Scotland to vote on independence


Off-Topic Discussions

101 to 150 of 231 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Sissyl: Not it really wouldn't be a joke.

Scotland is doing it by the book, and that is great, but it is a book that is going to make things worse.

A yes vote will destroy relations between the English and the Scots, largely because 'white van man' is a moron, but the effect will be the same. Years of old national hatreds will very likely re-surface. The red tops will scream in rage, and the big three will use it as an excuse to do everything they can to scupper the split and scotlands chances at long term viability. Out leaders are vindictive toff [censored]s, who will be personally insulted by a yes vote

But there are many English people who actually support Scottish independence, and a electoral process in which people from all parts of the UK get to vote, and in which independence was one would be far easier to defend from the awful human being with power in this country.


If it results in more devolution of powers and a slightly less London-centric economy/political setup, it'll be a good thing whichever way it goes (not holding my breath, though). I would be very happy in theory with a federal republic; getting that to work in practice would be a struggle, I imagine.


I think this vote will fail. We've seen this here in Canada with the whole Quebec debate. If they separate it'll destroy them before they can get off the ground.
1) Britain can justly insist they take on their share of the UK national debt. BANG! New country is now instantly broke.
2) All utilities that serve Scotland from other areas now must cross a national border to do business. BANG! All phone calls to the rest of the island are now long distance. BANG! All power and fuel supplies that cross the new border need to be re-negotiated as international trade agreements. BANG! All goods sold or imported are now subject to NORMAL (not even punitive) trade tariffs. The economy is dropped back into an instant depression.
3) And what about those people that live in Scotland but work at what will then be a new international border? BANG! They'll suddenly need new passports and hafta file for work permits just to keep the jobs they have. Again nothing punitive- just simply applying the same rules that are used by any foreign national trying to work in the UK.

And the list goes on- Social services? why would Britain fund foreign hospitals? Correction services? No way will they pay for prisons in another country. Military? Not a chance of Britain writing off billions in military assets without an argument. Tax agreements? Extradition treaties? It would be an unmitigated mire for decades.

The Exchange

Zombieneighbours wrote:
'white van man' is a moron

Spoken like a true liberal.

The Exchange

The whole thing is interesting. I don't personally see an independent Scotland being very liberal given the strong streak of intolerance the Yes camp has brought to the party. In the event of independence, Scotland will potentially be up shit creek financially and the effect won't be much more benign in the rest of the UK. Moreover, if they do get independence, they can forget about currency unions and all that stuff - the English voter will not be tolerant of special pleading after being told for the last couple of years how he's been grinding Scottish aspirations into the dirt, oppressing a proud nation, blah blah blah. In the longer term, of course, Scotland could be a very successful smaller nation IF they run their affairs properly. But I don't see that happening. Salmond has been engaging in Fantasy Economics and after the party there would be an almighty hangover. And since the other strand of Scottish nationalism is a repudiation of everything that has actually pulled the UK out of the economic scleroticism (if that's a word), namely the liberalisation (yes, that word again) of the economy under Thatcher and (a bit) Blair, I honestly don't see them becoming the Singapore of the North, more likely the Greece. But time will tell.

I personally expect a narrow vote of No. But not confidently. On the other hand, if it's a spur to getting a fairer deal for England, without a bunch of Scottish MPs deciding stuff for us we can't decide for them, then it may be improve democracy for all. I personally have no problem with Devo Max for Scotland provided the English (and Welsh, and Northern Irish) get it too.


In principal, I don't really have an opinion on Scottish independence. In practice, I strongly expect it to cost everyone a lot of money so I'm overall against it.


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
'white van man' is a moron
Spoken like a true liberal.

An examination of why this person is/isn't an idiot would be more enlightening.


Sending Scotland broke is how the English forced the union in the first place. See the Darien disaster.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
'white van man' is a moron
Spoken like a true liberal.
An examination of why this person is/isn't an idiot would be more enlightening.

