# Scottish independence - as an Englishman, am I "wrong" not to give a crap?



## ca-nami (Jan 29, 2014)

Right and wrong don't exist, as all know.

However, despite people saying "we need to keep the Union!" and "We're stronger together!" and other such crap, does it matter if Scotland becomes a sovereign state?

I personally don't believe it does, since England is the reason why the UK is still a world power.  Whenever Cameron talks of "our economy is the 6th largest and this is something we can all be proud of", er.. where exactly is that "economy" generated?  it's not Scotland...


----------



## 8ball (Jan 29, 2014)

ca-nami said:


> I personally don't believe it does, since England is the reason why the UK is still a world power.  Whenever Cameron talks of "our economy is the 6th largest and this is something we can all be proud of", er.. where exactly is that "economy" generated?  it's not Scotland...


 
But do you want your dynamic English economy to be held back by them malingering Jocks?


----------



## ca-nami (Jan 29, 2014)

er.. no.  This is the point, let them have independence.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Jan 29, 2014)

Would probably mean we're stuck with the Torries for even longer. 

But no, I don't have feeling on the matter either way, I don't live there.


----------



## geminisnake (Jan 29, 2014)

Don't feed the troll!


----------



## ca-nami (Jan 29, 2014)

Global Stoner said:


> Would probably mean we're stuck with the Torries for even longer.
> 
> But no, I don't have feeling on the matter either way, I don't live there.



And Labour "we caused the recession" and "we had an evil man as PM from 97-07" would be any better?


----------



## geminisnake (Jan 29, 2014)

Global Stoner said:


> Would probably mean we're stuck with the Torries for even longer.


FFS!!!! How many times do danny and I have to link to the wiki page that fucking PROVES this is a myth???


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 29, 2014)

the only reason we get to pretend to be a world power is so we're an extra US vote in the UN security council, nothing more.


----------



## ca-nami (Jan 29, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> Don't feed the troll!



i'm a troll since I voice an opinion?  OK lol..


----------



## 8ball (Jan 29, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> FFS!!!! How many times do danny and I have to link to the wiki page that fucking PROVES this is a myth???


 
Are you a time traveller?


----------



## Nylock (Jan 29, 2014)

An op argument based on English exceptionalism... this thread is going places


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Jan 29, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> FFS!!!! How many times do danny and I have to link to the wiki page that fucking PROVES this is a myth???



I must have missed that memo.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 29, 2014)

I find it fascinating and whatever the outcome its going to be an historic event, but no I have no great desire for one particular outcome.


----------



## ca-nami (Jan 29, 2014)

Nylock said:


> An op argument based on English exceptionalism... this thread is going places



I simply don't care about the issue.  Is this wrong to state, or is there a reason I must care?


----------



## Nylock (Jan 29, 2014)

ca-nami said:


> I simply don't care about the issue.  Is this wrong to state, or is there a reason I must care?


my comment was in response to your 'thanks to England rah rah' bullshit. If you genuinely don't care, why bring that one up? Oh, and btw, England and Scotland aren't the only countries in the union...


----------



## ca-nami (Jan 29, 2014)

Nylock said:


> my comment was in response to your 'thanks to England rah rah' bullshit. If you genuinely don't care, why bring that one up? Oh, and btw, England and Scotland aren't the only countries in the union...



I don't care.  is there a reason I must?


----------



## MrSki (Jan 29, 2014)

ca-nami said:


> I simply don't care about the issue.  Is this wrong to state, or is there a reason I must care?


You don't care that much that you start a thread about it?


----------



## ca-nami (Jan 29, 2014)

MrSki said:


> You don't care that much that you start a thread about it?



er...  what?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 29, 2014)

Can I change the answer I gave on the 'smacking kids' thread?


----------



## geminisnake (Jan 29, 2014)

Global Stoner said:


> I must have missed that memo.



I went and found it, but only coz I like you 

danny's post from the indy thread in the Scotland/Alba forum.

That's not true, though, as has been pointed out several times during the thread. The thing to remember is that Scotland only returns a tiny proportion of the UK's MPs; in 2015, the number of Scottish MPs will be 52 out of 600. That's 8.66%. And although Scotland only returned one Tory last time, not all of its other MPs are Labour: there are also SNP and Lib Dems. Indeed, those Lib Dems actually contributed to putting David Cameron into number 10 last time.

When Blair came to power in 1997, his majority was 179. Without Scottish MPs he'd still have had his majority (even if all of Scotland’s MPs were Labour, which they weren't).

Here are the stats again:

http://wingsland.podgamer.com/why-labour-doesnt-need-scotland/


----------



## geminisnake (Jan 29, 2014)

ca-nami said:


> i'm a troll since I voice an opinion?  OK lol..



Ok, you might not be a troll but you really should go and look and see where the economy figures come from because it's not all England in any way.


----------



## ca-nami (Jan 29, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> Ok, you might not be a troll but you really should go and look and see where the economy figures come from because it's not all England in any way.



lulz..  I don't care again.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Jan 29, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> I went and found it, but only coz I like you
> 
> danny's post from the indy thread in the Scotland/Alba forum.
> 
> ...



Thank you


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 29, 2014)

It would be nice to see Scotland independent; I just hope that it doesn't descend into worse variants of sectarian hatreds that we have seen in the 6 counties/NI.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 29, 2014)

It's not that I don't care it's just that I can see the upside of both outcomes.

I feel sorry for the Scots being saddled with the Tories that we vote in and I'd be happy to see them get away from that but at the same time if they choose to stay in the union I appreciate their contribution to a slightly less Tory dominated parliament.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2014)

ca-nami said:


> Right and wrong don't exist, as all know.
> 
> However, despite people saying "we need to keep the Union!" and "We're stronger together!" and other such crap, does it matter if Scotland becomes a sovereign state?
> 
> I personally don't believe it does, since England is the reason why the UK is still a world power.  Whenever Cameron talks of "our economy is the 6th largest and this is something we can all be proud of", er.. where exactly is that "economy" generated?  it's not Scotland...


You are not an englishman. You're pretty clearly an american.


----------



## ca-nami (Jan 29, 2014)

er.. yes, I've lived in the US for ten years.  And?


----------



## Nylock (Jan 29, 2014)

ca-nami said:


> lulz..  I don't care again.


cool story bro!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2014)

ca-nami said:


> er.. yes, I've lived in the US for ten years.  And?


Bingo!


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 29, 2014)

ca-nami said:


> er.. yes, I've lived in the US for ten years.  And?


 
So, it doesn't impact on you whether or not Scotland stays or goes? But on another thread you are anxious that "we" leave the EU... hmmm.


----------



## ca-nami (Jan 29, 2014)

I'm British you dope.  So yes I can't care about my own country?  hahahah.. idiot.


----------



## gosub (Jan 29, 2014)

i can see this thread lasting longer than ca-nami


----------



## Nylock (Jan 29, 2014)

I reckon it'll probably get binned around the same time. Scottish independence threads seem to be two-a-penny around these here parts of late* 







*and this one will contribute as much as the OP to the overall debate: The square root of fuck-all


----------



## kebabking (Jan 29, 2014)

yes, you are wrong - Scotland becoming independant will effect you (assuming you live in the UK) - the effects/emotions of a divorce will undoubtedly cause some political change/side effects within the rest of the UK, the divvying up of resources/debt will definately effect you, whatever happens to Trident - whether moving it or decommissioning it - will cost you money, and the UK Air Defence system you probably don't know exists will have 400+ miles of its radar coverage removed.

its quite possible that if you have children who live on the other side of the border the previously agreed court orders will no longer be enforcable, perhaps the same will occur for Child Maintainence payments. 

this is not an academic exercise, it will have significant effects even on the the southernmost - and only an idiot doesn't care about something that effects them.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2014)

The 24 Tube stations and other parts of national infrastructure that Scotland own and will sell off to Germany, the 9% of Gibraltar they're going to sell to Spain...and so on.


----------



## ca-nami (Jan 29, 2014)

er.. Most countries in the world don't have nukes.  As for debt, the UK remainder/Scotland would most likely come up with treaty to determine this, it makes sense.


----------



## gosub (Jan 29, 2014)

Nylock said:


> my comment was in response to your 'thanks to England rah rah' bullshit. If you genuinely don't care, why bring that one up? Oh, and btw, England and Scotland aren't the only countries in the union...



Technically Wales is a principality, even Owain Gwynedd consisdered himself a Prince rather than King, and doesn't have a Parliament its an Assembly, I think it stems from having a patron saint who sweated the small stuff.


----------



## krink (Jan 29, 2014)

Yes you're not wrong to not give no crap. you can go now.


----------



## Nylock (Jan 29, 2014)

gosub said:


> ....sweated the small stuff.



Probably being a bit thick here, but what does that mean?


----------



## gosub (Jan 29, 2014)

Nylock said:


> Probably being a bit thick here, but what does that mean?



The example of his life, and the modernity of his most famous saying - that we should concentrate on "doing the little things in God's presence with conscientiousness and devotion," make St David a figure with a contemporary appeal.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 29, 2014)

ca-nami said:


> er.. Most countries in the world don't have nukes...



you think they should go into landfill?, or perhaps be dropped off at a couple of the charity shops in Helensborough?

200 nuclear weapons and 4 nuclear reactors are not just switched off and placed in the 'small electrical appliances' bin at the local tip, they require decommissioning, and that is expensive - it is also quite possible that an independant Scotland would not allow such work to take place on its soil, which means it would have to be done elsewhere. guess where that would be...


----------



## geminisnake (Jan 29, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> It would be nice to see Scotland independent; I just hope that it doesn't descend into worse variants of sectarian hatreds that we have seen in the 6 counties/NI.



 Why would it?? The sectarian crap that goes with certain football teams are a very small number of people. Most weegies I have encountered coming to the NE are amazed that we don't give a shit about it here. Doesn't happen north of the central belt ime.


----------



## ca-nami (Jan 29, 2014)

kebabking said:


> you think they should go into landfill?, or perhaps be dropped off at a couple of the charity shops in Helensborough?
> 
> 200 nuclear weapons and 4 nuclear reactors are not just switched off and placed in the 'small electrical appliances' bin at the local tip, they require decommissioning, and that is expensive - it is also quite possible that an independant Scotland would not allow such work to take place on its soil, which means it would have to be done elsewhere. guess where that would be...



not my issue.
why do you presume that all of the loose ends won't be discussed, and that Salmond and Cameron won't be reasonable?


----------



## kebabking (Jan 29, 2014)

ca-nami said:


> not my issue.
> why do you presume that all of the loose ends won't be discussed, and that Salmond and Cameron won't be reasonable?



if you live in England, Wales or Northern Ireland it certainly is your issue - it might get done near you, and even if it isn't you'll be paying for it.

these issues will be discussed - what is unknown is whether a mutually acceptble agreement will be reached, and what that will be. 

you are, obviously, an idiot.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 29, 2014)

kebabking said:


> guess where that would be...


Cellar under Westminster?


----------



## kebabking (Jan 29, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Cellar under Westminster?



oh no, somewhere poor and grateful.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 29, 2014)

kebabking said:


> oh no, somewhere poor and grateful.


It was just wishful thinking.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Jan 29, 2014)

I'd love to see it happen. Really fucking love to see an Independent, forward looking Scotland making its way in the world. Hopefully it would prompt a more few right-headed people south of the border to have a good hard think about what we want out of a country, and why the people who run ours are still pricking about in wood paneled rooms wearing wigs and robes and telling people that what they want 'simply isn't possible'.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Jan 29, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> It was just wishful thinking.


Doesn't the Houses of Parliament require some serious underpinning to stop it falling into the river? 

A golden opportunity! Fissile materials are very dense so burying the nuclear weapons under the building would be ideal. A new strong foundation, with the happy side effect of free underfloor heating for several hundred thousand years.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Jan 29, 2014)

kebabking said:


> yes, you are wrong - Scotland becoming independant will effect you (assuming you live in the UK) - the effects/emotions of a divorce will undoubtedly cause some political change/side effects within the rest of the UK, the divvying up of resources/debt will definately effect you, whatever happens to Trident - whether moving it or decommissioning it - will cost you money, and the UK Air Defence system you probably don't know exists will have 400+ miles of its radar coverage removed.
> 
> its quite possible that if you have children who live on the other side of the border the previously agreed court orders will no longer be enforcable, perhaps the same will occur for Child Maintainence payments.
> 
> this is not an academic exercise, it will have significant effects even on the the southernmost - and only an idiot doesn't care about something that effects them.


I think you might be right about a divorce triggering a change in England. With luck it would force the North and the other regions to assert themselves more and demand more self-governing powers to rebalance the deeply unhealthy dominance of London.  

That would be a very good thing in my book.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 29, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> Why would it?? The sectarian crap that goes with certain football teams are a very small number of people. Most weegies I have encountered coming to the NE are amazed that we don't give a shit about it here. Doesn't happen north of the central belt ime.


 
Who knows; overall, I imagine it would be a positive thing. Independence, not sectarianism.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 29, 2014)

ca-nami said:


> I'm British you dope.  So yes I can't care about my own country?  hahahah.. idiot.


 
In that case, you care. You really do.


----------



## coley (Jan 29, 2014)

kebabking said:


> oh no, somewhere poor and grateful.


The NE mair than likely


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Jan 29, 2014)

Oh. They've been banned. Who was it do you think?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 29, 2014)

Global Stoner said:


> Oh. They've been banned. Who was it do you think?


Nigel Farage?


----------



## kebabking (Jan 29, 2014)

farmerbarleymow said:


> I think you might be right about a divorce triggering a change in England. With luck it would force the North and the other regions to assert themselves more and demand more self-governing powers to rebalance the deeply unhealthy dominance of London.
> 
> That would be a very good thing in my book.



i fear sadly that whats more likely is an almighty sulk with a 'well fuck you all..' reaction - nasty, insular nationalism with people like UKIP doing distressingly well, withdrawl from the ECHR, flouncing out of the EU etc.. truth is, if Scotland decides to leave the UK its going to hurt, its going to be like a partner saying they don't want to be with you anymore, and as most of us who've been through that know, it can - certainly initially - bring out some pretty unpleasent, self-defeating emotions.

my own view is that in the event of a 'no' vote in Scotland the kind of political restructuring you've mentioned is more likely than with a 'yes' vote - certainly the 3 main westminster parties seem to think that a referendum in Scotland is a shot across their bows and that stuff has to change. devo-max for Scotland appears to be universally on offer post 2015, and something broadly similar for Wales. i imagine in such an event that a campaign for a Council of the North would be pushing at an open door...


----------



## kebabking (Jan 29, 2014)

coley said:


> The NE mair than likely



Plymouth seems to be pushing quite hard to get the new submarine base if its required - theres already lots of infrastructure there for both the SSN's and SSBN's - and an extra 5,000 well paid, high skill jobs, as well as the £3-5bn it would cost to build a new Faslane/Coulport at Devonport would be very welcome. if it comes to it, expect to find anyone opposing it locked in a cellar....


----------



## geminisnake (Jan 29, 2014)

gosub said:


> i can see this thread lasting longer than ca-nami



You win


----------



## weepiper (Jan 29, 2014)

kebabking said:


> Plymouth seems to be pushing quite hard to get the new submarine base if its required - theres already lots of infrastructure there for both the SSN's and SSBN's - and an extra 5,000 well paid, high skill jobs, as well as the £3-5bn it would cost to build a new Faslane/Coulport at Devonport would be very welcome. if it comes to it, expect to find anyone opposing it locked in a cellar....



The MOD says the subs can't go to Plymouth because 



> the dockyard is in a densely populated area and, if there were an accident, thousands of people would be at risk. The worst accident scenario envisaged by the MoD would kill up to 11,000 people in Plymouth and would not meet the official criteria for what is acceptable, according to a new report.



which tells you everything about how much the government gives a fuck about Scotland and its people given that Faslane is 40 miles from Scotland's largest city.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/04/mod-nuclear-submarines-scotland-plymouth


----------



## kebabking (Jan 29, 2014)

weepiper said:


> ...which tells you everything about how much the government gives a fuck about Scotland and its people given that Faslane is 40 miles from Scotland's largest city.



if HMNB Clyde was just outside Govan you might have a point, but its not, its 40 miles away, and its prevailing wind does not go towards Glasgow. Devonport however is _in_ Plymouth, its not even as far as Pacific Quay is from Central station...

in the event of Trident leaving Scotland, expect the MOD's assessment of Devonports suitability to change.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 29, 2014)

kebabking said:


> if HMNB Clyde was just outside Govan you might have a point, but its not, its 40 miles away, and its prevailing wind does not go towards Glasgow. Devonport however is _in_ Plymouth, its not even as far as Pacific Quay is from Central station...
> 
> in the event of Trident leaving Scotland, expect the MOD's assessment of Devonports suitability to change.



Well, they drove a convoy of 19 trucks carrying nuclear weapons right through central Glasgow on the M74 last night so I think I'll stick to feeling that I _do_ have a point.



