether they need greater autonomy and whether there can be some sort of compromise is something i'm sure the politicans can sort out in negotiations
 
If you re-read my post, you will find the answer to your question: more (fake) nations lead to more division of humankind. I am a Muslim(ah), and believe in unity not separation.
.

Firstly a nation that has its own history,culture,language(sort of ) and was only united with England in 1707 should not be called a fake nation.

Secondly I don't see why division is a bad thing? I mean could verse 49:13 not be considered a tacit acknowledgement of nation states?

Separate with good relations is just as good as united. There are no inherent benefits to unity, these are just pie in the sky buzz words thrown around by people. I fail to see a negative that does not involve some sort of patriotism or nationalistic feeling towards the UK.

The actions of Scotland and the rest of the UK send a clear signal to the rest of the world. The UK government ( a major world player) has allowed one of its territories to vote for its own secession without any violence or threats. It really is an enlightened approach.

Hopefully emerging countries like India reflect on this rather than continue to subjugate populations that do not want to live under their control, for archaic notions such as national unity which often cause misery and suffering.
 
I think the very fact the UK government is allowing a referendum on this is underrated. Britain truly is the king of kings when it comes to debate, tolerance, progressiveness and an open-minded approach.

I'm leaning towards a No as the best answer for all involved, though.

And as a less important aside, Salmond truly is revolting.
 
UK is also mastermind of the dividing tactics employed in other sides of the world. I hope after USA, UK doesn't get involved in the policy for Balochistan freedom, in essence for another division.

However, the history of UK involvement in Asia, Afridi suggest that 'what goes around what comes around' card is at work. So, i won't be surprised if Scottish is successful in claiming its independence. I hate the division, but if the division is meant to happen, then it will happen.
 
I think the very fact the UK government is allowing a referendum on this is underrated. Britain truly is the king of kings when it comes to debate, tolerance, progressiveness and an open-minded approach.

true, and also an indication of the confidence the country has in itself and in its political process. look as spain vis a vis the catalan movement, dont think you could find such an amicable process any where in the world.

I'm leaning towards a No as the best answer for all involved, though.

And as a less important aside, Salmond truly is revolting.

agree on both counts, although i think independence or not both countries will be fine eventually, the uk flag will look stupid though if scotland goes its own way.
 
Firstly a nation that has its own history,culture,language(sort of ) and was only united with England in 1707 should not be called a fake nation.

Secondly I don't see why division is a bad thing? I mean could verse 49:13 not be considered a tacit acknowledgement of nation states?

Separate with good relations is just as good as united. There are no inherent benefits to unity, these are just pie in the sky buzz words thrown around by people. I fail to see a negative that does not involve some sort of patriotism or nationalistic feeling towards the UK.

The actions of Scotland and the rest of the UK send a clear signal to the rest of the world. The UK government ( a major world player) has allowed one of its territories to vote for its own secession without any violence or threats. It really is an enlightened approach.

Hopefully emerging countries like India reflect on this rather than continue to subjugate populations that do not want to live under their control, for archaic notions such as national unity which often cause misery and suffering.


I can certainly agree with some aspects of your position. However, if we examine the current state of the world, we realise that more countries does not add to peace, but rather, leads to further tension, conflicts and wars. There are separatist movements in other parts of Europe, in Pakistan, in the US, in India. Eventually, we may see a return to city states rather than nation states. Perhaps that is a good thing. Because a great deal of discontent which is expressed by people is related to the concentration of power in certain regions- for instance, in London - that very few have access to these seats of power, that they are self-serving and unrepresentative. Opening up these centres of power, making them much more transparent and accountable, might go some way in mitigating these calls for separation.

If unity is a mere buzz word, we would not see the existence of entities like the UN, EU, BRICS, and so on. There is a clear recognition that unity is essential in areas of common concern - like economics, security, trade, and so on.

With specific regard to India: with respect, this is not a good example, given that it was British colonial rule which led to the fragmentation of the sub-Continent along ethnic, religious lines. Yes, India may look for assistance from their British counterparts in the matter of Kashmir, seeing as the British government were apparently happy to lend support in the Indian governments' actions in Amritsar. Let us not forget that Kashmir would be a non-issue were it not for the British creating this problem. A pattern repeated all over the world. We cannot ignore the part played by European colonialists in the carving up of Asia, Africa, South and Central America, and Europe itself. Of course, there are different ethnicities, languages and cultures across the globe, but they are all inter-connected - creating nationalities out of them is no different to creating fake nations.
 