From Wiki

"White van man" is a stereotype found in the United Kingdom of the driving of smaller-sized commercial vans,[1] perceived as selfish, inconsiderate, mostly working class and aggressive.[2] According to this stereotype, the "white van man" is an independent tradesperson, such as a plumber or locksmith, self-employed, or running a small enterprise,[2] for whom driving a commercial vehicle is not the main line of business, as it is for a professional freight-driver.

The Exchange

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
'white van man' is a moron
Spoken like a true liberal.
An examination of why this person is/isn't an idiot would be more enlightening.

The dismissal of people who have different opinions to yours as morons is actually pretty illiberal. It's about him, not them. He is a typical lefty elitist who assumes that they must be stupid when actually they have their own interests which don't coincide with his, thereby demonstrating his contempt for the people whose interests he claims to have in mind.

The Exchange

The 8th Dwarf wrote:
Sending Scotland broke is how the English forced the union in the first place. See the Darien disaster.

Um, I think they sent themselves broke with Darien. The Act of Union was England bailing Scotland out. The Scots were quite grateful at the time - well, the Scottish ruling classes, anyway.

Actually, Darien is a classic example of how it can be perilous to be a small country. It's not all that different from Ireland and Iceland.


Ohh and the right don't dismiss people as stupid if don't share the same ideology...

Pot let me introduce you to kettle.


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
The 8th Dwarf wrote:
Sending Scotland broke is how the English forced the union in the first place. See the Darien disaster.
Um, I think they sent themselves broke with Darien. The Act of Union was England bailing Scotland out. The Scots were quite grateful at the time - well, the Scottish ruling classes, anyway.

I am an openly biased lefty Australian republican (Down with the monarchy type not the US keep the rich rich type) of Irish, Scottish, Dutch, French and Aboriginal descent.

Kind of colours my politics.

:-)

The Exchange

I'm not talking about specific ideologies, I'm talking about him personally. You can be as lefty as you like, but dismissing members of the working class as morons seems an odd thing to do for an avowedly left-wing person to do. Don't you think? Unless you are an elitist who really thinks the working classes are all so moronic they need "leadership" from a benificent middle- and upper-class.


ZNs not a bad bloke for a Pom ;-)

The Exchange

Yeah, and you're OK for an Aussie. But I don't think that I'm not entitled to challenge his assumptions when they seem deeply patronising to me.


Fair enough.

The Exchange

Calex wrote:

I think this vote will fail. We've seen this here in Canada with the whole Quebec debate. If they separate it'll destroy them before they can get off the ground.

1) Britain can justly insist they take on their share of the UK national debt. BANG! New country is now instantly broke.
2) All utilities that serve Scotland from other areas now must cross a national border to do business. BANG! All phone calls to the rest of the island are now long distance. BANG! All power and fuel supplies that cross the new border need to be re-negotiated as international trade agreements. BANG! All goods sold or imported are now subject to NORMAL (not even punitive) trade tariffs. The economy is dropped back into an instant depression.
3) And what about those people that live in Scotland but work at what will then be a new international border? BANG! They'll suddenly need new passports and hafta file for work permits just to keep the jobs they have. Again nothing punitive- just simply applying the same rules that are used by any foreign national trying to work in the UK.

And the list goes on- Social services? why would Britain fund foreign hospitals? Correction services? No way will they pay for prisons in another country. Military? Not a chance of Britain writing off billions in military assets without an argument. Tax agreements? Extradition treaties? It would be an unmitigated mire for decades.

If they go independent, it's not really in the UK's interests to ruin Scotland. And Scotland will continue to be part of the UK for at least 18 months (possibly a lot a longer) while the details are hammered out. But on the other hand, it's important to get a fair deal. I'd be very surprised if tarriffs and whatnot were imposed - it's not something that Britain has full control over as trade policy is largely determined at EU level. But there are a lot of issues - primarily around the debt and the currency but also dividing up national institutions like the Armed Forces, BBC etc. From what I'm reading, eighteen months, as suggested by the Scot Nats, is extremely optimistic as a timeline.