> Motion S4M-08888: Bill Kidd, Glasgow Anniesland, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 29/01/2014
> 
> That the Parliament notes with grave concern what it believes is the regular transportation of nuclear weapons on roads throughout Scotland; understands that, in the early hours of the morning of 29 January 2014, a 19-vehicle convoy, which was transporting nuclear weapons from the Atomic Weapons Establishment in Berkshire to Coulport on Loch Long, used the M74 to drive through Glasgow; further understands that such convoys do not carry radiation warning symbols and neither the public nor the local authority areas that they pass through are warned about the material being transported; believes that the majority of the people of Glasgow and Scotland remain opposed to the UK Government's policy of maintaining and upgrading the Trident system, and hopes that public awareness of what it sees as this ongoing and dangerous practice will strengthen the calls to rid Scotland of nuclear weapons once and for all.



http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msps/currentmsps/Bill-Kidd-MSP.aspx


----------



## brogdale (Jan 29, 2014)

Speaking after his meeting today with Salmond, I noticed Carney correct himself when talking about the hypothetical post Scottish independence remaining state; at first he said _"...the rest of the UK"..., _but then quickly corrected to _"...the continuity UK...". 
_
So, if nothing else, we've discovered what a post independence 'UK' state would call itself; the CONUK.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 29, 2014)

continuity UK sounds well terrorist. home counties contras


----------



## brogdale (Jan 29, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> continuity UK sounds well terrorist. home counties contras





Ultimately though, they'll have to remain what's left because it can't be called the "United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland". I suppose there's a possible one word switch that might accurately suffice? The "United Kingdom of *South* Britain & Northern Ireland"


----------



## coley (Jan 29, 2014)

kebabking said:


> Plymouth seems to be pushing quite hard to get the new submarine base if its required - theres already lots of infrastructure there for both the SSN's and SSBN's - and an extra 5,000 well paid, high skill jobs, as well as the £3-5bn it would cost to build a new Faslane/Coulport at Devonport would be very welcome. if it comes to it, expect to find anyone opposing it locked in a cellar....



I was thinking more of the storage of the nuclear rubbish that will be generated by upping sticks from Faslane, they should also put on hold any warship construction planned for our Caledonian comrades.


----------



## coley (Jan 29, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Ultimately though, they'll have to remain what's left because it can't be called the "United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland". I suppose there's a possible one word switch that might accurately suffice? The "United Kingdom of *South* Britain & Northern Ireland"


I have had  a suspicion for many years that the political elite in London would like to divest itself of the 'regions'


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 30, 2014)

coley said:


> I have had  a suspicion for many years that the political elite in London would like to divest itself of the 'regions'



Wogs start at Camberwell, as they almost say.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 30, 2014)

weepiper said:


> Well, they drove a convoy of 19 trucks carrying nuclear weapons right through central Glasgow on the M74 last night so I think I'll stick to feeling that I _do_ have a point.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msps/currentmsps/Bill-Kidd-MSP.aspx



the MSP thinks that the MOD should put an advert in the Evening Times as to when and where Nuclear Weapons will be moved around? hmm.. interesting logic - has he considered a career as a village idiot?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 30, 2014)

weepiper said:


> The MOD says the subs can't go to Plymouth because
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I used to live in Plymouth. Pretty much every week on the local news it would be 'MOD accidentally dumps loads of radioactive shite into Plymouth sound'. They'd get fined about 4 quid every time and politely asked to maybe see about trying not to do it quite so often in the future. 

Still, it's nice to know that killing 11,000 people does not fall within the criteria for what is acceptable. Then again with any other project that would pretty much go without saying. 

I wonder how many people these criteria do allow the MoD to kill? Bearing in mind of course that they have enough nuclear missiles to obliterate roughly twice the population of Earth.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 30, 2014)

kebabking said:


> in the event of Trident leaving Scotland, expect the MOD's assessment of Devonports suitability to change.



IIRC there is no other harbour in the country deep enough to host these submarines.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Jan 30, 2014)

weepiper said:


> The MOD says the subs can't go to Plymouth because
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's a perfectly sensible risk analysis, and has less than fuck all to do with what country it may be in. Exactly why siting it in a city wouldn't be the first choice - you site nuclear facilities as far away from population centres as you can, within the constraints of geographical requirements. 

Look where Sellafield is - in a relatively sparsely populated part of England, although not that far from the main central belt of Northern cities. If that went tits up, there would be significant effects on the north, but it is as far away as can practicably be within our geography. See also Dounreay. 

We live on a small island - our choices for these sites are limited. 

So nothing to do with disdain for Scotland, and everything to do with common sense and prudent planning.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Jan 30, 2014)

kebabking said:


> the MSP thinks that the MOD should put an advert in the Evening Times as to when and where Nuclear Weapons will be moved around? hmm.. interesting logic - has he considered a career as a village idiot?



Exactly. Just like Manchester declared itself a nuclear free city. As if that will stop the government transporting nuclear material through it if necessary. It's a national security and infrastructure issue, and local sensibilities are irrelevant as long as it is transported as securely as practicable.*

* yes, there are arguments about the safety standards but there always will be with nuclear material.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jan 30, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> IIRC there is no other harbour in the country deep enough to host these submarines.



Falmouth is deep enough but whether it would be politically possible to build the base there is another matter. They would probably just co-locate with the US Navy Atlantic Trident fleet at Kings Bay, GA as an interim measure at least. That would be a hell of a lot cheaper anyway.


----------



## Tooter (Jan 30, 2014)

ca-nami said:


> England is the reason why the UK is still a world power.  Whenever Cameron talks of "our economy is the 6th largest and this is something we can all be proud of..



Haha oh dear! A double whammy of dissolusionment. The UK a word power? What world do you live in?

I think with oil and gas wealth along with textile, banking, whisky, petroleum/chemical exports valued at nearly 100 billion they would do ok. It would place Scotland amongst he top 35 exporters in the world.

45% of those exports beyond the Uk are to EU member states though
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fff67a62-88fa-11e3-bb5f-00144feab7de.html#axzz2rsNFRq3J

And most of those exports are to the rest of the UK which will no doubt be used as a bargaining chip :/

To be honest I wish them well, I reckon the Scottish people will vote for independence. Can't see the government accepting it though, I just hope the North follow suit )


----------



## brogdale (Jan 30, 2014)

Another one that could have 'graced' any number of threads...



> A former Scottish secretary has sparked outrage after claiming a vote for independence would dishonour Britain's war dead.
> 
> Lord [Ian] Lang of Monkton, a Conservative cabinet minister under John Major, said that splitting up the Union would *"dishonour the sacrifices made in common cause of those who died for the UK".*
> 
> ...


----------



## geminisnake (Jan 30, 2014)

Oh do fuck off!!


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 30, 2014)

He's always reminded me of a Vampire. A proper one, not these new moody teenager ones.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 30, 2014)

> He argued that the UK had been a "magnificent success story"



Oh so we're dishonouring our war dead by wanting to leave the UK? Huh.



> Scotland provided more men in proportion to population than any other part of Britain, and lost more men than any other country participating in the conflict with the exception of Turkey and Serbia



A magnificent success story, that is, apparently, and _we're _the disrespectful ones.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/scottishhistory/modern/intro_modern.shtml


----------



## kebabking (Jan 30, 2014)

Tooter said:


> Haha oh dear! A double whammy of dissolusionment. The UK a word power? What world do you live in?...



its somewhat off topic, but what definition of a 'world power' do you think the UK does not meet, and doesn't do so by some margin?

in economic terms the UK is a 'World Power' at number 7 in the world. in military terms the UK is a world power at perhaps number 2 or 3 in the world - its nuclear forces, navy and air power put it there, rather than just having several million barely trained conscripts. in diplomatic terms the UK is one of only 5 permament members of the security council. in cultural terms the UK is probably only second to the US - language, literature, film etc.. 

what of the above does not meet any reasonable definition of 'world power'?


----------



## Nylock (Jan 31, 2014)

Militarily we are number 5... Above us are the USA, China, Russia and India...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 31, 2014)

Nylock said:


> Militarily we are number 5... Above us are the USA, China, Russia and India...




I could have them all


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jan 31, 2014)

In terms of state sponsors of terrorism the UK ranks number 2, punching above it's bloated ego.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 31, 2014)

kebabking said:


> its somewhat off topic, but what definition of a 'world power' do you think the UK does not meet, and doesn't do so by some margin?


I'd ask the question another way.  Why does the UK (by which I mean the government) feel the need to be a world power?  Why does it feel the need to have such high military spending?  Is it a throw back to the Empire?  In reality, all this addiction to being a "world power" achieves is getting the UK involved in illegal wars and conflicts, often on the shirt tails of the US.  

It is my hope that in the unlikely event that the Scottish people vote for independence, that no Scottish government would be so stupid as to try to be a "world power".  I hope they'd get rid of the nuclear weapons, vastly reduce military spending, and get the hell out of NATO.  (NB.  The SNP's current policy is to do the first, to be somewhat disappointing on the second, and to fail on the third).


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jan 31, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> I'd ask the question another way.  *Why does the UK (by which I mean the government) feel the need to be a world power?  Why does it feel the need to have such high military spending?  Is it a throw back to the Empire?  In reality, all this addiction to being a "world power" achieves is getting the UK involved in illegal wars and conflicts, often on the shirt tails of the US.  *
> 
> It is my hope that in the unlikely event that the Scottish people vote for independence, that no Scottish government would be so stupid as to try to be a "world power".  I hope they'd get rid of the nuclear weapons, vastly reduce military spending, and get the hell out of NATO.  (NB.  The SNP's current policy is to do the first, to be somewhat disappointing on the second, and to fail on the third).



Recently read Web of Deceit; Britain's Real Foreign Policy by Mark Curtis.
(Forgive the copy and paste, i think he sums it up quite well)

_The view has long been held that Britain ‘has lost an empire and not yet found a role’, in the famous words of US Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, several decades ago. Yet Britain’s real role is easily discovered if we are concerned enough to look; the problem is that the results of such a search are quite unpleasant. Britain’s role remains an essentially imperial one: to act as junior partner to US global power; to help organise the global economy to benefit Western corporations; and to maximise Britain’s (that is, British elites’) independent political standing in the world and thus remain a ‘great power’.

I think it is a mistake to see Britain simply as a ‘poodle’ of the US, as though Britain slavishly follows Washington for the sake of preserving a special relationship. The situation is in reality more serious. Most client states feel bound by their masters; Britain is different in choosing to support US actions and in being willingly subservient. Many of the worst US policies are supported by British elites because the latter agree with the US quite independently, not simply out of loyalty to a special relationship. Those elites acted with complete disregard for moral standards when they ruled the globe so it is hardly surprising that their successors give the same latitude to the US.

If, as the myth goes, Britain generally supports popular, democratic forces struggling against elites, why did Britain not support the African National Congress and instead choose to back successive apartheid regimes in South Africa?; why did it not support a succession of progressive movements in Latin America struggling against US-backed elites, but chose to side with the US in undermining them?; why didn’t it support the various popular African movements like the MPLA in Angola or Frelimo in Mozambique?; why doesn’t it support popular movements like the Zapatistas in Mexico?_


----------



## DownwardDog (Jan 31, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> It is my hope that in the unlikely event that the Scottish people vote for independence, that no Scottish government would be so stupid as to try to be a "world power".  I hope they'd get rid of the nuclear weapons, vastly reduce military spending, and get the hell out of NATO.  (NB.  The SNP's current policy is to do the first, to be somewhat disappointing on the second, and to fail on the third).



It would take a very long time for Scotland to get into NATO - at least ten years. They would have to work through the PfP - IPAP - ID - MAP process. Bosnia and Herzegovina became independent in 1992 and they only achieved MAP in 2010 and probably won't be full members until 2015.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 31, 2014)

Nylock said:


> Militarily we are number 5... Above us are the USA, China, Russia and India...



not really - China, India and Russia are a slighty odd cases - Russia has a massive arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons with global reach, yet its conventional forces are regional at best, and despite the numbers of them, actually pretty limited. its Navy is a far greater danger it its own sailors than it is to anyone else, its Army is huge but relatively immobile, and its air force is _largely_ obsolete. it has some 'world power' capabilities, but lacks many others.

China has about 30% more nuclear warheads than the UK, but unlike the UK a significant proportion of them are carried by tactical fighters and short to medium range missiles - so they are a danger to anyone near China, but not to anyone outside of a relatively small bubble. China, like Russia, has massive _numbers_, but the proportion of those numbers it can use against anyone it doesn't share a land border with is actually very small - again, like Russia, it has a large air force, but only a small proportion of that air force is modern (thats the bit they publicise..), and China also has very little in the way of 'strategic reach' - it has very little heavy airlift, or tankers, or AWACS, or electronic intelligence gathering.

India is similar - it has fewer nuclear weapons than the UK, and none of them have global reach, it has a massive conventional military in pure numbers, but only a thin crust of that military is modern or remotely mobile.

China is changing however - its cutting back on its Army and concentrating spending on its Navy, at the moment the PLA(N) is both limited in capability and reach, but that will change in the next decade - they are copying the USN model and going for large carrier battle groups, which will, certainly by 2025, be cruising the worlds seas. then they will truly be a world power..


----------



## Belushi (Jan 31, 2014)

The worlds top military spenders in 2012.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 31, 2014)

kebabking said:


> not really - China, India and Russia are a slighty odd cases - Russia has a massive arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons with global reach, yet its conventional forces are regional at best, and despite the numbers of them, actually pretty limited. its Navy is a far greater danger it its own sailors than it is to anyone else, its Army is huge but relatively immobile, and its air force is _largely_ obsolete. it has some 'world power' capabilities, but lacks many others.
> 
> China has about 30% more nuclear warheads than the UK, but unlike the UK a significant proportion of them are carried by tactical fighters and short to medium range missiles - so they are a danger to anyone near China, but not to anyone outside of a relatively small bubble. China, like Russia, has massive _numbers_, but the proportion of those numbers it can use against anyone it doesn't share a land border with is actually very small - again, like Russia, it has a large air force, but only a small proportion of that air force is modern (thats the bit they publicise..), and China also has very little in the way of 'strategic reach' - it has very little heavy airlift, or tankers, or AWACS, or electronic intelligence gathering.
> 
> ...



ignore this quoted post my comp is being wierd


----------



## kebabking (Jan 31, 2014)

Belushi said:


> The worlds top military spenders in 2012.



China's total military manpower is well over 2 million people - they have to be fed, clothed, paid and housed. Russia's total of regular personnel is around 800,000 - the number of its reservists is 20 _million_.

spending does not equal capability, its what you spend money _on_ that determines whether you have mobility and capability.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 31, 2014)

kebabking said:


> China's total military manpower is well over 2 million people - they have to be fed, clothed, paid and housed. Russia's total of regular personnel is around 800,000 - the number of its reservists is 20 _million_.
> 
> spending does not equal capability, its what you spend money _on_ that determines whether you have mobility and capability.



I was too busy gasping at the amount the USA spends


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 31, 2014)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> _I think it is a mistake to see Britain simply as a ‘poodle’ of the US, as though Britain slavishly follows Washington for the sake of preserving a special relationship. The situation is in reality more serious. Most client states feel bound by their masters; Britain is different in choosing to support US actions and in being willingly subservient. Many of the worst US policies are supported by British elites because the latter agree with the US quite independently, not simply out of loyalty to a special relationship. _


I'd agree with that.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 31, 2014)

Their was a very silly letter in one of brightons TA centres after brighton declared itself a nuclear free zone and wrote to the MOD demanding no nuclear weapons were based at the drill hall
  Eventually somebody wrote back offically stating uk nuclear policy is a matter  for whitehall and its policy to niether confirm  or deny the presence of nuclear weapons at any mod base and if the army thought it operationaly neccessary to issue nuclear weapons to 6/7 Queens it would 
   Not exactly sure what a TA unit would do with a tactical nuclear weapon


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 31, 2014)

DownwardDog said:


> It would take a very long time for Scotland to get into NATO - at least ten years.


This is discussed on the other thread.  It would be my hope, though, that Scotland wouldn't join NATO.


----------



## Tooter (Jan 31, 2014)

kebabking said:


> its somewhat off topic, but what definition of a 'world power' do you think the UK does not meet, and doesn't do so by some margin?
> 
> in economic terms the UK is a 'World Power' at number 7 in the world. in military terms the UK is a world power at perhaps number 2 or 3 in the world - its nuclear forces, navy and air power put it there, rather than just having several million barely trained conscripts. in diplomatic terms the UK is one of only 5 permament members of the security council. in cultural terms the UK is probably only second to the US - language, literature, film etc..
> 
> what of the above does not meet any reasonable definition of 'world power'?



7th and 5th in the world eh? For now.
Ok maybe culturally we are still a player on a global scale, especially musically speaking I agree with that.
Firstly Military power, For what? Let's see if we are still 5th in a couple of years when the cuts really take hold, the Navy and Airforce are already being cut.