They'll probably vote 'yes' and even if they don't it will be an independent country at some point. It will end up like Ireland or greece though
 
St

Firstly a nation that has its own history,culture,language(sort of ) and was only united with England in 1707 should not be called a fake nation.

Secondly I don't see why division is a bad thing? I mean could verse 49:13 not be considered a tacit acknowledgement of nation states?

Separate with good relations is just as good as united. There are no inherent benefits to unity, these are just pie in the sky buzz words thrown around by people. I fail to see a negative that does not involve some sort of patriotism or nationalistic feeling towards the UK.

The actions of Scotland and the rest of the UK send a clear signal to the rest of the world. The UK government ( a major world player) has allowed one of its territories to vote for its own secession without any violence or threats. It really is an enlightened approach.

Hopefully emerging countries like India reflect on this rather than continue to subjugate populations that do not want to live under their control, for archaic notions such as national unity which often cause misery and suffering.

Indian national unity is not an archaic concept, it is a concept that never existed before last century.

To add on your point, I think that Scottish independence will be a forward step in European construction, assuming Barroso was wrong and Scotland is admitted into Europe. The United Kingdoms are and have always been a disruptive force in Europe that have used it to forward their national and populist agenda while taking what suited them for their construction (just look at the common agricultural policy compared to common metallurgy treaty). An independent Scotland will, imo, diminish the euroskepticism in the isles and, also, diminish the disproportionate weight that is given to english positions in brussels.
 
Indian national unity is not an archaic concept, it is a concept that never existed before last century.

To add on your point, I think that Scottish independence will be a forward step in European construction, assuming Barroso was wrong and Scotland is admitted into Europe. The United Kingdoms are and have always been a disruptive force in Europe that have used it to forward their national and populist agenda while taking what suited them for their construction (just look at the common agricultural policy compared to common metallurgy treaty). An independent Scotland will, imo, diminish the euroskepticism in the isles and, also, diminish the disproportionate weight that is given to english positions in brussels.

Ultimately Scottish voters won't have enough confidence in the EU to divorce itself from the Union so it's a moot point. Scotland doesn't have a large population and there are probably a significant percentage of English people living there who will add to the vote to stick with the UK.
 
That's true, Scottish population is only 1/10th that of England which means that free migration may have skewed the balance in favour of the union.

However, SNP has been perpetuating a lot of lies vis-a-vis of independent scotland (deficit, oil income, uk debt share, currency,...) and political standing (mainly eu adhesion) so, even if they vote yes, I sense a lot of disappointement. Ireland has a similar population and area as Scotland but I don't think Scottish GDP will be remotely close while deficit is projected to be similar.

And I believe you meant moo point. Like a cow's opinion, the point is moo, not moot (which is an assembly of brave men).
 
Last edited:
And I believe you meant moo point. Like a cow's opinion, the point is moo, not moot (which is an assembly of brave men).

No it is moot.

Moot's were meetings where government matters were debated. This ended in Anglo-Saxon times.

Later 'Moots' became what law students do when they stand around debating hypothetical scenarios.

The modern meaning of 'Moot Point' is derived from this and means a point that whilst interesting to debate is not really relevant to real life
 
Only weeks away now until the referendum. If the polls are correct then it looks like a 5-10 point win for the better together campaign.
 
Only weeks away now until the referendum. If the polls are correct then it looks like a 5-10 point win for the better together campaign.

2 events that the Yes campaign would have banked on decreasing the margin haven't transpired according to plan.

Firstly the commonwealth games although enjoyable and entertaining didn't cause a boost in nationalist patriotism.

Secondly Salmond was appalling in the TV debate with Darling an event that almost everybody expected Salmond to excel at.
 
From a personal POV i've changed from firmly yes to an undecided voter in the two years since my first post in this thread.

I've noticed that generally among the indigenous population ( who have the most reason to be nationalist) there isn't really a feeling of wanting independence. Yes most people will support the team that is playing against England in the world cup but its an independence movement driven by lack of nationalism/patriotism and more so by proposed economic benefits. I don't think a movement based primarily on money has a strong ideology that captures the public. Generally independence movements stem from being unhappy ( or hating) with 'occupiers' or separation based on linguist/religious/cultural reasons. That seems to be lacking.