Salmond seems to think that he can refuse to take the debt as a bargaining chip to get a currency union, but I'm not seeing that. Renenging on their debts would leave the Scottish government with a credibility problem if they wanted to borrow in their own name. And annoying the UK like that would probably lead to a rapid deterioration in relations which would not be in Scottish interests. In the end, there needs to be agreement at a (UK) national level for Scotland to go - legislation, probably quite a lot of it - which means that the deal needs to be basically fair or the remaining MPs may not approve it. While Scotland might have a democratic mandate for independence, it's not necessarily at a price of screwing over the English who'd have to agree the details.

And I really don't see the UK going into a currency union when we've already seen how that works on the continent - the Bank of England is against it, and all the Westminster parties are against it, and I'd be amazed if the thought of bailing out Scottish banks at English cost - when bailing out our banks inflicted a severe recession on us just recently - would remotely fly with the English voting public. But it's also unclear the extent to which this is all a bargaining chip anyway. Salmond is pretty canny, to say the least. The idea of keeping the pound is to reassure wavering voters. If and when they get independence, there's no going back so it doesn't really matter after that politically as to whether they get the pound or not. It could be presented as a perfidious plot by the English and also given up in exchange for something else (where the maritime borders are drawn for oil purposes, for example). I would imagine their long-term interests would be to have their oown currency and monetary policy anyway - Salmond is an economist, so he must really know this.

Dark Archive

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
The 8th Dwarf wrote:
Sending Scotland broke is how the English forced the union in the first place. See the Darien disaster.

Um, I think they sent themselves broke with Darien. The Act of Union was England bailing Scotland out. The Scots were quite grateful at the time - well, the Scottish ruling classes, anyway.

Actually, Darien is a classic example of how it can be perilous to be a small country. It's not all that different from Ireland and Iceland.

Yeah As a Scott I was taught this and it is exactlly what happend. Scotlad spent a fortune trying to set up a colony and well lets just say it did not work out well at all.

Dark Archive

In all honesty more I hear from Salmond more I think he actually has no idea what he's doing.


I'm afraid Salmond knows exactly what he is doing.

He's a politician trying to create a political environment he can dominate.

He's turned a "Yes" vote for independence into a "F@CK THE TORIES" vote, and a "No" vote into "You're not a patriotic Scot" vote.

Should Salmond 'win', he will manipulate public opinion so that Westminster can be blamed for the inevitable failure of the "Scottish Utopia" he spun during the referendum campaign. [He learned to do this by watching the way the current Westminster government blames the last government for the Banking collapse.]

Salmond is a canny man who is as deceitful as any other politician.

I say this as a card carrying socialist, of Scottish extraction, living in London, who would be sad to see Scotland go.

If Scotland leave, we shall ALL be poorer for it and the man who made it happen will come up smelling of roses!

The Exchange

DM Klumz wrote:

I'm afraid Salmond knows exactly what he is doing.

He's a politician trying to create a political environment he can dominate.

He's turned a "Yes" vote for independence into a "F@CK THE TORIES" vote, and a "No" vote into "You're not a patriotic Scot" vote.

Should Salmond 'win', he will manipulate public opinion so that Westminster can be blamed for the inevitable failure of the "Scottish Utopia" he spun during the referendum campaign. [He learned to do this by watching the way the current Westminster government blames the last government for the Banking collapse.]

Salmond is a canny man who is as deceitful as any other politician.

I say this as a card carrying socialist, of Scottish extraction, living in London, who would be sad to see Scotland go.

If Scotland leave, we shall ALL be poorer for it and the man who made it happen will come up smelling of roses!

There's a lot in what you say. Although I doubt he'll be able to blame the English forever if an independent Scotland nosedives - that'll get old pretty quickly. All political careers end in failure, etc.

Something else interesting - what'll happen to the Labour party in an independent Scotland? I suppose they'll have to form a separate party, but I've got no idea if they are doomed or likely to be hegemonic rulers if the SNP stumble.