> "the majority of the reduction in current spending on public services as a proportion of national income over three quarters is still to come. Much of it is due after March 2014. The OBR’s March forecast is that public sector net debt will peak at 76.3% of GDP in 2014-15. Accumulated national debt will be over 76% of national income in 2014-15 and still over 74% in 2016-17, It will not fall back to pre crisis levels for a generation." IFS.org


People are tired of being dragged into confrontation all over the world, I'm sure lots of people would prefer the hundreds of millions is spent at home building hospitals and schools, building infrastructure and creating jobs, trying to rebuild some kind of industry.
Nuclear weapons, loads of countries have them, I don't think that makes us any great power, ten countries have 22,000 warheads. Enough to destroy the planet many times over, Who are we going to use them against? Someone who doesn't have them? Really? Or someone who does have them? Really? All it takes is one warhead and the Uk is fucked, It's not even worth pretending.
We are a tiny island compared to everyone else on that list. No longer is there a huge empire. We trudge around behind America and the EU like some playground bully. Our national debt is going to top TEN TRILLION in 2015. We have no industry left save the financial sector. It's the highest youth unemployment rate in 17 years.
Do you need me to go on? It's time to stop living in times gone by.

Anyway, I don't want to derail the thread, I may be wrong in your eyes but that's my opinion. No doubt many people do believe we are still some big player on the world stage...

If Scotland does go for independence I wonder where that leaves the Uk in those rankings.


----------



## Nylock (Jan 31, 2014)

kebabking said:


> not really - China, India and Russia are a slighty odd cases - Russia has a massive arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons with global reach, yet its conventional forces are regional at best, and despite the numbers of them, actually pretty limited. its Navy is a far greater danger it its own sailors than it is to anyone else, its Army is huge but relatively immobile, and its air force is _largely_ obsolete. it has some 'world power' capabilities, but lacks many others.
> 
> 
> China has about 30% more nuclear warheads than the UK, but unlike the UK a significant proportion of them are carried by tactical fighters and short to medium range missiles - so they are a danger to anyone near China, but not to anyone outside of a relatively small bubble. China, like Russia, has massive _numbers_, but the proportion of those numbers it can use against anyone it doesn't share a land border with is actually very small - again, like Russia, it has a large air force, but only a small proportion of that air force is modern (thats the bit they publicise..), and China also has very little in the way of 'strategic reach' - it has very little heavy airlift, or tankers, or AWACS, or electronic intelligence gathering.
> ...


...tbf with our nuclear arsenal we are also an oddity. Sure, we can project force around the world, but without NATO and the US exactly what can we do with it? Afghanistan is hardly a sterling example of us projecting force into another country and then 'winning' there is it? Likewise Iraq. We have the capability to fight short, sharp engagements and win in the short term but we lack the the resources and manpower to do anything in the long term beyond policing actions from entrenched fortifications. We can't, for instance, run a full-scale occupation of another territory without assistance from allies and we can barely fight a foreign war on one front -and that's also *with* assistance from allies. Yeah, great, so we can potentially run a short, sharp war into one of those 'anomalous' states like China or Russia (if they couldn't retaliate with nuclear weapons) but inconveniently we'd be driven back into the sea by the sheer weight of numbers ranged against our military.

The last time we were able to project 'hard' power in order to maintain military control over another territory was at the height of the British empire -and even then that was down to _vast_ technological superiority and the personal greed of local elites. We are now seeing the same pattern with the current hegemon. The difference is that technology is easier to come by for the people fighting against countries like the US and UK so the tech gap is somewhat narrower. Also, thanks to squeamishness about brutal policing operations and subsequent massacres by the military from the civilian populations in countries like the US and UK, the ability of those military apparatus' to project force to the fullest extent they can (like empires did ever anon until the late 20th century) is somewhat curtailed due to pesky things like popular democracy and uppity citizens who feel they have the right to protest against such horrors. The only constant since our 'glory days' is the personal greed of local elites and that particular factor only has one loyalty -and it isn't to the crown or, nowadays, the state department...

We have a highly trained but relatively small military (and it's getting smaller all the time). We're still living under the illusion that we are somehow still a world power because we (or rather our elite) refuse to face reality. The only true world power at the moment is the USA and we are largely along for the ride. 

Oh, and China may have a smaller, less capable navy than us at present, but at least their aircraft carriers have planes...


----------



## Rooter (Jan 31, 2014)

Does Scotland receive funding from London?  Will independence actually save england money?

Does anyone believe the average Scottish person will notice if they gain independence?  

What about the Welsh?  Does their assembly mean they are sort of independent? 

Who pays the benefits?  DWP ? so many questions...


----------



## Tooter (Jan 31, 2014)

http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn135.pdf


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 31, 2014)

Rooter said:


> Does Scotland receive funding from London?  Will independence actually save england money?
> 
> Does anyone believe the average Scottish person will notice if they gain independence?
> 
> ...



Yes but all of these are easily answerable with google.


----------



## Rooter (Jan 31, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> Yes but all of these are easily answerable with google.


really?  I would have thought a thread in a topical forum may have provided me with some deeper insight.... nevermind.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2014)

Rooter said:


> really?  I would have thought a thread in a topical forum may have provided me with some deeper insight.... nevermind.


7 do you th....oh god


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 31, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Not exactly sure what a TA unit would do with a tactical nuclear weapon



"Don't press that button!"

"What, this button?"


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 31, 2014)

Rooter said:


> really?  I would have thought a thread in a topical forum may have provided me with some deeper insight.... nevermind.



OK, but these are really basic questions that have asked and answered a thousand times.  But if you insist:

1) Scotland receives funding from the UK government. But money raised through Scottish assists go straight into the central exchequer. So it depends who you read but most sources believe Scotland about breaks even so independence probably wont save any money for the rest of the UK
2) Of course.  Do you think anyone from the republic of Ireland still thinks they're in the UK?
3) Wales has a devolved assembly which has some powers but Wales is still part of the UK, as it stands there are no plans for a vote on whether Wales should cede from the UK
4) Local and national government, this will be the case regardless

Now there are questions that people should be asking are regarding the viability of a sterling zone, Scotland's relationship with the EU etc etc.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 31, 2014)

Rooter said:


> really?  I would have thought a thread in a topical forum may have provided me with some deeper insight.... nevermind.


As you are so very new here, you may not know that there is a very long thread in the appropriate sub-forum, with over 1000 posts, which has discussed your questions repeatedly and at length.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 31, 2014)

Rooter said:


> What about the Welsh?  Does their assembly mean they are sort of independent?


No.


----------



## gosub (Jan 31, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> This is discussed on the other thread.  It would be my hope, though, that Scotland wouldn't join NATO.



SNP white paper has it as a policy commitment, and the US will make US subs being able to dock at Faslane a condition of membership


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2014)

I feel unable to contribute much to this thread until I've also read the main thread in the Scotland forum ... will get around to this some time ahead of the referendum ... 

Just for now though :

Despite a half way convincing link posted by geminisnake earlier, I find it VERY hard to rid myself of the gut fear that if Scotland goes independent, people in England (and in Wales too, for the time being) will be at far greater risk of perpetual majority-Tory government.

And we're likely to be retiring back to England eventually -- chances stronger in the long term than staying here in Wales. And while we still remain in Wales, there's implications for us here as well.

In all respects other than selfish ones though, I have no problems at all with Scottish independence in principle. But would devo-max be any worse for Scotland?

I do accept I need to read up more, and I intend to.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 31, 2014)

Personally I think Scottish independence in inevitable I just think that this vote has come at a bad time with the widespread economic gloom, the high profile roll the Scottish banks (yes, I know they are Scottish only in name) played and the problems Ireland and other smaller EU economies have suffered.  I think all of these factors will make enough Scottish voters worried enough to vote No this time around.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 31, 2014)

gosub said:


> SNP white paper has it as a policy commitment


Indeed.  I am, though, neither a member nor supporter of the SNP.

And I have discussed the details on the other thread.


----------



## Alphonsus Jack (Jan 31, 2014)

Can someone direct me to the other thread please as I think I should read that first before making some half- baked comment 
Cheers


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 31, 2014)

Alphonsus Jack said:


> Can someone direct me to the other thread please as I think I should read that first before making some half- baked comment
> Cheers



http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/will-you-vote-for-independence.287096/page-35

35 pages for you to catch up on.


----------



## Alphonsus Jack (Jan 31, 2014)

Thanks Teaboy I will get reading.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 31, 2014)

Positive outcome of yes vote:  Somewhere to migrate to when tories/labour finish breaking up the NHS.

Positive outcome of no vote:  The gloomy expression on the face of smug Trump-felator Salmond.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2014)

Migrate to Scotland? Here in SW Wales it has rarely stopped raining since New Years Day, but we *are* able to take comfort from : at least its not quite as bad in Wales as its been in Scotland!


----------



## Alphonsus Jack (Jan 31, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Positive outcome of yes vote:  Somewhere to migrate to when tories/labour finish breaking up the NHS.
> 
> Positive outcome of no vote:  The gloomy expression on the face of smug Trump-felator Salmond.



Out of interest do people consider the article from money week re UK debt worth anything?
http://info.moneyweek.com/urgent-bu...=2&rx=0&eae=2&vis=1&fu=4&ifi=1&pfi=0&dtd=1356


----------



## gosub (Jan 31, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Migrate to Scotland? Here in SW Wales it has rarely stopped raining since New Years Day, but we *are* able to take comfort from : at least its not quite as bad in Wales as its been in Scotland!



We've had about twelve hours of rain and no snow all month here in Leith


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 31, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Migrate to Scotland? Here in SW Wales it has rarely stopped raining since New Years Day, but we *are* able to take comfort from : at least its not quite as bad in Wales as its been in Scotland!


It's been the best winter I can remember here, so far. Mild, occasionally wet, but nothing severe.


----------



## geminisnake (Jan 31, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> . But would devo-max be any worse for Scotland?



Devo max isn't on offer, Westminster demanded it got removed from the options so fuck em. I would vote Indy even if DM was an option.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2014)

gosub said:


> We've had about twelve hours of rain and no snow all month here in Leith



Bad luck fella.
You confirm my earlier point


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> It's been the best winter I can remember here, so far. Mild, occasionally wet, but nothing severe.



Not sure where you are in Scotland, but that sounds East!


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> Devo max isn't on offer, Westminster demanded it got removed from the options so fuck em. I would vote Indy even if DM was an option.



Good for you. But surely, Scotland in general would be even more likely to vote no to Independence (than now) if devo-max had been on offer??


----------



## gosub (Jan 31, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Bad luck fella.
> You confirm my earlier point


If you can't handle 12 hours rain in a month there's nowhere you'd want to live I would


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2014)

Hardcore!!


----------



## weltweit (Jan 31, 2014)

If Scotland becomes independent, their constituencies will not send MPs to Westminster any more. Scotland is staunchly labour which means the labour vote will be reduced. Basically if Scotland goes independent, the likelihood of a tory government in Westminster increases.

That is just one reason someone English might care about Scottish independence. Another is the size and general importance of Britain / the UK in the world. The UK will be diminished if Scotland leaves.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 31, 2014)




----------



## weltweit (Jan 31, 2014)

weepiper said:


>


what?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 31, 2014)

weltweit said:


> If Scotland becomes independent, their constituencies will not send MPs to Westminster any more. Scotland is staunchly labour which means the labour vote will be reduced. Basically if Scotland goes independent, the likelihood of a tory government in Westminster increases.


That effect is overstated. Labour would still have won without Scotland in 97, 01 and 05.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 31, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That effect is overstated. Labour would still have won without Scotland in 97, 01 and 05.


Ok, but there is an effect at some level no?


----------



## weltweit (Jan 31, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Ok, but there is an effect at some level no?


And if Wales leaves as well .....


----------



## weepiper (Jan 31, 2014)

weltweit said:


> what?



Post #7. Then post #20.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 31, 2014)

Not enough to have changed the election result in Blair's three wins. Before that, we had tories for two decades, and going back further to the 50s, Scotland was as tory as anywhere. 

As I said, the effect is overstated.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2014)

weltweit said:


> And if Wales leaves as well .....


And Yorkshire, perhaps, too. And all the other Labour bits of the UK?

If England were only the home counties, then yes, Labour would be in trouble.

Scotland is less than 10 per cent of the UK. Wales is less than 5 per cent.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Feb 1, 2014)

weltweit said:


> And if Wales leaves as well .....



That could never, ever happen. Scotland is a pretty crap country but it's still a country. Wales stops being an economically viable self-governing entity at the point when settled agriculture is invented.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 1, 2014)

weepiper said:


> Post #7. Then post #20.


You facepalmed in #125 about something said in #7 and #20??


----------



## weepiper (Feb 1, 2014)

weltweit said:


> You facepalmed in #125 about something said in #7 and #20??



I facepalmed at you coming in and repeating something which has already been explained to be wrong. On the first page of the thread.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 1, 2014)

Silas Loom said:


> That could never, ever happen. Scotland is a pretty crap country but it's still a country. Wales stops being an economically viable self-governing entity at the point when settled agriculture is invented.


Have their own language ...


----------



## weltweit (Feb 1, 2014)

weepiper said:


> I facepalmed at you coming in and repeating something which has already been explained to be wrong. On the first page of the thread.


Oh ... that wasn't clear


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Have their own language ...


English is the main language in Wales.


----------



## gosub (Feb 1, 2014)

In answer to the now banned op in terms he might have grasped, divide and rule by the EU (except requires existing nation states to play ball)  and they aren't


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Feb 1, 2014)

weepiper said:


> explained to be wrong. On the first page of the thread.



Well, there's a link to a blog, which makes two points: firstly, Scottish Labour MPs are offset by others, so their contribution to a majority isn't as big as you might think, and secondly, majorities have been big enough in the past for them not to have made a substantial difference.

Given that the trend is towards more seats for smaller parties and independents, that's not a knockdown argument against suggestions that Scottish Labour MPs could make a significant difference in 2015 or 2020.

So the treatment Weltweit is getting from the woad-smeared shouty lot is unfair.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 1, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> English is the main language in Wales.


As it happens, I lived in Wales a while ..
Try trying to get work in various sectors ... without being a welsh speaker.

eta. or getting an education without learning welsh


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Feb 1, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Have their own language ...



As do the Cornish. And Geordies.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2014)

weltweit said:


> As it happens, I lived in Wales a while ..
> Try trying to get work in various sectors ... without being a welsh speaker.


I lived there for the first 19 years of my life.  One in five people in Wales speak Welsh. In the bit I'm from, Gwent, make that about one in 50.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 1, 2014)

weepiper said:


> I facepalmed at you coming in and repeating something which has already been explained to be wrong. On the first page of the thread.




I agree, but with qualifications.

That simplistic point that weltweit made has been explained earlier in the thread as being very open to dispute and contradiction, with some electoral statistics that do appear to oppose it.

Still, the perpetual Tory dominance fear for S of the border has not been conclusively *proved* to be wrong That link that geminisnake posted way back (and to a *blog*!), was from someone who very definitely had a dog of his own in this fight.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 1, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I lived there for the first 19 years of my life.  One in five people in Wales speak Welsh. In the bit I'm from, Gwent, make that about one in 50.




In Swansea, 1 in 100 ..... 

(rough guess. But it's a highly anglicised place)


----------



## weltweit (Feb 1, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I lived there for the first 19 years of my life.  One in five people in Wales speak Welsh. In the bit I'm from, Gwent, make that about one in 50.


Ok..
My understanding now is that kids going to school in wales, learn welsh and many schools teach all subjects in welsh rather than English. Now I don't know exactly which schools, or what proportion of schools ...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Still, the perpetual Tory dominance fear for S of the border has not been conclusively *proved* to be wrong That link that geminisnake posted way back, was from someone who very definitely had a dog of his own in this fight.



The argument can't be made from history, though. The meaningful history, ie the last 40 years, shows that the UK minus Scotland would have had the same general election result every time. History older than that isn't really relevant. Go back to the 50s and the Tories polled 50 per cent in Scotland.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> In Swansea, 1 in 100 .....
> 
> (rough guess. But it's a highly anglicised place)


You've got Llanelli up the road. Welsh has strongholds, mostly in the north.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Feb 1, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The meaningful history, ie the last 40 years,



Any GE results earlier than 2015's are not meaningful; no UKIP and a different view of the LDs.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 1, 2014)

littlebabyjesus 

I'm more thinking about NOW to be honest, but my only real point is that this particular subject (Tory domination of England/Wales threat? Crap or Not Crap?) is still highly debatable.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Ok..
> My understanding now is that kids going to school in wales, learn welsh and many schools teach all subjects in welsh rather than English. Now I don't know exactly which schools, or what proportion of schools ...