The tone of this movement seems to be - Yes things are good with the union, we have nothing against England but just want the chance to do it on our own. It's devoid of any fervour or zeal.

For me the only thing that would make me vote yes atm is to get away from scumbag tories.
 
Last edited:
Looking like a Better Together vote atm.

The SNP need to sack Salmond and actually get a likeable and non-repulsive leader in. Salmond looks like one of the bit-part cast from Lord of the Rings.
 
If Scots want to be Better Together maybe they should have the same courts and pay university fees like the rest of us.
 
Sunday Times opinion poll reported YES = 51% NO = 49%.

Murdoch seems to be backing Salmond as part of his phone-hacking induced revenge against the British establishment and YES campaign are gaining momentum, the NO campaign lead has been slashed from a lead of 22% at one point.

Is this the end of the United Kingdom ? If independence occurs will Northern Ireland also call for a vote ? Will David Cameron as the leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party have to resign ? Its all going right down to the wire...
 
Sunday Times opinion poll reported YES = 51% NO = 49%.

Murdoch seems to be backing Salmond as part of his phone-hacking induced revenge against the British establishment and YES campaign are gaining momentum, the NO campaign lead has been slashed from a lead of 22% at one point.

Is this the end of the United Kingdom ? If independence occurs will Northern Ireland also call for a vote ? Will David Cameron as the leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party have to resign ? Its all going right down to the wire...

The 'No' campaign has been negative and on many occasions downright insulting. People in Scotland are fed up listening to how Scotland cant survive without Westminster!! Now the Torry and Lib Dem muppets have decided to give the Scottish Govt more powers at the last minute, now that a big chunk of the postal votes might be in!!

I don't think this Torry Govt really minds Scotland separating for whatever reason!! How long before N.Ireland, Wales etc.... ask for the same!!
 
Sunday Times opinion poll reported YES = 51% NO = 49%.

Murdoch seems to be backing Salmond as part of his phone-hacking induced revenge against the British establishment and YES campaign are gaining momentum, the NO campaign lead has been slashed from a lead of 22% at one point.

Is this the end of the United Kingdom ? If independence occurs will Northern Ireland also call for a vote ? Will David Cameron as the leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party have to resign ? Its all going right down to the wire...

The Times have been running a separate Scotland section online for the last year. From that I already figured they knew the writing was on the wall. I fear the scare-mongering about Scottish independence might prove counter-productive in the final analysis.
 
The 'No' campaign has been negative and on many occasions downright insulting. People in Scotland are fed up listening to how Scotland cant survive without Westminster!! Now the Torry and Lib Dem muppets have decided to give the Scottish Govt more powers at the last minute, now that a big chunk of the postal votes might be in!!

I don't think this Torry Govt really minds Scotland separating for whatever reason!! How long before N.Ireland, Wales etc.... ask for the same!!

I think everyone in Britain would be delighted to get rid of N.Ireland
 
The Times have been running a separate Scotland section online for the last year. From that I already figured they knew the writing was on the wall. I fear the scare-mongering about Scottish independence might prove counter-productive in the final analysis.

The 'No' campaign has been counter productive. Most of the statements have been insulting and makes Scotland look like a leech on westminster's backside and asking it the question if it wants to stay there!!!
 
Have had some free time recently, and with it the chance to read a good chunk of the 670-page independence manifesto.

To be honest the arguments are very persuasive, and the SNP looks to have captured media momentum just at the right moment. I can see Scotland voting Yes next week.
 
I still think they will chicken out when push comes to shove but it looks like it will be close. I do have family in Scotland and the anti-England sentiment is surprisingly strong.
 
This is eerily similar to Quebec 1995 - YES campaign narrowly takes the lead late on - NO campaign offers more powers and benefits and NO wins. Gordon Brown has come back from the dead and has laid out a timetable to offer further powers to Scotland - the government support it. However nobody knows what powers these are !

The three Westminster parties all have different proposals and have set up different devolution commissions - what shoddy business from the NO campaign. It would have been easier to have a single, cross-party commission - consultations with Scottish civic society already should have happened and a clear plan to deliver more powers to the Scottish Parliament should already have been drawn up.

Now we're 10 days away from the referendum, the three main parties are scrambling around in a panic as David William Donald Cameron - the 53rd Prime Minister of the United Kingdom could be about to oversee the breakup of a 307 year old Union.

Good going lads.
 