More commie propaganda:

Thousands mobilise to oppose Project Terror in Scotland

Vive le Galt!

The Exchange

That's totally hilarious. It's like the writers live in a parallel universe.


IIRC from our past encounters, I'm pretty sure we do live in a parallel universe, Citizen Aubrey.

The Exchange

Arguably, we all occupy our own individual parallel universes. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that dialectical materialism is pretty bogus. So you tell me.


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Arguably, we all occupy our own individual parallel universes. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that dialectical materialism is pretty bogus. So you tell me.

Tell you what?

The Exchange

Ah, sorry, I misread your first comment. I read "I'm pretty sure you do live in a parallel universe", which I took to mean "You are off with the fairies" when you actually wrote "I'm pretty sure we do live in a parallel universe", which suggests we don't have a common frame of reference. Apologies - different nuance (though I suspect you wouldn't disagree with the first interpretation either, given our differing political views). That said, I dunno, I think it's a bit sad if you're suggesting we can't communicate meaningfully, even if we don't agree.


Well, we're not going to be able to communicate meaningfully if you misread my posts, that's for sure.

The Exchange

:-))


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:


Salmond seems to think that he can refuse to take the debt as a bargaining chip to get a currency union, but I'm not seeing that. Renenging on their debts would leave the Scottish government with a credibility problem if they wanted to borrow in their own name.

Actually, this is among the less likely negative consequences. Sovereign countries have the absolute right to repudiate debt, and it happens on a semi-regular basis. The banks are actually prepared for that,.... and generally deal with that kind of issue on a going-forward basis. (To do otherwise would be to commit the sunk cost fallacy.) The question is not how debt was handled in the past, but how debt will be handled in the future, and there's no reason to assume that Salmond's handling of debt which he did not incur would match that of debt which he did.

It's fairly common -- if I remember the history correctly, about half the time -- for a revolutionary government replacing a heavily-indebted old regime to sweep the books clean. The problem is generally that such revolutionary governments tend not to have strong enough economies to continue to run without substantial foreign aid. That's less likely to be a problem for Scotland.

Quote:
In the end, there needs to be agreement at a (UK) national level for Scotland to go - legislation, probably quite a lot of it - which means that the deal needs to be basically fair or the remaining MPs may not approve it.

Well, if Scotland declares independence, Westminster has two choices. Recognize it, or send in the Army.

"We don't accept it" isn't among Westminster's options unless the Scots agree to that.

You are assuming a lot more active role for Westminster than may be justified. An independent Scotland is under no obligation to pay attention to Westminster up to the point where Betty Windsor decides to send in the Coldstream Guards.... and I don't see that happening.

The Exchange

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:


Salmond seems to think that he can refuse to take the debt as a bargaining chip to get a currency union, but I'm not seeing that. Renenging on their debts would leave the Scottish government with a credibility problem if they wanted to borrow in their own name.

Actually, this is among the less likely negative consequences. Sovereign countries have the absolute right to repudiate debt, and it happens on a semi-regular basis. The banks are actually prepared for that,.... and generally deal with that kind of issue on a going-forward basis. (To do otherwise would be to commit the sunk cost fallacy.) The question is not how debt was handled in the past, but how debt will be handled in the future, and there's no reason to assume that Salmond's handling of debt which he did not incur would match that of debt which he did.

It's fairly common -- if I remember the history correctly, about half the time -- for a revolutionary government replacing a heavily-indebted old regime to sweep the books clean. The problem is generally that such revolutionary governments tend not to have strong enough economies to continue to run without substantial foreign aid. That's less likely to be a problem for Scotland.

How the debt was handled in the past, though, is normally how ratings agencies assess what might happen in the future, at least to some extent. A country that repudiates its debts will therefore look less trustworthy and not good for the money. It might not lock them out of the market (though it might) but it might increase the cost of borrowing substantially. The effect is not permanent but it would be an inauspicious start.