Yes, all schools teach Welsh now. They didn't when I was at school - it's changed. There are Welsh-language schools in certain parts of Wales, but these are totally absent from many parts because there isn't a demand for them. I have no problem with this at all - it is similar to the Basque country in this regard in that the Welsh-language schools tend to have good progressive principles, as the Basque-language schools in the Basque country do. But most Welsh people do not speak Welsh. A very large majority don't. 

Most Basque people don't speak Basque either, fwiw, and Wales has as much chance of independence as the Basque country - zero.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> littlebabyjesus
> 
> I'm more thinking about NOW to be honest, but my only real point is that this particular subject (Tory domination of England/Wales threat? Crap or Not Crap?) is still highly debatable.



More so than the last 40 years? Why would you think that?


----------



## weltweit (Feb 1, 2014)

I didn't often hear welsh spoken while I lived there. I did hear of various jobs that basically went to welsh speakers. Jobs in S4C for example.

I recall arriving at a festival in West Wales, walking into a bar with folk chatting happily in English. When I ordered a drink and it became apparent I was English their conversation switched seamlessly into welsh. I found that quite rude.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2014)

Jobs in S4C, the Welsh-language tv channel?  Well I never.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I recall arriving at a festival in West Wales, walking into a bar with folk chatting happily in English. When I ordered a drink and it became apparent I was English their conversation switched seamlessly into welsh. I found that quite rude.



I've heard of this happening. Bits of West Wales and bits of North Wales are quite heavily Welsh-speaking. But these are pockets, and you might have noticed when you were in West Wales that are not actually very many people there.

You could live in Newport, a big town, and be there for months or years without hearing a word of Welsh.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 1, 2014)

Those bastards. Speaking in their native language. To each other! The cunts.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2014)

weepiper said:


> Those bastards. Speaking in their native language. To each other! The cunts.


The point is the switch. I've not witnessed it myself, but I've heard of that before.

There is another side to that - where, for instance, a committee has to switch to English to accommodate the one member who doesn't speak Welsh. I can understand how that would piss people off. There sometimes are not good solutions.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 1, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I recall arriving at a festival in West Wales, walking into a bar with folk chatting happily in English. When I ordered a drink and it became apparent I was English their conversation switched seamlessly into welsh. I found that quite rude.



Are you sure that this really happened? I've been a Welshman for over forty years now and I've never once witnessed this occur, despite the urban myth among the English that this happens all the time (despite the fact that most Welsh people are Anglophones).


----------



## weltweit (Feb 1, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I've heard of this happening. Bits of West Wales and bits of North Wales are quite heavily Welsh-speaking. But these are pockets, and you might have noticed when you were in West Wales that are not actually very many people there.
> 
> You could live in Newport, a big town, and be there for months or years without hearing a word of Welsh.


I used to live in Cardiff and work in the valleys.

I wasn't a parent back then, I understand welsh is now taught at school. tbh as an English person I don't want my offspring to learn welsh, not enough speakers of it, Spanish, German, Chinese, Japanese certainly as they are widely spoken and will probably bring real opportunities but sorry, not welsh, nor latin!


----------



## weltweit (Feb 1, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Are you sure that this really happened? I've been a Welshman for over forty years now and I've never once witnessed this occur, despite the urban myth among the English that this happens all the time (despite the fact that most Welsh people are Anglophones).


Yes, it definitely happened.
It made me cross because I had just been living in Germany and Germans would not dream of doing something like that. Instead if they realised you were English they would be more likely to stop speaking German and switch to English so they could include you. Not so the folk at this festival.

Don't get me wrong, it only happened once in perhaps 4-5 years of living in Wales. I like Wales and enjoyed living there, nice place, nice people, great beaches!


----------



## Nylock (Feb 1, 2014)

William of Walworth, Swansea has not always been as anglicised as you claim and, coming from the upper Swansea valley myself, that part of the country outside the city has always been a bit of a welsh language stronghold. For instance my grandfather's generation was technically bilingual but spoke welsh given the choice (and that's pretty much everyone of his age), my father's generation was more mixed but still fluent and my generation more 'anglicised' than the previous ones but i'd say around 75% of people of my generation in the area speak welsh to at least conversational level with most of that number still being fluent in the language. The local primary school was welsh, then became bilingual in the 1970's but with most kids speaking welsh and of the two comprehensive schools in the area; one is bilingual and one is welsh language only. This is pretty typical for south west and west wales (or at least the bit of it I am familiar with)...

Not quite sure how a discussion about the welsh language fits into a scottish independence thread but wth, it's urbans innit


----------



## Belushi (Feb 1, 2014)

Weird. I don't even sound Welsh (I sound fucking Australian) and I've never witnessed it. I've certainly been places where everyone's speaking Welsh but I've not once witnessed people suddenly switch from English to Welsh when they've heard my accent.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 1, 2014)

> coming from the upper Swansea valley myself,



My Mam was from Abercrave


----------



## Nylock (Feb 1, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Yes, it definitely happened.
> It made me cross because I had just been living in Germany and Germans would not dream of doing something like that. Instead if they realised you were English they would be more likely to stop speaking German and switch to English so they could include you. Not so the folk at this festival.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, it only happened once in perhaps 4-5 years of living in Wales. I like Wales and enjoyed living there, nice place, nice people, great beaches!


It happened to me and my dad when we were in Holyhead, we went into a pub and ordered pints in English and when the locals switched, so did we... There were some embarrassed faces at the bar when they realised we understood every word of what was said when they mistakenly assumed us to be just another couple of anglophones from the south 

But tbh, it only happened the once in my entire lifetimes experience of wales -and typically it was a bunch of fucking gogs getting all uppity


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Weird. I don't even sound Welsh (I sound fucking Australian) and I've never witnessed it. I've certainly been places where everyone's speaking Welsh but I've not once witnessed people suddenly switch from English to Welsh when they've heard my accent.


I've met you. You do sound Welsh. Maybe people just don't know what to listen for. Most people don't pick up on me being Welsh. It comes out a bit when I've been back visiting my folks or sometimes when I'm annoyed.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 1, 2014)

What I wanted to say that


kebabking said:


> Russia has a massive arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons with global reach, yet its conventional forces are regional at best, and despite the numbers of them, actually pretty limited. its Navy is a far greater danger it its own sailors than it is to anyone else, its Army is huge but relatively immobile, and its air force is _largely_ obsolete. it has some 'world power' capabilities, but lacks many others.
> .



I can't help but think of a general briefing Hitler here 'oh its all good they've got millions of men but the gear is laughable'

what happens when they are climbing over the mountains of dead and won't stop coming?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2014)

Nylock said:


> But tbh, it only happened the once in my entire lifetimes experience of wales -and typically it was a bunch of fucking gogs getting all uppity


I've only ventured into North Wales once, but I did pick up on a bit of hostility when I was there. It does happen.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 1, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I've met you. You do sound Welsh. Maybe people just don't know what to listen for. Most people don't pick up on me being Welsh. It comes out a bit when I've been back visiting my folks or sometimes when I'm annoyed.



I definitely think it's only other Welshers who can hear it, you sounded welshy to me too but I don't think others would pick up on it


----------



## Belushi (Feb 1, 2014)

Nylock said:


> It happened to me and my dad when we were in Holyhead, we went into a pub and ordered pints in English and when the locals switched, so did we... There were some embarrassed faces at the bar when they realised we understood every word of what was said when they mistakenly assumed us to be just another couple of anglophones from the south
> 
> But tbh, it only happened the once in my entire lifetimes experience of wales -and typically it was a bunch of fucking gogs getting all uppity



Apologies for doubting you weltweit , this obviously does happen, but its okay because it's the Gogs, and we all know what they're like


----------



## Nylock (Feb 1, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I've only ventured into North Wales once, but I did pick up on a bit of hostility when I was there. It does happen.


One of my best mates is from the north (Dolgellau). She's sound as fuck but really blunt and she reckons it's because it's pretty tough up there so it produces people that are 'no-nonsense' and that can come across as inhospitable to us southern jessies  .


----------



## Belushi (Feb 1, 2014)

They should have their own sub-forum really; where they can discuss going to Chapel, and Mr Urdd and whatever else Gogs are into.


----------



## Nylock (Feb 1, 2014)

Southie-baiting, 'our welsh is better than your welsh', 'pembroke and gwent are not really welsh, they're little bits of england' etc etc


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 1, 2014)

I did once do a delivery to wales, as a drivers mate. First thing in the morning phone call 'can you pal up with this driver' so yes I said. Quick wash with a hand towel on the pits n bits then I throw on the nearest clean t shirt. Its a fucking england T which I thought nothing of till the loading bay staff jeered at me 'ooooh lad yer taking the mick' etc

I don't even like football or nationalism or wales or england. Leave me alone man.


----------



## DownwardDog (Feb 1, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> What I wanted to say that
> 
> 
> I can't help but think of a general briefing Hitler here 'oh its all good they've got millions of men but the gear is laughable'
> ...



In my experience people have respect and/or fear for the Soviet/Russian armed forces in inverse proportion to the amount of time they've been exposed to them. Having met, worked with and eventually become friends with ex Sov/Russian mil I have no fear and a only a modicum of respect. They can easily win any bout of Organisational Dysfunction Top Trumps that ex mil types love to engage in.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 1, 2014)

DownwardDog said:


> In my experience people have respect and/or fear for the Soviet/Russian armed forces in inverse proportion to the amount of time they've been exposed to them. Having met, worked with and eventually become friends with ex Sov/Russian mil I have no fear and a only a modicum of respect. They can easily win any bout of Organisational Dysfunction Top Trumps that ex mil types love to engage in.




you never faced them in anger though. Shiny death plane is shiny, but if the bastards just keepcoming...


----------



## free spirit (Feb 1, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> I went and found it, but only coz I like you
> 
> danny's post from the indy thread in the Scotland/Alba forum.
> 
> ...





> - Scottish MPs have NEVER turned what would have been a Conservative government into a Labour one, or indeed vice versa.


This is based on a pretty misleading interpretation of the Feb 1974 election, which would have looked like this without Scotland.

Labour : 301 - 40 = 261
Conservative : 297 - 21 = 276
Liberal : 14 - 3 = 11
SNP : 7 - 7 = 0
UUP : 7 - 0 = 7
Plaid : 2 - 0 = 2
DUP : 1 - 0 = 1
Others : 6 - 0 = 6

Conservatives would have had 15 more MPs than Labour without Scotland, instead of Labour having 4 more than the Conservatives.

If the Conservatives and the Unionists had been able to come to an agreement, they'd have had a majority of 4 between them, and even without their full support the conservatives would have probably formed a minority government with only a minority of 6.

So it's pretty likely that the Scottish MPs made the difference between a Tory vs a Labour government in 1974, so we could have had the Tories in power continuously from 1974 to 1994.

Also, without Scotland we'd have had a tory majority government at the last election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_February_1974
http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge74a/seats74a.htm


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2014)

free spirit said:


> Also, without Scotland we'd have had a tory majority government at the last election.


And? 

Really. And?


----------



## free spirit (Feb 1, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And?
> 
> Really. And?


and well, fuck it, if you're going to ignore the main bulk of my post, then I can't be arsed to respond tbh.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 1, 2014)

I got that wrong before, we'd have had a continuous tory government from 1970-1994.



This obviously assumes that other election results didn't change, which probably wouldn't have been the case in reality as that election change could have had all sorts of knock on effects into the future.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2014)

free spirit said:


> and well, fuck it, if you're going to ignore the main bulk of my post, then I can't be arsed to respond tbh.


I'm not. You mentioned two elections. The outcome of the second - the most recent - is one that you seem to think would have been worse without Scotland. I absolutely question that. I question that so fucking much. This fucking government. _This one_. You're saying that it's better for not being a tory majority govt? Really?


----------



## free spirit (Feb 1, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not. You mentioned two elections. The outcome of the second - the most recent - is one that you seem to think would have been worse without Scotland. I absolutely question that. I question that so fucking much. This fucking government. _This one_. You're saying that it's better for not being a tory majority govt? Really?


oh fuck off, I said none of this, I just stated the electoral fact that we'd have had a tory majority government rather than a coalition.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2014)

free spirit said:


> oh fuck off, I said none of this, I just stated the electoral fact that we'd have had a tory government rather than a coaltion.


And the 'coalition' has enabled right wing policies. It has allowed the tories to pursue a naked agenda of destroying the very concept of a state that helps people, of a state as a thing in which people help each other. The 'coalition' front has facilitated this. It is the most right wing govt in living memory ffs.

heath is positively pinkie compared to Clegg/Cameron.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 1, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And the 'coalition' has enabled right wing policies. It has allowed the tories to pursue a naked agenda of destroying the very concept of a state that helps people, of a state as a thing in which people help each other. The 'coalition' front has facilitated this. It is the most right wing govt in living memory ffs.


so you are going to entirely ignore the main point of my post then to preach to the converted about the evils of this government?

righto, glad I took the time to actually go back and check the stats used in that article rather than taking it at face value.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 1, 2014)

To put it another way, 1 out of the last 4* Labour Governments would probably have been a Conservative government without the Scottish MPs / electorate.

Personally I think that should count as being a pretty significant impact Scotland has had on the UK electoral landscape, as opposed to the idea being pushed in that blog post that Scotland had 'NEVER turned what would have been a Conservative government into a Labour one'.



*OK 5 if you include the 2nd first and 2nd labour governments of 1974 as 2 separate labour governments, but the 2nd election may well have not even happened if the first had been that much different.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2014)

free spirit said:


> so you are going to entirely ignore the main point of my post then to preach to the converted about the evils of this government?
> 
> righto, glad I took the time to actually go back and check the stats used in that article rather than taking it at face value.


I'm happy to accept that Heath would have won in 74 without Scotland. But if we're examining historic close elections, perhaps you'd like to examine the 1950s? Scotland hasn't always been pro-labour.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 1, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm happy to accept that Heath would have won in 74 without Scotland. But if we're examining historic close elections, perhaps you'd like to examine 1951 and whether or not Attlee would have won without Scotland. Why stop at the 70s?


1950... 11 more lab than tory votes in Scotland vs a Labour majority of 5, so without Scotland it would have turned it from a majority Labour government to a minority Labour government, or maybe a Lab / Lib coalition.

http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge50/seats.htm

Similar in the 2nd 1974 election.

So the idea that Scottish votes haven't had a significant left leaning influence on UK elections doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 1, 2014)

Stop relying on us and sort your own electorate out if you don't want a Tory government.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 1, 2014)

Silas Loom said:


> Given that the trend is towards more seats for smaller parties and independents, that's not a knockdown argument against suggestions that Scottish Labour MPs could make a significant difference in 2015 or 2020.


Tell me more about this recent trend towards smaller parties and independents in Westminster that would make a difference to parliamentary majorities.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Feb 1, 2014)

That's a total 180 from Weeps.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 1, 2014)

weepiper said:


> Stop relying on us and sort your own electorate out if you don't want a Tory government.




sooner or later we will have to section the home counties off as a special fiefdom and just let them get on with it.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Feb 1, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Tell me more about this recent trend towards smaller parties and independents in Westminster that would make a difference to parliamentary majorities.



We have a green and UKIP is odds on to win at least one seat. The emergence of a 4th major party will help single issue candidates.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 1, 2014)

Silas Loom said:


> We have a green and UKIP is odds on to win at least one seat. The emergence of a 4th major party will help single issue candidates.


name the seat where ukip have a chance. I will bet you a fat fucking fiver they won't get one.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 1, 2014)

normal rules apply tho, If I am wrong I pay nothing whereas you have to pay me if you are wrong


----------



## weepiper (Feb 1, 2014)

Silas Loom said:


> That's a total 180 from Weeps.



Show your working. I don't agree that the Scottish vote makes a significant difference to the composition of the UK parliament. Others are convinced it does and want that to act as a brake on our chance to escape.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 1, 2014)

Silas Loom So, one seat so far. How does that impact the calculations?


----------



## weltweit (Feb 1, 2014)

weepiper said:


> Show your working. I don't agree that the Scottish vote makes a significant difference to the composition of the UK parliament. Others are convinced it does and want that to act as a brake on our chance to escape.


You won't get far if you insist on using the British pound!


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 1, 2014)

free spirit said:


> This is based on a pretty misleading interpretation of the Feb 1974 election


No it isn't.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 1, 2014)

weltweit said:


> You won't get far if you insist on using the British pound!


I'm not fussed about retaining the pound. Or the Queen for that matter. I want proper independence but that's not on the table yet so I'll take what we can get with the hope of changing things in the future.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 1, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Not sure where you are in Scotland, but that sounds East!


Stirling doesn't sound East! How very dare you. Do I look like someone who'd hay a pay?


----------



## weltweit (Feb 1, 2014)

weepiper said:


> I'm not fussed about retaining the pound. Or the Queen for that matter. I want proper independence but that's not on the table yet so I'll take what we can get with the hope of changing things in the future.


Interested that you feel so strongly about it. England is also affected by being in a block with Scotland yet as a half Englishman I feel no desire to be "free of the scots!".