Is this the end of the United Kingdom ? If independence occurs will Northern Ireland also call for a vote ? Will David Cameron as the leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party have to resign ? Its all going right down to the wire...
Northern Ireland will never call for a vote to become independent - the whole reason for the existence of Northern Ireland being a separate entity from Ireland is because the Protestant majority in those northern Irish counties wanted to remain being part of Britain and didn't want to become part of the new independent Ireland.
 
should be a very narrow 'no', followed by a lot more devolution, followed by a lot more devolution for all the uk. the uk is becoming too centralised and such a movement is good for the political status quo. would rather scotland stayed in the union, but from their pov i see the attraction of independence, although the uncertainty over the currency thing is a big red herring if scotland want to be truly independent, and also alex salmond, half salmon, half almond, complete tosser.

anyone catch frankie boyle the other night, best bit of independence is we dont have to part of americas wars..... they arent even a fight.......... you never hear "in news from iraq an upset result yesterday, a wedding detroyed a missle"....... and the worse thing is, the americans then make movies of how their soldiers got affected by the conflict...... its like a serial killer complaining about the damage done to his clutch having to stop suddenly for hitch hikers. would hate for scotland to go just for losing frankie boyle, lols. legend
 
Last edited:
Looking forward to the birth of a new nation. May Scotland become independent and get to chart its own future.
 
should be a very narrow 'no', followed by a lot more devolution, followed by a lot more devolution for all the uk. the uk is becoming too centralised and such a movement is good for the political status quo.

Quite the reverse I would say, with the already devolved governments at Holyrood and Stormont.
 
A very exciting and interesting few days ahead. The whole country is buzzing and every street corner and workplace is a hive of political debate.

From my own observations the mood on the street seemed to be a reluctant no.

Then Salmond won the second debate and Nicola Sturgeon wiped the floor with Danny Alexander. Suddenly the yes campaign was on top.

Whatever happens the concept of 'Britishness' has taken quite a hit. I wonder how the offers being tabled by politicians to entice Scotland to remain as part of the union are being perceived in England. Surely theres a feeling of anger?
 
I recall that Alec Salmond has actually wanted a third option of 'devo max' to be included on the ballot paper and it was rejected by David Cameron. At the time it seemed like a way for Salmond to save face as Scotland would have voted for some sort of independence in the referendum but with almost every indicator showing that a no vote was inevitable Cameron decided to go for the kill and have a simple yes/no on the paper.

It shows the panic that has now afflicted the no camp that something that Scotland would have had to vote for is now being put on the table almost as a bribe.
 
came back from scotland today, family wedding up thr, 3 cousins in glasgow, sis in law family in Edinburgh. Stayed in a hotel 1 in livingston, 1 in glasgow.
Everyone who i met, desi/non desi was "Confused" and all suggested that the Yes part wre making up figures.

The feeling i got from them was they would vote but very unsure, but if they don't vote its simply because they need more concrete information.
 
Quite the reverse I would say, with the already devolved governments at Holyrood and Stormont.

your right, i was lazy in wording it, i meant in the uk as a whole 10% of the population have there own parliaments whilst the other 90% is governed by a central govt. i was hoping more devolution for scotland would encourage other regions (whether that be wales, NI or regions within england) to demand greater autonomy and local government.

lol, who knows maybe even cornwall gets nation status :p
 
Quite the reverse I would say, with the already devolved governments at Holyrood and Stormont.

I do think the heavy hand of Whitehall has become too overbearing, we are one of the most centralised states in Europe. I would trust local people to make better decisions for their local regions than a Westminster metropolitan elite that is increasingly out of touch with peoples' lives.

Prescott in 2002 did advocate regional assemblies but that got shot down. Heseltine not long ago argued, and quite sensibly too, that London has become too powerful and came up with a number of proposals so its not like this is a new issue - and its a shame its taken the threat of Scottish secession for this debate to be had amongst England's political circles ! Far too much power has been taken away from local councils over the years too.

Anyway when is the North of England having its referendum ? Can we join Scotland to form some kind of rump state ? :p
 
Anyway when is the North of England having its referendum ? Can we join Scotland to form some kind of rump state ? :p

need to look back, say, only a millenia, just revive nations of mercia, northumbria and wessex, and the left over can be a very greater london, everyone in the home counties can have an oyster card :batman:

tbf liverpool already have there own language... aaeeemmmmm :razzaq
 
Is Scotland more europhile than England? Are they going to join the european union, the schengen space and/or the monetary union?
 
Back
Top