Quote:
Quote:
In the end, there needs to be agreement at a (UK) national level for Scotland to go - legislation, probably quite a lot of it - which means that the deal needs to be basically fair or the remaining MPs may not approve it.

Well, if Scotland declares independence, Westminster has two choices. Recognize it, or send in the Army.

"We don't accept it" isn't among Westminster's options unless the Scots agree to that.

You are assuming a lot more active role for Westminster than may be justified. An independent Scotland is under no obligation to pay attention to Westminster up to the point where Betty Windsor decides to send in the Coldstream Guards.... and I don't see that happening.

Scotland isn't independent after the referendum, it's the start of a process moving towards independence, which requires the consent of the rest of the UK. If they vote yes, I don't think there is any likelihood of Westminster saying No - we are a democracy, and the parties have agreed to stand by the result, and Scotland would have a democratic mandate. But there is a lot of stuff to do before they actually get independence. And they want stuff from us, namely a currency union. There's also talk they'll need £100bn of reserves in to shore up their banking system, which the UK will have to lend them. So the price of independence is currently unclear. Bearing in ind that the rest of the UK is paying as well as Scotland, there will need to be some give and take otherwise Scotland could find itself in trouble if the UK decides to cut up rough. So paying attention to Westminster, and negotiating in good faith, is very much in their interests post-Yes. A unilateral declaration of independence would probably send Scotland down the pan, given how many unresolved issues it leaves (banking, currency, debt, security, and so on) which would create such a bad business environment that it'd take them years to recover. For a country with a large state sector, I can't see how they would avoid a really horrible recession. So I don't see that happening either. What I see happening is messy compromise, as usually happens in the UK.


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:


It's fairly common -- if I remember the history correctly, about half the time -- for a revolutionary government replacing a heavily-indebted old regime to sweep the books clean. The problem is generally that such revolutionary governments tend not to have strong enough economies to continue to run without substantial foreign aid. That's less likely to be a problem for Scotland.
How the debt was handled in the past, though, is normally how ratings agencies assess what might happen in the future, at least to some extent.

Not really in this case. An independent Scotland would have a very good case for not being responsible for inherited debt.

Quote:
A country that repudiates its debts will therefore look less trustworthy and not good for the money.

Again, not really in this case. "Westminster borrowed the money, let Westminster pay it back."

It might not lock them out of the market (though it might) but it might increase the cost of borrowing substantially. The effect is not permanent but it would be an inauspicious start.

Quote:
Scotland isn't independent after the referendum, it's the start of a process moving towards independence, which requires the consent of the rest of the UK. If they vote yes, I don't think there is any likelihood of Westminster saying No - we are a democracy, and the parties have agreed to stand by the result, and Scotland would have a democratic mandate. But there is a lot of stuff to do before they actually get independence. And they want stuff from us, namely a currency union. There's also talk they'll need £100bn of reserves in to shore up their banking system, which the UK will have to lend them. So the price of independence is currently unclear.

The "price" of independence? That's basically the problem.

Westminster will not be in a position to withhold consent or to extract a price. Westminster will indeed be in a position to attempt to offer terms to avoid a unilateral withdrawal on terms more-or-less dictated by the Scots.

In the event of a "yes" vote, Scotland has independence in hand if it wants it. Westminster is not in a position to say "No," or even "No, unless ...." unless it wants to send in the Army.

Negotiation theorists talk about a "BATNA," a "best alternative to a negotiated agreement." Scotland's BATNA after a "yes" vote is likely simply to be declaring independence and telling Westminster to get stuffed. Any suggestions from Westminster that declaring independence would be more burdensome than simply saying "sod off" are impractical, unrealistic, and wrong.

From a negotiation perspective, Westminster needs to find something that the Scots want more than unconditional independence -- it needs to think in terms of carrots, not sticks.

I'm not seeing a lot of carrots in your suggestions.