----------



## weepiper (Feb 1, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Interested that you feel so strongly about it. England is also affected by being in a block with Scotland yet as a half Englishman I feel no desire to be "free of the scots!".



I don't particularly want to be free of the English. I'm half English myself. I just want to be free of the Tory/UKIP voting rich ones in the south east that have a stranglehold over everything.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 1, 2014)

weepiper said:


> I don't particularly want to be free of the English. I'm half English myself. I just want to be free of the Tory/UKIP voting rich ones in the south east that have a stranglehold over everything.


Fair enough.

Personally I find the fact that Scotland has a referendum and if Cameron is re-elected Britain may have an EU referendum, a little unsettling. My vote would be UK to stay as UK (Scotland to stay part of UK) and UK to stay in Europe. But if both votes happen and go against me this will be a very different place a few years down the road.

Some friends say 1) no way Scotland will vote for independence, look at the polls and 2) Cameron will not be re-elected so there may not be an EU referendum. But whatever else, it is slightly unsettling.


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 1, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Are you sure that this really happened? I've been a Welshman for over forty years now and I've never once witnessed this occur, despite the urban myth among the English that this happens all the time (despite the fact that most Welsh people are Anglophones).



It's happened to to me on 2/3 occasions. It is not as widespread as people seem to thoink but it has and does happen. The times it happened to me were in 'rural' North Wales and once on Anglesey.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 1, 2014)

Nylock said:


> William of Walworth, Swansea has not always been as anglicised as you claim and, coming from the upper Swansea valley myself, that part of the country outside the city has always been a bit of a welsh language stronghold. For instance my grandfather's generation was technically bilingual but spoke welsh given the choice (and that's pretty much everyone of his age), my father's generation was more mixed but still fluent and my generation more 'anglicised' than the previous ones but i'd say around 75% of people of my generation in the area speak welsh to at least conversational level with most of that number still being fluent in the language. The local primary school was welsh, then became bilingual in the 1970's but with most kids speaking welsh and of the two comprehensive schools in the area; one is bilingual and one is welsh language only. This is pretty typical for south west and west wales (or at least the bit of it I am familiar with)...
> 
> Not quite sure how a discussion about the welsh language fits into a scottish independence thread but wth, it's urbans innit



Thanks for this. Yes, I'm very aware that in the Upper Swansea Valley plenty of Welsh is still spoken, maybe 4 or 5 of my nearby colleagues (out of a total of a lot more) are from there and they chat in Welsh sometimes, and our mate John (from Ystelyvera) is completely fluent. Also, heading in the Carmarthen direction you frequently hear it.

Swansea itself though? Apart from a small handful of older people maybe, if you hear any Welsh spoken in pubs or shops, and that's quite rare, you can bet your life they're from out of town. My mate Ian, a lifelong Jack, around my age, is able to speak less Welsh than I can!**

Probably though as you say, plenty of people know Welsh more than they speak it, so there'll be concealed skills around I'm sure..

**Little known fact : I can understand Welsh fairly well myself and can speak a few basic bits  (went to school in North Wales). If I lived in rural Wales, or North Wales, where its still more spoken, I'd take lessons.
Even more irrelevant fact : I'm also fluent in Yorkshire


----------



## geminisnake (Feb 1, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Scotland is staunchly labour which means the labour vote will be reduced.



Not sure if anyone has cleared this up but Scotland is NOT staunchly Labour. Scotland IS staunchly left of centre. If Scotland was so staunchly Labour hwo do you explain the landslide victory of the SNP at Holyrood??  The SNP have been the only party to the left of centre for quite a while now and hence the balance of the vote has swung in their favour.
As for the 50s voting I suspect you'll find that people voted how they were told to. A lot of jobs still had tied housing back then and if you wanted to keep your job and home you voted how the 'master' did  No I do not have a link to this as fact but I have been told various tales over the years.


----------



## geminisnake (Feb 1, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Are you sure that this really happened? I've been a Welshman for over forty years now and I've never once witnessed this occur, despite the urban myth among the English that this happens all the time (despite the fact that most Welsh people are Anglophones).



Sorry but I have witnessed it too, more than once. Up in the north in the late 70s. Snowdonia area.


----------



## DownwardDog (Feb 1, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> sooner or later we will have to section the home counties off as a special fiefdom and just let them get on with it.



The remaining United Kingdom of Wessex, Mercia and Northumberland pay struggle to pay for its boundless appetite for state directed largesse without the tax payers of the South East. It'll end up like Greece except with shittier weather and a greater prevalence for wearing tracksuits in the stead of normal clothes.


----------



## gosub (Feb 1, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> Personally I find the fact that Scotland has a referendum and if Cameron is re-elected Britain may have an EU referendum, a little unsettling. My vote would be UK to stay as UK (Scotland to stay part of UK) and UK to stay in Europe. But if both votes happen and go against me this will be a very different place a few years down the road.
> 
> Some friends say 1) no way Scotland will vote for independence, look at the polls and 2) Cameron will not be re-elected so there may not be an EU referendum. But whatever else, it is slightly unsettling.



The referendum Cameron is promising on the EU is a smokescreen, they can't do renegotiation by 2017.  There will be a referendum though, probably 2018-19 regardless of who is in power, new treaty in the offing.  Protocol 9 looks to me to make it unwinnable- would be accountable to the EU but not really able to influence it, the government by fax our politicians have sneered at. Will have to be a major reverse ferret in one direction or another. 

Without being in the EUro we would become associate members of the EU , which would not be for the best in the best of all possible worlds.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 1, 2014)

DownwardDog said:


> The remaining United Kingdom of Wessex, Mercia and Northumberland pay struggle to pay for its boundless appetite for state directed largesse without the tax payers of the South East. It'll end up like Greece except with shittier weather and a greater prevalence for wearing tracksuits in the stead of normal clothes.



taxpayers my rosy red baboonish arse, they all employ accountants to show them how best to end up paying nothing while keeping Ingrid the house slave in a room above the double garage and boasting about it at the lodge over brandies. The only natural justice is when they die of gout of stack the merc into a tree


----------



## free spirit (Feb 1, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> No it isn't.


brilliant rebuttal argument there danny.

I've just clearly demonstrated that it has misinterpreted the numbers for 1974 where it claimed that Labour would still have been able to form a minority government with 50 MPs less than needed for a majority (a figure that's completely wrong anyway), and ignored the fact that the Tories would have been the largest party by 15 MPs.

So how is that not misleading?


----------



## free spirit (Feb 1, 2014)

weepiper said:


> Stop relying on us and sort your own electorate out if you don't want a Tory government.


do what you will as a country, but at least do it based on an accurate analysis of the situation, rather than misleading bollocks like the article Geminisnake and Danny apparently seem to view as some sort of proof that Scotland leaving won't have a significant impact on the electoral situation at Westminster.

Either the person who did that analysis wasn't very good at numbers or they deliberately set out to mislead when they wrote it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2014)

There are other views of this. In the elections since 1974, the party of government has also had the largest number of seats in England/Wales. But what other effects have there been on politics of a strongly anti-Tory Scotland? It is really hard to produce meaningful counter-factual history. A purely English or English/Welsh Labour party would have been different from the one that could rely on Scottish seats, and that could have taken it in different directions  - even taken it leftwards.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 1, 2014)

free spirit said:


> brilliant rebuttal argument there danny.
> 
> I've just clearly demonstrated that it has misinterpreted the numbers for 1974 where it claimed that Labour would still have been able to form a minority government with 50 MPs less than needed for a majority (a figure that's completely wrong anyway), and ignored the fact that the Tories would have been the largest party by 15 MPs.
> 
> So how is that not misleading?


You've misread what the blog says.  



> on only TWO occasions, the most recent of them being 38 years ago, (1964 and the second of the two 1974 elections), have Scottish MPs given Labour a majority they wouldn’t have had from England/Wales/NI alone.



Are you mixing up the two 74 elections?


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 1, 2014)

free spirit said:


> do what you will as a country, but at least do it based on an accurate analysis of the situation, rather than misleading bollocks like the article Geminisnake and Danny apparently seem to view as some sort of proof that Scotland leaving won't have a significant impact on the electoral situation at Westminster.


You've misread the article.  But let us assume you hadn't.  For the argument.  Let us assume that the Scottish electorate was constantly causing a government to be elected that was not what the majority in England wanted.  We are 10% of the UK.  Isn't that anti-democratic?


----------



## free spirit (Feb 1, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> You've misread what the blog says.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you mixing up the two 74 elections?


I've not, it also makes this claim which is false.



> - Scottish MPs have NEVER turned what would have been a Conservative government into a Labour one, or indeed vice versa.


in that first 1974 election the conservatives would have been the largest party by 15 MPs, more than labour and liberals combined, and would therefore have been very likely to have ended up forming the government instead of the minority labour government.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2014)

There might conceivably not have been a second election in 74 without Scotland - the Tories might have managed to form a govt with the Ulster Unionists. You end up with lots of 'mights'. But any minority govt, which the Tories would have been, is weak, so who knows what would have happened.

There are too many imponderables here to say anything with confidence. Making specific points about close elections is particularly hard. These kinds of stats are only useful for broad-brush assertions, I think, such as the one that there is no in-built tory majority in England and never has been.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 1, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> You've misread the article.  But let us assume you hadn't.  For the argument.  Let us assume that the Scottish electorate was constantly causing a government to be elected that was not what the majority in England wanted.  We are 10% of the UK.  Isn't that anti-democratic?


If we had PR you may have a point, but we don't, so in effect the Scottish element to the system has been balancing out the SE of England.

Remove Scotland and the imbalance created by the first past the post system becomes even more weighted in the tories favour most of the time.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> You've misread the article.  But let us assume you hadn't.  For the argument.  Let us assume that the Scottish electorate was constantly causing a government to be elected that was not what the majority in England wanted.  We are 10% of the UK.  Isn't that anti-democratic?


(Assuming for the sake of argument a fair electoral system.)

No, not at all, because for Britain as a whole to have a majority of one colour, the majority for the other colour in any 90 per cent subsection must be wafer-thin. And Scotland isn't the only Scotland-sized chunk of the UK that has been consistently Labour for the last 40 years.

Why single out Scotland? Why not single out, say, Yorkshire instead? The only reason to single out Scotland is some kind of nationalist sentiment, is it not?


----------



## free spirit (Feb 1, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There might conceivably not have been a second election in 74 without Scotland - the Tories might have managed to form a govt with the Ulster Unionists. You end up with lots of 'mights'. But any minority govt, which the Tories would have been, is weak, so who knows what would have happened.
> 
> There are too many imponderables here to say anything with confidence. Making specific points about close elections is particularly hard. These kinds of stats are only useful for broad-brush assertions, I think, such as the one that there is no in-built tory majority in England and never has been.


the article made a specific claim, I'm refuting that specific claim, you're right about the rest of it being speculation. An alternative future could well have involves the tories fucking it right up from 74, and the country turning to Labour as a result at the next election, resulting in a decade or more of fairly left wing labour government instead of Thatcher.... who knows, it's all speculation, but the most likely part of all that would be that the minority labour government would have become a minority conservative government in early 74 without the Scottish input.

ps in 74 there were still 21 tory MPs in Scotland with only a difference of 19 between labout and tory, now that difference is more like 40-50 depending on the balance between SNP, Labour etc


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 1, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I've not, it also makes this claim which is false.
> 
> 
> in that first 1974 election the conservatives would have been the largest party by 15 MPs, more than labour and liberals combined, and would therefore have been very likely to have ended up forming the government instead of the minority labour government.




Here's the site: http://wingsoverscotland.com/why-labour-doesnt-need-scotland/

Here's what it says about Feb 74:



> 1974 Minority Labour govt (Wilson)
> ————————————————
> Labour majority: -33
> Without Scottish MPs: -50
> ...



Here's what it says about the 2nd 74 election:



> 1974b Labour govt (Wilson/Callaghan)
> —————————————————–
> Labour majority: 3
> Without Scottish MPs: -8
> ...



It also says:



> - on ONE occasion (the second of the two 1974 elections) Scottish MPs gave Labour a wafer-thin majority (319 vs 316) they wouldn’t have had from the rest of the UK alone, although they’d still have been the largest party and able to command a majority in a pact with the Liberals, as they eventually did in reality.



I've been searching the article for the phrase you've quoted. "Scottish MPs have NEVER turned what would have been a Conservative government into a Labour one, or indeed vice versa."  I can't find it.  Am I missing it?

Here's the blog again: http://wingsoverscotland.com/why-labour-doesnt-need-scotland/


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2014)

It's an interesting phenomenon the way the tories lost Scotland between the 50s and the 80s. I don't buy geminisnake's explanation that it was down to the end of deference to the wishes of the rich. Surely if that change did happen, it will have happened equally across the UK.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 1, 2014)

free spirit said:


> the article made a specific claim


I can't see that claim anywhere in the article. Sorry.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 1, 2014)

In the article Geminisnake posted the link to it says this about the first 1974 election

http://wingsland.podgamer.com/why-labour-doesnt-need-scotland/



> *1974 Minority Labour govt (Wilson)
> ————————————————-*
> Labour majority: -33
> Without Scottish MPs: -50
> *NO CHANGE*



So that article Geminisnake linked to got that and the claim I quoted wrong. You seem to have linked to what look to be identical articles by the same author on the same date, but with this bit changed and the claim removed, so I suspect that those articles were corrected later or something.

Even the corrected articles you link to state this though



> - on ONE occasion (1964) Scottish MPs have turned what would have been a Conservative government into a Labour one. The Tory majority without Scottish votes would have been just one MP (280 vs 279), and as such useless in practice. The Labour government, with an almost equally feeble majority of 4, lasted just 18 months and a Tory one would probably have collapsed even faster.



So even though in the stats they've specifically highlighted the probable change in 74 from minority labour minority tory government, the author chose to ignore this within the actual article itself.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 1, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> I can't see that claim anywhere in the article. Sorry.


you're looking in an amended version of the article, I was referencing the version Geminisnake had linked to on page one of this thread.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 1, 2014)

free spirit said:


> In the article Geminisnake posted the link to it says this about the first 1974 election
> 
> http://wingsland.podgamer.com/why-labour-doesnt-need-scotland/
> 
> ...


Well, I'm not going to argue with you about a possible earlier draft I didn't see or link to.


----------



## geminisnake (Feb 1, 2014)

Does it really matter?? One election? Whoopdee doo!! Hair splitting people!! The rest of the article is presumably correct. SO once in how many years the scottish vote made a difference? The bottom line IS we are not leaving you to a total tory Govt for the rest of your lives by voting for independence.

If you want to continue to argue go for it but I'm not playing


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 1, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why single out Scotland?


Big question.  Well, because it _is _being singled out: "Without Scotland we'll have a perpetual Tory majority", people* say.  Well, no you won't.

But why are we asking what the UK would look like without Scotland?  Because it's a possibility.  Because there'll be a referendum on just that possibility in a few months' time.  Why not Yorkshire?  Because there's never been any appetite for any measure of independence or even devolution for Yorkshire.

The reason I posed the scenario the way I did was to try and find out the logic behind those who say "without Scotland Labour would never win".


*Including George Galloway, recently.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 1, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Why not Yorkshire?  Because there's never been any appetite for any measure of independence or even devolution for Yorkshire.
> 
> .


Oh really?


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 1, 2014)

_angel_ said:


> Oh really?


Are you going to say there has? If there has, I stand corrected. I was not aware of this.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 1, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Are you going to say there has? If there has, I stand corrected. I was not aware of this.


To be fair, if Yorkshire was to go independent there wouldn't be much left worth keeping in England....


----------



## geminisnake (Feb 1, 2014)

_angel_ said:


> Oh really?



Not enough that there is a Yorkshire for Indy party. It's taken the SNP nearly 50 years to get us here. And while we're at it some of the northern counties/areas were offered a referendum on regional status/self govt and it was turned down. By whom I'm not sure though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> Not enough that there is a Yorkshire for Indy party. It's taken the SNP nearly 50 years to get us here. And while we're at it some of the northern counties/areas were offered a referendum on regional status/self govt and it was turned down. By whom I'm not sure though.


And here is one of the problems. Piecemeal devolution rather than a move towards proper federalisation. IMO the UK is a constitutional mess as it stands, and it is England that loses out in that mess. Devolution should have been for _everyone_.

It's also one of the problems I have with nationalists. So you just campaign for Scotland, and bollocks to everyone else?


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 1, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> IMO the UK is a constitutional mess


I'd agree.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 1, 2014)

_angel_ said:


> To be fair, if Yorkshire was to go independent there wouldn't be much left worth keeping in England....




I have to disagree.


----------



## geminisnake (Feb 1, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's also one of the problems I have with nationalists. So you just campaign for Scotland, and bollocks to everyone else?



I don't see it like that. I see it that a group of people wanted a 'better' way and have done what they can to achieve that. It's not my fault they didn't go for the whole of the UK. Same as it's not my fault people in England keep voting for the right of centre.


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 1, 2014)

_angel_ said:


> To be fair, if Yorkshire was to go independent there wouldn't be much left worth keeping in England....



The fact that Yorkshire had left would make England a more attractive place to live.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 1, 2014)

I thought I was a flinty-eyed hard haggler and a man who is master of pennies and pounds. Then I spent a week in yorkshire, where they will even haggle over the price of a can of coke


----------



## weltweit (Feb 1, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I thought I was a flinty-eyed hard haggler and a man who is master of pennies and pounds. Then I spent a week in yorkshire, where they will even haggle over the price of a can of coke



Yorkshire, where men are men, and sheep are scared.

.. or was that Wales


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Feb 1, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> Not enough that there is a Yorkshire for Indy party. It's taken the SNP nearly 50 years to get us here. And while we're at it some of the northern counties/areas were offered a referendum on regional status/self govt and it was turned down. By whom I'm not sure though.


I think that if Scotland leaves, the NE of England and other outlying regions will have more of an appetite for devolution simply because they would then be on the periphery of the country. Currently they are sort of in the middle of the UK, which might explain the no vote the other year. 

Another possible reason for the no vote was that the NE simply doesn't see London as relevant given it is so far away.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 1, 2014)

In browsing Google Maps earlier (see separate thread) it struck me how many countries have their capitals way out away from the middle of their territories. Seems odd. Australia: Canberra is way down in the South East, Britain: London SE also, etc etc ....

Why would you do that?


----------



## Nylock (Feb 1, 2014)

Access to the sea/trade routes innit

E2A
Fuck knows with Canberra though, but that was a 'purpose-built' capital and not one that evolved over time... Tbf, would you want your capital smack in the middle of the 'red centre' if you were an Australian?


----------



## weltweit (Feb 1, 2014)

Nylock said:


> Access to the sea/trade routes innit


Not convinced. Doesn't really explain Berlin - in the East ... Moscow in the far West ..... Or Canberra where Sydney is closer to the sea... Or Beijing which is way out in the East of China ..


----------



## Nylock (Feb 1, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Not convinced. Doesn't really explain Berlin - in the East ... Moscow in the far West ..... Or Canberra where Sydney is closer to the sea...


Sorry, i edited my post for clarity. Berlin is a relatively new capital (as Germany is a relatively new country 'Capitals' in that federation have moved about a bit) and Russia's capital has moved about quite a lot as well. Moscow is on a river... back in the late 1300' i'd imagine it would have been navigable enough for goods to get to a seaport...


----------



## weltweit (Feb 1, 2014)

Nylock said:


> Sorry, i edited my post for clarity. Berlin is a relatively new capital (as Germany is a relatively new country 'Capitals' in that federation have moved about a bit) and Russia's capital has moved about quite a lot as well. Moscow is on a river... back in the late 1300' i'd imagine it would have been navigable enough for goods to get to a seaport...


I am not poo pooing your angle, you could well be right, I don't know enough about it to comment if I am honest. But it just struck me as odd. Some of the landlocked African countries might be more logical, off to look in a mo. You say Germany is a young country? I didn't realise that .. can you expand?


----------



## weltweit (Feb 1, 2014)

Well, wrt to Africa the first I looked at was DRC and Kinshasa its capital is way way over to the west ... that theory didn't last long then


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 1, 2014)

Nylock said:


> Access to the sea/trade routes innit
> 
> E2A
> Fuck knows with Canberra though, but that was a 'purpose-built' capital and not one that evolved over time... Tbf, would you want your capital smack in the middle of the 'red centre' if you were an Australian?



Canberra was built half way between Sydney and Melbourne - the only two major Australian cities at the time.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 1, 2014)

And Chad destroys the idea totally, landlocked and about in the middle of Africa it's capital N'Djamena is way over on the West....


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Feb 1, 2014)

weltweit said:


> You say Germany is a young country? I didn't realise that .. can you expand?



Germany is a federation of states, the modern (ish) Germany dates back to 1871. You might be surprised about Italy too.


----------



## Nylock (Feb 1, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I am not poo pooing your angle, you could well be right, I don't know enough about it to comment if I am honest. But it just struck me as odd. Some of the landlocked African countries might be more logical, off to look in a mo. You say Germany is a young country? I didn't realise that .. can you expand?


IIRC Germany as currently constituted has only been around since the late 19th century. Up to that point it was a loose confederation of independent states (they still retain that federal structure today). I can't remember who mentioned this previously but this late unification goes a long way towards explaining why Germany doesn't have all the goodies lumped into it's capital like we do (different large cities 'specialise' in different things over there). I don't know much more about Germany than that tbh. As far as other shifting capitals go, lots of factors affect their movement: wars, shifting economic epicentres, politics (national and geopolitical), religion etc etc


----------



## weltweit (Feb 1, 2014)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Germany is a federation of states, the modern (ish) Germany dates back to 1871. You might be surprised about Italy too.


Can't even think about Italy at the moment as I have just found out that the Central African Republic capital Bangui is way out from the centre and is actually on a border so it couldn't be further from the centre!!

What were all these countries thinking of ??

What what ??


----------



## Nylock (Feb 1, 2014)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Canberra was built half way between Sydney and Melbourne - the only two major Australian cities at the time.


That makes sense... More so than razing hundreds of hectares of rainforest as in the case of building Brasilia


----------



## Belushi (Feb 1, 2014)

weltweit said:


> In browsing Google Maps earlier (see separate thread) it struck me how many countries have their capitals way out away from the middle of their territories. Seems odd. Australia: Canberra is way down in the South East, Britain: London SE also, etc etc ....
> 
> Why would you do that?



Populations is rarely spread equally over a state for starters, then in older states there's all kind of historic reasons why one city ended up the capital.


----------



## Nylock (Feb 1, 2014)

In the case of London, that area has been settled pretty much continuously since way before the Roman occupation. The Thames is navigable for a fair amount of its lower reaches and provides a good harbour for shallow-draft ships like they would have had back in the day... London has been a major trading port for centuries. ...


----------



## free spirit (Feb 1, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> Does it really matter?? One election? Whoopdee doo!! Hair splitting people!! The rest of the article is presumably correct. SO once in how many years the scottish vote made a difference? The bottom line IS we are not leaving you to a total tory Govt for the rest of your lives by voting for independence.
> 
> If you want to continue to argue go for it but I'm not playing


Without the Scottish vote, the election result would have been materially different on 4 out of 13 elections in the last 50 years, 2 of which would have involved a Labour government changing to a tory government, 1 a Labour majority turning into a labour minority government, and the other a tory/lib coalition turning into a tory majority government.

Or 3 out of 7 labour Government's being affected, 2 becoming Tory, one becoming a minority government, and tory majorities would be significantly strengthened when they've been in power anyway.

So based on the historic record, the rest of the UK would have ended up with proportionately more Tory governments, and a proportion of  the remaining Labour governments being minority government, and the few Tory governments with very small majorities would have had those majorities significantly increased.

The election result would have been materially different without Scottish input would have been, 1964, 1974a, 1974b, 2010

I can't blame you / Scotland for wanting to get away from the potential for Tory rule entirely, but don't make out that it's not going to impact on the rest of us left behind.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 1, 2014)

Nylock said:


> In the case of London, that area has been settled pretty much continuously since way before the Roman occupation. The Thames is navigable for a fair amount of its lower reaches and provides a good harbour for shallow-draft ships like they would have had back in the day... London has been a major trading port for centuries. ...


it's also far enough away from Scotland, the North of England, Cornwall and Wales to have kept the kings and queens of England safe from most revolts / attacking armies back when this was a serious concern.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 1, 2014)

free spirit said:


> it's also far enough away from Scotland, the North of England, Cornwall and Wales to have kept the kings and queens of England safe from most revolts / attacking armies back when this was a serious concern.



And close to the Continent, important to the Romans who founded the City, important for trade, and important when English Kings were Frenchmen whose continental possessions were as important as England.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 1, 2014)

Belushi said:


> And close to the Continent, important to the Romans who founded the City, important for trade, and important when English Kings were Frenchmen whose continental possessions were as important as England.


yep, I was going to add that, but got bored writing the post.


----------



## Nylock (Feb 2, 2014)

same here


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 2, 2014)

Devo-max for both Scotland Wales,  *and* within England (exact regions to be determined later) suggest I. 

Keep everybody happy


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 2, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Devo-max for both Scotland *and* Wales suggest I. Keep everybody happy


And England.

England loses out in this process because no regional assembly administration is ever going to campaign for fewer public services and more cuts than the national govt is offering. They will always offer more services and fewer cuts.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 2, 2014)

As you'll have seen, I've edited that previous post now. I agree with you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 2, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> Oh do fuck off!!



Do you not like Lord Monckton, then?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 2, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> He's always reminded me of a Vampire. A proper one, not these new moody teenager ones.



He does look a *bit* like a cross between a Bela Lugosi impersonator and Nosferatu.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 2, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Not exactly sure what a TA unit would do with a tactical nuclear weapon



The only obvious answer to that is "playing drinking games that include head-butting the nuke".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 2, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> What I wanted to say that
> 
> 
> I can't help but think of a general briefing Hitler here 'oh its all good they've got millions of men but the gear is laughable'
> ...



You borrow a nuke from the Brighton TA, and incinerate them (and your own troops "for the greater good", obviously).


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 2, 2014)

Fedayn said:


> The fact that Yorkshire had left would make England a more attractive place to live.


Imagine, London fucks off (please do) Cornwall goes and Yorkshire too. Where's actually left?


----------



## 8ball (Feb 2, 2014)

_angel_ said:


> Imagine, London fucks off (please do) Cornwall goes and Yorkshire too. Where's actually left?


 
Dagenham.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 2, 2014)

Silas Loom said:


> We have a green and UKIP is odds on to win at least one seat. The emergence of a 4th major party will help single issue candidates.



So, a "trend" of one.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 2, 2014)

weepiper said:


> I'm not fussed about retaining the pound. Or the Queen for that matter. I want proper independence but that's not on the table yet so I'll take what we can get with the hope of changing things in the future.



Far as I'm concerned, you can have the queen and her brood.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 2, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> taxpayers my rosy red baboonish arse, they all employ accountants to show them how best to end up paying nothing while keeping Ingrid the house slave in a room above the double garage and boasting about it at the lodge over brandies. The only natural justice is when they die of gout of stack the merc into a tree



That's not natural justice.

Natural justice is a scythe-wielding maniac severing their heads from their bodies as they pontificate, then leaving their headless corpses for the crows.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 2, 2014)

Nylock said:


> IIRC Germany as currently constituted has only been around since the late 19th century. Up to that point it was a loose confederation of independent states (they still retain that federal structure today). I can't remember who mentioned this previously but this late unification goes a long way towards explaining why Germany doesn't have all the goodies lumped into it's capital like we do (different large cities 'specialise' in different things over there). I don't know much more about Germany than that tbh. As far as other shifting capitals go, lots of factors affect their movement: wars, shifting economic epicentres, politics (national and geopolitical), religion etc etc



First moves to union 1848. Union in 1871. In terms of Germany's capital thhough, it hasn't chopped and changed that much, just Berlin/Bonn/Berlin (Weimar wasn't, as some people assume, the capital of the Weimar republic.  Berlin was).
And yep, forming the federation late in the day meant some debit-points that other older national capitals didn't have, not least in terms of infrastructure.  Look at a map of Berlin in the mid 19th century as Prussia's capital, then Berlin in the early 20th century as Germany's capital, and you see an expansion of infrastructure (roads, canals, docks, railways, wholesale markets, warehousing, factories, "the financial quarter") out of proportion to the degree of development in most other Euro-capitals  (most of which already had infrastructure that could cope with national-scale production and administration.


----------



## eskdave (Feb 2, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> It was just wishful thinking.


...but if was majority wishful thinking...?


----------



## eskdave (Feb 2, 2014)

Sunday bloody hangover and I think they're conspiring to squeeze me out of the "new joke" forum but Q. If the Jocks vote to go it alone,can we assume that the SNP will be disbanded,or will it still march on,re-branded,with King Alexsquander IV, Prince Donald McTrump and their greasy puppetmasters/henchmen(who have already been repeatedly warned not to go out on the moors)still taking the piss? oh,ah,erm,sorry -yes you're wrong,ca-nami.But not very.


----------



## isvicthere? (Feb 2, 2014)

ca-nami said:


> Right and wrong don't exist, as all know.
> 
> However, despite people saying "we need to keep the Union!" and "We're stronger together!" and other such crap, does it matter if Scotland becomes a sovereign state?
> 
> I personally don't believe it does, since England is the reason why the UK is still a world power.  Whenever Cameron talks of "our economy is the 6th largest and this is something we can all be proud of", er.. where exactly is that "economy" generated?  it's not Scotland...



Not sure about the "world power" stuff. But if Scotland secedes, the UK could lose its seat on the UN security council.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Feb 2, 2014)

isvicthere? said:


> Not sure about the "world power" stuff. But if Scotland secedes, the UK could lose its seat on the UN security council.



Only if the remaining UK doesn't use it's veto, which seems extremely unlikely.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 7, 2014)

David bloody Cameron on the telly at the moment giving a pro-union speech.

I'm sure every minute he's on is worth a few hundred votes to the independence side of the debate.


----------



## RedDragon (Feb 7, 2014)

After that speech, Mr Salmon must be feeling confident -  congratulations to Dave for managing to sustain a merry dance on such thin ice.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 7, 2014)

Puddy_Tat said:


> David bloody Cameron on the telly at the moment giving a pro-union speech.
> 
> I'm sure every minute he's on is worth a few hundred votes to the independence side of the debate.



Just said pretty much the same thing on the other independence thread  my god, it was_ cringeworthy._


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 7, 2014)

weepiper said:


> Just said pretty much the same thing on the other independence thread  my god, it was_ cringeworthy._



Two minutes listening to him and I want to declare independence...


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 7, 2014)

Of course, it would be very wrong to use something like the Commonwealth Games to make points about the referendum... http://www.heraldscotland.com/polit...-referendum-campaigning-during-games.23125706


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 8, 2014)

by Martin Rowson, from the Grauniad today


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 10, 2014)

*Send a Message to Scotland*

"We're taking up David Cameron's idea ..."


> If you want to see a new, progressive and democratic state in the British Isles then send a message to the people who have a chance to make it happen by voting Yes in September.
> 
> David Cameron wants English, Welsh, and Northern Irish people - oh, and Scots living in those places too - to ring Scotland and tell the population how much we love them. Its a great idea. Lets show some support for the new future they can build.



http://www.messagetoscotland.com/


----------



## gosub (Feb 10, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> *Send a Message to Scotland*
> 
> "We're taking up David Cameron's idea ..."
> 
> ...



 time to unplug the landline, its normally telesales anyway

another idea  
http://www.thejournal.co.uk/news/north-east-news/mp-rory-stewart-calls-hand-holding-6689464
*MP calls for hand-holding along Hadrian's Wall to prevent Scottish independence vote*
An MP is urging people to hold hands the length of Hadrian’s Wall to prevent Scotland voting for independence


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 10, 2014)

gosub said:


> time to unplug the landline, its normally telesales anyway
> 
> another idea
> http://www.thejournal.co.uk/news/north-east-news/mp-rory-stewart-calls-hand-holding-6689464
> ...


That's nice.  Hope he gets the weather for it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 10, 2014)

Tailor made for this thread:

*5 Reasons To Care About Scottish Independence (Particularly if you are English)*
by Niki Seth-Smith (posted on 31-01-2014)

http://wire.novaramedia.com/2014/01...cularly-if-you-are-english-nicola-seth-smith/

(Point 3 seems tenuous to me, but there you go).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 10, 2014)

'less loathing of Europe and immigrants' than in England?

Really?

What crap.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 'less loathing of Europe and immigrants' than in England?
> 
> Really?
> 
> What crap.



http://www.migrationobservatory.ox....-scotland-it-prepares-referendum-independence



> The analysis - published today by Oxford University’s Migration Observatory - was compiled from a representative online survey of 2235 people in Scotland and 2027 in England and Wales, undertaken by YouGov between 16-27 October 2013





> Dr Scott Blinder, Director of the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, and the author of the report, said: “Scotland’s attitudes toward migration are noticeably different to those in England and Wales"


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 10, 2014)

> Nearly half of respondents (45%) believe that if the Scottish government did control immigration policy it should be made less open than the rest of the UK.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 'less loathing of Europe and immigrants' than in England?


Yes, I'm not impressed by that language.  A self-loathing English woman, perhaps.


But this was in the BBC today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26020982

"People in Scotland are less likely to want to reduce immigration than those in England and Wales, a new study says

The survey, conducted by polling organisation YouGov, said 58% of people in Scotland wanted to see immigration reduced a little or a lot.The figure for England and Wales was 75%.

[...]

A solid majority of those who want to reduce immigration are in the No camp in referendum-voting intentions."