"You're not independent until we say so."
"Look up `independent' sometime."
"You can't use the pound without our consent."
"Yes, we can. Look at Ecuador."
"You need to take on your share of the debt."
"Nope, your debt, your problem."
"You need our money to shore up our banking system."
"Nope, we'll use the money we're not spending on rUK debt."
"Your economy will tank."
"We'll sell oil. We do that already."

It's not clear to me what Westminster's BATNA is, but threats to destroy Scotland are probably not part of it. Especially toothless threats. Similarly, giving Scotland independence but only under onerous conditions isn't practical, since an independent Scotland can simply reject the conditions out of hand.

Letting Scotland walk away may be in Westminster's best interests, or that may be damaging enough to the UK economy that Westminster would prefer to throw in some parting gifts. Westminster may also feel that the BATNA involves the Coldstream Guards. There are lots of options,.... but none of them involves the phrase "the price of independence." You can't charge someone who is unwilling to pay.


Orfamay Quest wrote:


You are assuming a lot more active role for Westminster than may be justified. An independent Scotland is under no obligation to pay attention to Westminster up to the point where Betty Windsor decides to send in the Coldstream Guards.... and I don't see that happening.

A pretty large proportion of the Army is Scottish...

I think, if independence does occur, it will be an SNP/Labour duopoly, though Labour will suffer as a result of their calling for a 'No' votes. The Lib Dems have a bit of a presence in the Highlands/Islands but not much in the urban areas (so far as I know) - be interesting to see who forms the opposition if Labour does diminish to any degree (Greens? SSP?)


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
'white van man' is a moron
Spoken like a true liberal.

Audrey, I grew up in trade. 'white van man' was the people my father worked with and drank with. My dad was a 'white van man'though a very atypical one, a plumber who trained as a chemist before that. My opinion of 'white van man' does not derive from liberalism. It derives from hour upon tedious hour in their presence. From listening to them spouting opinions I could identify as moronic as early as seven years old.

It is my experience that are a lot of men, who make their living in trade in Essex who are decent people, and there are a lot who are really nasty people, but hte vast majority lack the educational basis to understand anything other than their trade, and a RABID disinterest in changing that, and a equally rabid interest in maintaining their world view through the red tops.

If anything, my feeling on the matter are a failing of my higher self. Being self analytical, I consider it very much a right leaning line of thinking, one I am not entirely comfortable with. It is an emotional judgement, based on anecdotal experience. Pretty much the antithesis of the way I aspire to form my thoughts on such matters.


Limeylongears wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


You are assuming a lot more active role for Westminster than may be justified. An independent Scotland is under no obligation to pay attention to Westminster up to the point where Betty Windsor decides to send in the Coldstream Guards.... and I don't see that happening.
A pretty large proportion of the Army is Scottish...

That's part of the reason I don't see Army intervention as likely. I also don't see even the soldiers from Kent as being happy enforcing London's mandate on Scotland after a "yes" vote.

And on a broader political scale, I don't see the backbenchers wanting to go home and explain a decision to mobilize to prevent Scottish independence after a "yes" vote.

But that's part of why "we won't let you go unless...." fails as a negotiating strategy. The Scottish response could, quite literally, be "you and whose army?"

The Exchange

The army won't intervene. This isn't Russia/Crimea. It's not even worth discussing.

But I'll say it again - the Scots want stuff. They want the pound, they want currency union, they'll likely need to borrow money from us to shore up their banking system. They can't really say "Ta ta, losers!" and not expect there to be some very significant economic repurcussions. The risk to business of that sort of situation will be bad for both parties but it'll doubtless be worse for Scotland. Starting everything from scratch would be incredibly expensive. The EU would likely not welcome them with open arms - Spain's hardly going to want to see that precedent.


Even beyond the things they specifically want, they've got a border which has been open for centuries. There's cross border trade, people who live on one side and work on the other, citizens of each country that live and work in the other. All sorts of things that will need legal work to sort out.

It's not anywhere near so simple as "we won't let you go unless....".

There is leverage. On both sides.