----------



## weepiper (Feb 10, 2014)

I'm curious why that assertion should result in such a hostile reaction littlebabyjesus


----------



## geminisnake (Feb 10, 2014)

If it's crap why does England have UKIP councillors and MEP(s) while they have lost their deposit in every seat the have stood for in Scotland?


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 10, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> If it's crap why does England have UKIP councillors and MEP(s) while they have lost their deposit in every seat the have stood for in Scotland?



Nationalism in different countries manifests itself it different ways, comparing that is not always easy.  UKIP are clearly an English party and for some voters a vote for UKIP represents that, Scotland, Wales and NI have their own national parties.  I'd be surprised in the SNP or plaid got many votes in the London.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 10, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Yes, I'm not impressed by that language.  A self-loathing English woman, perhaps.
> 
> 
> But this was in the BBC today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26020982
> ...



And what is the distribution of figures across England and Wales, splitting the whole into ten roughly equal chunks? How does that correlate with, for instance, actual levels of immigration in those areas? Those raw figures showing answers to simple questions need a lot of fleshing out if they are to be meaningfully used to show how social attitudes in Scotland differ from those in England.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> If it's crap why does England have UKIP councillors and MEP(s) while they have lost their deposit in every seat the have stood for in Scotland?


They've never lost a deposit in euro elections in scotland have they? Do you have a link for the other elections?


----------



## weepiper (Feb 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> They've never lost a deposit in euro elections in scotland have they? Do you have a link for the other elections?


You need over 5% to keep your deposit don't you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Ind...lection_results#Scottish_Parliament_elections

edit, removed the quote because the formatting went bizarre


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2014)

Yeah -  and i can see the last two elections they held their deposit but didn't in 99. And the left all added together still ended up with less than the UKIP last time round.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yeah -  and i can see the last two elections they held their deposit but didn't in 99. And the left all added together still ended up with less than the UKIP last time round.



Aye, well, our ridiculous fractured left up here does us no favours


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 10, 2014)

weepiper said:


> Aye, well, our ridiculous fractured left up here does us no favours


For which I still hold TS in large measure personally responsible.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And what is the distribution of figures across England and Wales, splitting the whole into ten roughly equal chunks? How does that correlate with, for instance, actual levels of immigration in those areas? Those raw figures showing answers to simple questions need a lot of fleshing out if they are to be meaningfully used to show how social attitudes in Scotland differ from those in England.


You'd need to ask Scott Blinder from the Oxford University Migration Observatory.

I didn't think I'd have to issue disclaimers, but I didn't write that blog, either.  I posted it for discussion purposes.  I know little of Niki Seth-Smith except that she writes for the London Review of Books, The London Magazine, Independent (according to whom she is "a freelance journalist and front page editor at openDemocracy.net. She writes on questions of nationality, technology and gender and is currently editing a book on economic democracy" http://www.independent.co.uk/biography/niki-seth-smith), and appears to be from Basingstoke.  

For the sake of clarity, I do not think "the English" are more xenophobic than "the Scots".  I do think that there is on the face of it, though, some validity in the idea (although it is not language I would use) that "there is more loathing of immigrants in England", given that 58% of people in Scotland wanted to see immigration reduced a little or a lot, while the figure for England and Wales was 75%.

Yes, 58% is still a majority.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> You'd need to ask Scott Blinder from the Oxford University Migration Observatory.
> 
> I didn't think I'd have to issue disclaimers, but I didn't write that blog, either.  I posted it for discussion purposes.  I know little of Niki Seth-Smith except that she writes for the London Review of Books, The London Magazine, Independent (according to whom she is "a freelance journalist and front page editor at openDemocracy.net. She writes on questions of nationality, technology and gender and is currently editing a book on economic democracy" http://www.independent.co.uk/biography/niki-seth-smith), and appears to be from Basingstoke.
> 
> ...


More immigrants in england - maybe they are the immigrants haters? Eh? Eh?

Seriously though, you don't have to answer for how other people put stuff just because you link to it. Basic rule of linking to potentially interesting stuff.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 10, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> You'd need to ask Scott Blinder from the Oxford University Migration Observatory.
> 
> I didn't think I'd have to issue disclaimers, but I didn't write that blog, either.  I posted it for discussion purposes.  I know little of Niki Seth-Smith except that she writes for the London Review of Books, The London Magazine, Independent (according to whom she is "a freelance journalist and front page editor at openDemocracy.net. She writes on questions of nationality, technology and gender and is currently editing a book on economic democracy" http://www.independent.co.uk/biography/niki-seth-smith), and appears to be from Basingstoke.
> 
> ...



One of the many problems here comes from taking 1/10 of a place and comparing it to the other 9/10s. It can be very misleading as you're not really comparing like with like. Also, Scotland has about half the number of foreign-born residents than the rest of the UK - 7% compared to 13%. 

And that survey even on its own gives a complicated picture - 45% wanting Scotland to have stricter immigration rules than the UK, for instance, is a pretty high figure.


----------



## geminisnake (Feb 10, 2014)

UKIP are clearly an English party and for some voters a vote for UKIP represents that,

I fecked up the quote but 
It should be EIP then


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 10, 2014)

weepiper said:


> I'm curious why that assertion should result in such a hostile reaction littlebabyjesus


This deserves an answer. 

First, I was at work, so short answers bashed out in a couple of seconds were in order. That doesn't lend itself to nuance.

Second, I don't like seeing people retreating into national stereotyping and generalising, and discussion of such things in terms of a nationalist 'us' and 'you'. 'The Scots' are this; 'the English' are that. Not only is such stereotyping invariably well off the mark, it is counter-productive and divisive.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> One of the many problems here comes from taking 1/10 of a place and comparing it to the other 9/10s. It can be very misleading as you're not really comparing like with like. Also, Scotland has about half the number of foreign-born residents than the rest of the UK - 7% compared to 13%.
> 
> And that survey even on its own gives a complicated picture - 45% wanting Scotland to have stricter immigration rules than the UK, for instance, is a pretty high figure.


You could ask Scott Blinder if he took that into account.  ( scott.blinder@compas.ox.ac.uk or migrationobservatory@compas.ox.ac.uk ).  They also have a Twitter thing: @MigObs 

There's a bit on methodology here: http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/reports/appendix-b-methodology


----------



## 8ball (Feb 10, 2014)

From the general mainstream media it looks like things are taking a bit of a 'yeswards' turn - is that right or is it just more Westminster-centric twaddle?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 10, 2014)

8ball said:


> From the general mainstream media it looks like things are taking a bit of a 'yeswards' turn - is that right or is it just more Westminster-centric twaddle?


 Certainly the case for the jocks that I rang trying to persuade them to remain English.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 10, 2014)

8ball said:


> From the general mainstream media it looks like things are taking a bit of a 'yeswards' turn - is that right or is it just more Westminster-centric twaddle?



I don't know. It feels like that from here, from people I've been talking to at work/on social media etc noticeably so since Cameron's speech but I don't know how representative my friends are.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 10, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Certainly the case for the jocks that I rang trying to persuade them to remain English.


 
I tried on this thread.  Deathly silence.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 10, 2014)

weepiper said:


> I don't know. It feels like that from here, from people I've been talking to at work/on social media etc noticeably so since Cameron's speech but I don't know how representative my friends are.


 
Yeah, hard to tell how representative these things are but I'm sure Disco Dave's efforts have been heartily welcomed by the 'Yes' camp.


----------



## catinthehat (Feb 11, 2014)

http://noscotland.net/#pd_a_6300445 
Poll on the No's page with 90% vote for Yes.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 11, 2014)

catinthehat said:


> http://noscotland.net/#pd_a_6300445
> Poll on the No's page with 90% vote for Yes.



Poll fail!

The blog name sounds as though it would be more appropriate for an English nationalist one; "No Scotland"


----------



## ddraig (Feb 11, 2014)

that was a bit funny


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 11, 2014)

8ball said:


> Yeah, hard to tell how representative these things are but I'm sure Disco Dave's efforts have been heartily welcomed by the 'Yes' camp.


It seems so obviously counterproductive to many people that I've heard at least twice independently since Friday the theory that Cameron's actual intention was to drive people into the Yes camp.  The theory goes that the Tories want to increase their chances of a majority at Westminster but have to be seen to be trying to save the Union.  (It's like the Father Ted Eurovision episode.  Cameron's speech is the equivalent of My Lovely Horse, original non-plagiarised version).


----------



## gosub (Feb 11, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> It seems so obviously counterproductive to many people that I've heard at least twice independently since Friday the theory that Cameron's actual intention was to drive people into the Yes camp.  The theory goes that the Tories want to increase their chances of a majority at Westminster but have to be seen to be trying to save the Union.  (It's like the Father Ted Eurovision episode.  Cameron's speech is the equivalent of My Lovely Horse, original non-plagiarised version).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 11, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> It seems so obviously counterproductive to many people that I've heard at least twice independently since Friday the theory that Cameron's actual intention was to drive people into the Yes camp.  The theory goes that the Tories want to increase their chances of a majority at Westminster but have to be seen to be trying to save the Union.  (It's like the Father Ted Eurovision episode.  Cameron's speech is the equivalent of My Lovely Horse, original non-plagiarised version).


It does sound like that. However, I think it's entirely possible (and probable) that Cameron is in fact so blissfully un-self-aware, and confident of his own charm, that he will believe that he is helping. In your analogy, he is Ted (or indeed Dougal), not the cynical eurovision host.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 11, 2014)

that vast privilege was just resting in his class.


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 11, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> that vast privilege was just resting in his class.



Kicking Mrs. Thatcher up the arse.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It does sound like that. However, I think it's entirely possible (and probable) that Cameron is in fact so blissfully un-self-aware, and confident of his own charm, that he will believe that he is helping. In your analogy, he is Ted (or indeed Dougal), not the cynical eurovision host.


 
Didn't he, or one of the senior Tories, actually say they were a hindrance a few weeks ago?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 11, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> that vast privilege was just resting in his class.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It does sound like that. However, I think it's entirely possible (and probable) that Cameron is in fact so blissfully un-self-aware, and confident of his own charm, that he will believe that he is helping. In your analogy, he is Ted (or indeed Dougal), not the cynical eurovision host.


This is the thing, though.  They don't seem to be self-unaware.  I happen to think he _does_ think he's helping.  But it's hard to reconcile the two, which is why people leap for the conspiracy theory.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 11, 2014)

gosub said:


>


I'm not a fan of Limmy, but that was amusing.

Limmy, keep on producing your stuff.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 11, 2014)

The My Lovely Horse Speech was "co-hosted"  by Glasgow Caledonian University.  In London.

http://derekbateman1.wordpress.com/2014/02/08/scottish-university-joins-no-campaign/


----------



## mwgdrwg (Feb 20, 2014)

Bowie cares! The twat. Still fucking love him though.


----------



## geminisnake (Feb 20, 2014)

Strangely enough I've gone right off Bowie. The man doesn't even live in the UK, do fuck off back to the US luv.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 20, 2014)

I'm just waiting for Bono to chip in with his unwanted two pennies worth of opinion


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 20, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> Strangely enough I've gone right off Bowie. The man doesn't even live in the UK, do fuck off back to the US luv.


The Man Who Fell To Perth.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 20, 2014)

mwgdrwg said:


> Bowie cares! The twat. Still fucking love him though.


Ziggy play-ay-ed Stranraer - aer - aer.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 20, 2014)

Stirling City


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 20, 2014)

Young Aberdonians


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 20, 2014)

oh no, not me, I never lost control. Yer face, to face, with the man who sold the wirld


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 20, 2014)

Lust for Fife.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 20, 2014)

The Beauly Brothers.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 20, 2014)

Queen Bitch of the South


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 20, 2014)

Is there Life in Montrose?


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 20, 2014)

Alloa Young Dudes


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 20, 2014)

Is there Fife on Mars?


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 20, 2014)

Speyside Oddity


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 20, 2014)

All the Young Dougals?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 20, 2014)

The Livingston Gnome


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 20, 2014)

Be My Fife


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 20, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> Strangely enough I've gone right off Bowie. The man doesn't even live in the UK, do fuck off back to the US luv.


 
I'm surprised he didn't ask Kate to recite the Lord's Prayer. Seriously, though, even though I disagree with him, hasn't he a right to air his views on Scotland, like the rest of us. Even though we don't all live there?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 20, 2014)

Here am I, floating in a tin can. Scotlands flag is blue and theres nothing osbourne can doooo....


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 20, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> I'm surprised he didn't ask Kate to recite the Lord's Prayer. Seriously, though, even though I disagree with him, hasn't he a right to air his views on Scotland, like the rest of us. Even though we don't all live there?



Why would he even have a view, let alone think to air it?


----------



## geminisnake (Feb 20, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> Strangely enough I've gone right off Bowie. The man doesn't even live in the UK, do fuck off back to the US luv.


And I've just found out he didn't actually come to the UK to collect his award so double fuck you Bowie! 

krtek a houby yes he is entitled to have an opinion and spout it, but he must also be prepared for the backlash when he doesn't even live in the UK. People really don't seem to understand Scots are sick to the back teeth of people from other countries interfering in their lives when those people have absolutely no idea what living in Scotland is like.
Can't be arsed with 'patriots' that don't even live in the place they are patriotic about and that does include Mr Connery!


----------



## geminisnake (Feb 20, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Is there Life in Montrose?



It's life Jim but not as we know it


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 20, 2014)

Captain. Only Bones addressed Kirk as 'Jim'. Spock called him Captain


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 20, 2014)

Such a shame the Slovaks didn't want to keep Czechoslovakia together.


----------



## andysays (Feb 20, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why would he even have a view, let alone think to air it?



Why wouldn't he have a view, or indeed think to air it?

I'm not sure he either expected or intended that his "intervention" would have a significant effect.

And I suggest "Always Crashing in the Same Stranraer"


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 20, 2014)

andysays said:


> Why wouldn't he have a view, or indeed think to air it?


Same reason Sean Connery shouldn't really have a view. He loves the UK so much he almost brings himself to pay taxes here.


----------



## andysays (Feb 20, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Same reason Sean Connery shouldn't really have a view. He loves the UK so much he almost brings himself to pay taxes here.



That seems a bizarre argument. Shall we conclude that in future you will only be expressing an opinion on issues in the part of the world that you pay taxes in?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 20, 2014)

andysays said:


> That seems a bizarre argument. Shall we conclude that in future you will only be expressing an opinion on issues in the part of the world that you pay taxes in?


I don't really care, but ex-pat patriotism can be rather irksome.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 20, 2014)

Bowie, Connery and anyone else is entitled to an opinion and to express it.  It seems a little odd that Bowie should still talk about "us" when he hasn't lived in the UK for decades, but I suppose people identify with the place they're from.  "Scotland stay with us" isn't exactly a perspicacious analysis,  but he can say it if he likes.

Although, to be _with_ him, we'd all need to move to Manhattan. Perhaps we could do a house swap holiday with him and Iman or something.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 20, 2014)

first we take Manhattan. AND THEN BERLIN


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 20, 2014)

Trilogy.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 20, 2014)

I didn't really have a strong opinion on this before. Mildly against it out of a general dislike of borders. But now pretty much everything said by the "No" camp is irritating me, some of it highly so, particularly the unedifying sight of Labour lining up behind Osborne. Even Bowie's irrelevant little tweet is a bit annoying.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 20, 2014)

I am for it because the breakup of a 500 year old political union while under the governance of the fucking tories will be a stain on them and their ridiculouse throne worship


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 20, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I didn't really have a strong opinion on this before. Mildly against it out of a general dislike of borders. But now pretty much everything said by the "No" camp is irritating me, some of it highly so, particularly the unedifying sight of Labour lining up behind Osborne. Even Bowie's irrelevant little tweet is a bit annoying.



Yeah its cringing, so fucking needy.  The Westminster lot should really just shut the fuck up if they really want Scotland to stay, every time one of them opens their mouth the Yes campaign wins another chunk of votes.

Personally I just want it all to end, I'm sick of Salmond being on the TV all the time playing the wee plucky Scot standing up to the big bad bullies.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 20, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I am for it because the breakup of a 500 year old political union while under the governance of the fucking tories will be a stain on them and their ridiculouse throne worship


Rounding to the nearest half-millennium? 

I have growing sympathy for this position.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 20, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Rounding to the nearest half-millennium?


It just _feels_ that long.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 20, 2014)

When Scotland leaves, the UK will need a new name. 

It will still be a union, but will no longer be the old union. So it will be the former-United-Kingdom Union, or the fUK U.


----------



## 2hats (Feb 20, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> Captain. Only Bones addressed Kirk as 'Jim'. Spock called him Captain



*coughs*


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 20, 2014)

Never argue with Star Trek fans.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 20, 2014)

1.14 minutes of jimming, pah


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Feb 20, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> It seems so obviously counterproductive to many people that I've heard at least twice independently since Friday the theory that Cameron's actual intention was to drive people into the Yes camp.  The theory goes that the Tories want to increase their chances of a majority at Westminster but have to be seen to be trying to save the Union.  (It's like the Father Ted Eurovision episode.  Cameron's speech is the equivalent of My Lovely Horse, original non-plagiarised version).