The Exchange

Also, consider the scenario that Scotland says "Ta ta, losers!" and refuses to take any debt or compromise in any way. The UK could retaliate by refusing to support the Scottish banking system. Then you'll see capital flight, first from interbank lenders but then possibly retail bank runs. Either way, it'll have a severe knock on effect on the Scottish economy, especially as they won't actually have the reserves to shore up the system, in sterling or any other currency (remember that £100bn they need). Business would begin to fail, those that can will leave, and no one will want to invest in Scotland. Economic activity dives, unemployment shoots up, putting further pressure on the public purse. Even if the Scottish government could borrow, it'd cost them so much under this scenario (bear in mind, this is pretty nuch a repeat of what has happened in Europe because of the weakness of the banking sector) that it wouldn't be worth it except under the direst situations, and doing so would put them in a debt sprial they could not climb out of (think Greece). So you are looking at a potential meltdown of the system before they've even got started. And with not a shot fired. Now, the Scot Nats could do it, but it'll be a pretty Phyrric victory, and I don't think it's what anyone voting for independence would really want to envision, all for the benefit of tweaking the UK's nose? Which is why they won't do it, and will negotiate.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I don't have and I suspect many of the posters here don't either, the knowledge to say whether Scotland should break off or not.

I do suspect though, that ultimately the movement whether it results in Scottish separation or preserved union whether now, or sometime down the pike will serve its purpose in a forced airing of Scottish and UK issues.

No matter how it goes, I hope the vote has a huge turnout.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Also, consider the scenario that Scotland says "Ta ta, losers!" and refuses to take any debt or compromise in any way. The UK could retaliate by refusing to support the Scottish banking system. Then you'll see capital flight, first from interbank lenders but then possibly retail bank runs.

Some banks have already started implementing departure plans.


There was no way, of course, I'd be able to resist posting Billy Bragg arguing for Scottish independence.

Tear down the Union Jack!
Vive le Galt!


LOL at the commercial plea when you open the page.
Vive le Commercialism!


It was just last year that WBAI collapsed. :(

Please dig deep, comrades, to make sure that Amy and Juan can keep providing Comrade Anklebiter with fodder for the OTD. Also, Nermeen Shaikh, meow!


Well, I'll just sit back and watch the fireworks. Already a couple of people said things I wish they weren't were. Oh well.

Scottish Independence? My brother would be all for it. Me? I live in America, born and raised. I care about the politics of my nation and not the politics of my family's mother country.


Living in Taiwan has its privileges. We get informative computer animations that make sense of complex issues. Here is the Taiwanese take on Scottish independence: Be informed

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

It was just last year that WBAI collapsed. :(

To be more accurate that was just the close of the slow death of the station that had been going on since the end of the '90s when it was doing it's best to prove Lincoln's maxim that "a house divided against itself can not stand."


Quote:
It isn't odd that the rest of the union doesn't get to vote. That would make it a joke.

The impact it will have on the UK is quite large: if Scotland leaves or stays but with enhanced powers, it will be impossible to deny a superior level of devolution to Wales and Northern Ireland, and the demand for regional assemblies within England itself (for Yorkshire, Cornwall, the Midlands etc) will be very strong.

The effect this will have on the UK is immense. At the moment all of the country's money goes into a central pot and is redistributed. With regional assemblies all with tax-raising powers (which Scotland will get, so they will have to as well), the situation will be rather different.


Werthead wrote:
Quote:
It isn't odd that the rest of the union doesn't get to vote. That would make it a joke.
The impact it will have on the UK is quite large: if Scotland leaves or stays but with enhanced powers, it will be impossible to deny a superior level of devolution to Wales and Northern Ireland, and the demand for regional assemblies within England itself (for Yorkshire, Cornwall, the Midlands etc) will be very strong.

By that argument, the Belgians, Catalonians, and Ukranians should get a vote as well.


I want a vote too! This is New England, not Old England, but let's not be ageist.

101 to 150 of 231 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Scotland to vote on independence All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.