To be completely honest, this has been my suspicion for why the tories have been willing to go ahead with the referendum in the first place. If Scotland stays then they look like they've been fair in offering the option to leave but the power of the UK has shone through. If Scotland goes then it makes the next election somewhat safer for them. Win win situation for them.

Speaking as someone from the southern side of the border, tbh I think it's less about not giving a crap, but not really feeling like it's my decision to make.


----------



## geminisnake (Feb 20, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> Captain. Only Bones addressed Kirk as 'Jim'. Spock called him Captain





And I was quoting Bones


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 25, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why would he even have a view, let alone think to air it?


 
I have a view on Israel/Palestine. I don't live there, though. Should I refrain from ever commenting on it?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 25, 2014)

news just in from my brother 'What? why should I care. Let them get on with it. Did you get my eggs from the shop?'


----------



## D'wards (Feb 26, 2014)

I'd quite like Scottish independence, just because i like a bit of change in the world, plus it would sort the Andy Murray supporting dilemma out for once and for all.

In fact, i'd like Wales and NI to split too, purely for sports reasons. Always mildly irked me that we have  an England football, rugby and cricket team and a GB athletics team etc.


----------



## Theisticle (Feb 26, 2014)

Full of hot air, as per usual. Honestly, Salmond is not convincing at all.

http://www.newstatesman.com/2014/02/alex-salmond-why-should-scotland-let-itself-be-ruled-tories


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 26, 2014)

D'wards said:


> I'd quite like Scottish independence, just because i like a bit of change in the world, plus it would sort the Andy Murray supporting dilemma out for once and for all.
> 
> In fact, i'd like Wales and NI to split too, purely for sports reasons. Always mildly irked me that we have  an England football, rugby and cricket team and a GB athletics team etc.


 
Just to be pedantic, the cricket team is technically England and Wales. And effectively Scotland and Ireland as well, at test level especially.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 26, 2014)

I don't want a split, I want Britain to remain "Great", and we should take the USA back under control!

And India!


----------



## D'wards (Feb 27, 2014)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Just to be pedantic, the cricket team is technically England and Wales. And effectively Scotland and Ireland as well, at test level especially.


 South Africa too of course.

I reckon we should encourage Scottish independence, then immediately invade them and strip them of their assets (what's new, right Salmond?)


----------



## geminisnake (Feb 27, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I don't want a split, I want Britain to remain "Great",



Remain Great? It hasn't been Great for a long time!!


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 27, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> Remain Great? It hasn't been Great for a long time!!



It is still great.  Brittany is literally Lesser Britain.  The main island of the archipelago we live on is Great Britain, and will continue to be even if Scotland becomes independent.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 27, 2014)

Agent Sparrow said:


> To be completely honest, this has been my suspicion for why the tories have been willing to go ahead with the referendum in the first place. If Scotland stays then they look like they've been fair in offering the option to leave but the power of the UK has shone through. If Scotland goes then it makes the next election somewhat safer for them. Win win situation for them.
> 
> Speaking as someone from the southern side of the border, tbh I think it's less about not giving a crap, but not really feeling like it's my decision to make.



This is a post I massively agree with. Especially the bit I've bolded. But I suppose the thread title leaves a bit of leeway for English people and others to give a bit more than a crap, so ...

*Vote NO Scotland!*

Main reason, not for Scots but for ME ME ME. To satisfy my entirely, 110% selfish needs NOT to be perpetually majority-ruled by the Tories, whether I'm based in SW Wales (as now) or in some of the lovely places in England, especially the North, that I'd happily retire to ... (see my latest in the Real Ales in Wales thread  )

Sorry danny. In reality I entirely respect Scotland's possible wishes to break away, and I entirely agree that its the Scots and Scots alone** who should decide.

(**but what about the Scots based in England, or Wales, who seem not to be entitled to any vote in this fight? Might those Scots, and I speculate  a bit  here, be a _little_ bit more 'No' leaning  I wonder?  Especially if they, like most Scots, hate the Tories?  )

For fucks sake though anyway! 

In voting SNP (effectively) you're inflicting Cameron and his type *FOR ABSOLUTELY EVER* onto *all* of us non-Scots!!!!!!! 

<  x 10 million .... >

I think you understand from this that I don't, at all,  buy the argument that it makes no effective difference to UK wide elections whether Scottish MPs were included in the totals in General Election history.

freespirit's posts about this earlier seemed to have been largely ignored or dismissed.

Yes, history will quite clearly tell you all that South of the Border has inflicted the Tories onto Scotland (whether full on version with added Thatcher, or more rubbish versions including Labour).

But I'm literally dreading, quaking in my boots even, that the same will happen to us down here in reverse.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 27, 2014)

And in a shorter version : 

What the hell's wrong with Devo-max?

(we'd love that in Wales ... )


----------



## weepiper (Feb 27, 2014)




----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 27, 2014)

Title of thread :

"
*as an Englishman, am I "wrong" not to give a crap?*
"

Answer : No.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 27, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> In voting SNP (effectively) you're inflicting Cameron and his type *FOR ABSOLUTELY EVER* onto *all* of us non-Scots!!!!!!!
> 
> <  x 10 million .... >
> 
> freespirit's posts about this earlier seemed to have been largely ignored or dismissed.


erm, just to be clear on that, my posts weren't saying that we'd be stuck with the tories for ever, just that there'd likely be less majority labour governments, and more tory governments based on previous voting patterns.

Hard to know really how much difference it'd make, but I think it'd be fair to say that it will neither result in 100% tory rule in the rest of the UK, nor will it make no difference at all.

One further point would be that the stats are pretty biased by the figures for the 3 term new labour government which would have won in the rest of the UK all 3 times regardless of Scotlands votes. My suspicion would be that the loss of Scottish votes would have a much more significant impact on the potential for the rest of the UK electing a more left wing version of the Labour party than Blairs new labour... not that this is an option currently so it's maybe a bit of a moot point.

One point in favor of Scottish independence though might be that if it did end up with more left of centre governments and policies, and these could be seen to be working better than the westminster neoliberalist consensus policies, then that might well be the most effective method of converting an English majority to the idea that we should also be supporting those sorts of policies.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 27, 2014)

Fair dos, and I understand what you're saying. I suppose my post above was a gut reaction embodying the FEAR!


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 27, 2014)

freespirit said:
			
		

> One point in favor of Scottish independence though might be that if it did end up with more left of centre governments and policies, and these could be seen to be working better than the westminster neoliberalist consensus policies, then that might well be the most effective method of converting an English majority to the idea that we should also be supporting those sorts of policies.



Yet in the shorter term .....


----------



## free spirit (Feb 27, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Fair dos, and I understand what you're saying. I suppose my post above was a gut reaction embodying the FEAR!


tbf, if you include new labour as being pretty much tory, then you were probably not far off.

On the other hand I can entirely understand the Scottish position of not being willing to swap the chance of never having to live under tory rule again for maybe enabling the rest of the UK to have 10-20% less Tory governments than they would do without them.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 27, 2014)

I very much know that ... plenty of Scottish lefties Just Want to Break Free






... and quite understandably


----------



## weltweit (Feb 27, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> Remain Great? It hasn't been Great for a long time!!


It depends on what "great" means to you. Great Britain is still a significant nation on many measurements, a great group of countries and has the commonwealth.

We, England Scotland and Wales are all together in Europe, and while some Scots want to leave Great Britain, they don't seem to want to leave Europe. What is the difference? we are all in Europe, we will all probably remain in Europe. Staying in GB means we retain our current clout on the world scene. As England and Wales and separate Scotland we would neither have as much clout as at the moment.


danny la rouge said:


> It is still great.  Brittany is literally Lesser Britain.  The main island of the archipelago we live on is Great Britain, and will continue to be even if Scotland becomes independent.


Indeed.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 27, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> And in a shorter version :
> 
> What the hell's wrong with Devo-max?
> 
> (we'd love that in Wales ... )




If any pro-independence types want to push aside ny earlier drunken rant, feel independently minded (and soberly minded   ) free to do so.

I do think though that the Devo Max issue hasn't really been discussed in this particular thread, so please enlighten me ...


----------



## Belushi (Feb 27, 2014)

weltweit said:


> and while some Scots want to leave Great Britain



They want to leave the United Kingdom, with the best will in the world they can't leave Great Britain, which is a geographical term.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 28, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Title of thread :
> 
> "
> *as an Englishman, am I "wrong" not to give a crap?*
> ...



Should have thought that one through a bit more last night but it was all a bit late  

My answer should really have been 'Yes' ..... in other words, it's right to take an interest, because in various ways the referendum and outcome will affect us too. And quite significantly.


----------



## marty21 (Feb 28, 2014)

Agent Sparrow said:


> To be completely honest, this has been my suspicion for why the tories have been willing to go ahead with the referendum in the first place. If Scotland stays then they look like they've been fair in offering the option to leave but the power of the UK has shone through. If Scotland goes then it makes the next election somewhat safer for them. Win win situation for them.
> 
> Speaking as someone from the southern side of the border, tbh I think it's less about not giving a crap, but not really feeling like it's my decision to make.


 yeah, my only reason for not wanting Scottish Independence is that it probably means the Tories will be in power for a long time in England


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 28, 2014)

weltweit said:


> It depends on what "great" means to you. Great Britain is still a significant nation on many measurements, a great group of countries and has the commonwealth.
> 
> We, England Scotland and Wales are all together in Europe, and while some Scots want to leave Great Britain, they don't seem to want to leave Europe. What is the difference? we are all in Europe, we will all probably remain in Europe. Staying in GB means we retain our current clout on the world scene. As England and Wales and separate Scotland we would neither have as much clout as at the moment.
> 
> Indeed.


"has the commonwealth"?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 28, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> It is still great.  Brittany is literally Lesser Britain.  The main island of the archipelago we live on is Great Britain, and will continue to be even if Scotland becomes independent.



As an historical, geographical concept, maybe....but since GB has had a distinct political meaning it is probably more accurate to refer to our 'main island' as Britain. Remember that the political entity of GB also includes a number of other islands of the 'archipeligo'.

This is why, IMO, a disunited Kingdom would have to find an alternative name for the continuity state. Although the English, Welsh components of Britain (GB) would remain united, (however temporarily), with NI, the term United Kingdom makes no logical sense with only one single Kingdom. 

Really the most viable, accurate name for the 'rump' state would have to be King/Queendom of South Britain and NI...and all that blue would have to be stripped out of the old butchersapron!


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 28, 2014)

marty21 said:


> yeah, my only reason for not wanting Scottish Independence is that it probably means the Tories will be in power for a long time in England




it doesn't apparently. Theres poor old danny's explained why about six times on the more sensible thread


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 28, 2014)

brogdale said:


> the term United Kingdom makes no logical sense with only one single Kingdom.


Alfred the Great would be spinning in his grave.


----------



## marty21 (Feb 28, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> it doesn't apparently. Theres poor old danny's explained why about six times on the more sensible thread


Will check other thread , seems to remove my only objection


----------



## geminisnake (Feb 28, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> And in a shorter version :
> 
> What the hell's wrong with Devo-max?
> 
> (we'd love that in Wales ... )



Westminster took it off the fucking table, for the umpteenth time!! Think both danny and I have posted this before.
Go to the Will you vote for Independence thread William, in the Scotland forum, read it, thoroughly 
Then tag danny with questions, he has way more patience than me


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 1, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> it doesn't apparently. Theres poor old danny's explained why about six times on the more sensible thread




Sorry, I don't buy the 'apparantly'. 

I appreciate I should try to get to grips with the other thread (it is massive mind you!) but danny and others have linked relevant stuff from there onto this thread (principally that blog by that Independence minded reverend guy, who's hardly 100% objective himself. But maybe there's other sources ...).

Still, It'll take a *lot *more convincing for me to be persuaded that removing 70-odd  Scottish MPs from Westminster, the majority of them Labour, and only one of them Tory, will make no appreciable difference to the balance of MPs UK-wide. 


In other words the Tories would surely by most likely calculations be given an instant boost (for instance after the 2010 election, the most recent,  they'd have had an overall majority without Scotland). The fact that the Tories have had landslides on the past, Scotland or not, doesn't contradict the 2010 figures, and we're talking more current politics now -- or at least I am.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 1, 2014)

marty21 said:


> Will check other thread , seems to remove my only objection




Don't just trust an independence minded blogger, however reverend!


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 1, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> Westminster took it off the fucking table, for the umpteenth time!! Think both danny and I have posted this before.
> Go to the Will you vote for Independence thread William, in the Scotland forum, read it, thoroughly
> Then tag danny with questions, he has way more patience than me




Please don't think I don't wish they'd left it on the table myself (I more meant its merits or demerits in principle really). Bur yes I will look at the other thread. Tomorrow!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 1, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> Strangely enough I've gone right off Bowie. The man doesn't even live in the UK, do fuck off back to the US luv.



Slight problem:  He's not based in the US - He's lived in Switzerland since the '90s.


----------



## geminisnake (Mar 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Slight problem:  He's not based in the US - He's lived in Switzerland since the '90s.



Like I care. He doesn't live here so he should butt out  He hasn't done anything decent since Labyrinth anyway.


----------



## JTG (Mar 1, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> (**but what about the Scots based in England, or Wales, who seem not to be entitled to any vote in this fight? Might those Scots, and I speculate  a bit  here, be a _little_ bit more 'No' leaning  I wonder?  Especially if they, like most Scots, hate the Tories?  )


Of course they're not entitled, just like you can't vote in south London any more


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 1, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> Like I care. He doesn't live here so he should butt out  He hasn't done anything decent since Labyrinth anyway.



Pfft.

He hasn't done anything decent since "Let's Dance"!


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Mar 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Pfft.
> 
> He hasn't done anything decent since "Let's Dance"!



Must...not...mention...Tin...Machine....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 1, 2014)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Must...not...mention...Tin...Machine....


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Pfft.
> 
> He hasn't done anything decent since "Let's Dance"!




number one album last year? I didn't rate the singles mind...


----------



## geminisnake (Mar 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Pfft.
> 
> He hasn't done anything decent since "Let's Dance"!



I happened to like Labyrinth ok


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 1, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> I happened to like Labyrinth ok



I can't take Bowie seriously with that sub-Rod Stewart feathercut hairdo he has in Labyrinth. He could at least have had it done _a la_ Aladdin Sane!


----------



## D'wards (Mar 1, 2014)

So what happens with the armed forces? Will they split or stay together for logistical reasons?


----------



## weltweit (Mar 1, 2014)

D'wards said:


> So what happens with the armed forces? Will they split or stay together for logistical reasons?


We should have a numeric advantage permitting immediate invasion but the Scots will have some nuclear subs I think which could deter us!


----------



## weltweit (Mar 1, 2014)

There are conflicting motions it seems, there are the Basque, the Catalan, the Scottish and others wanting to be independent from their current mother countries, and then there are larger countries wanting to and working to assimilate in a way within the European Union.

And yet, these smaller units, Catalonia or Scotland for example, while they want to be independent of Spain or the UK, they still want to be a part of the EU.

I can't say I understand it.


----------



## JTG (Mar 1, 2014)

D'wards said:


> So what happens with the armed forces? Will they split or stay together for logistical reasons?


Why the fuck would the army stay together? Scotland would probably end up with a massive one given the relative prevalence of Scots in the army


----------



## D'wards (Mar 1, 2014)

Gonna take some divvying up of weapons, tanks, cruise missiles, soldiers etc A logistical nightmare.

I know little of the bumfluffaries, but does Scotland have places to store their share of submarines/battle cruisers/tank squadrons?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 1, 2014)

I thought that military seperation was a devo max proposal, and devo max isn't on offer so the armed forces will stay together. It'd be a lot more difficult, logistically, than just splitting of the highland regiment.

And strategically it wouldn't seem to make much sense either.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 1, 2014)

D'wards said:


> Gonna take some divvying up of weapons, tanks, cruise missiles, soldiers etc A logistical nightmare.
> 
> I know little of the bumfluffaries, but does Scotland have places to store their share of submarines/battle cruisers/tank squadrons?




they've one of the very few places on the main isle where you can park a trident sub.


----------



## JTG (Mar 1, 2014)

D'wards said:


> Gonna take some divvying up of weapons, tanks, cruise missiles, soldiers etc A logistical nightmare.
> 
> I know little of the bumfluffaries, but does Scotland have places to store their share of submarines/battle cruisers/tank squadrons?


They have most of the submarines already tbh


----------



## geminisnake (Mar 1, 2014)

Are there any Highland/Scottish regiments left? Thought they'd all been chopped in cost saving efforts, but I don't really pay attention to the MoD.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 1, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> Are there any Highland/Scottish regiments left? Thought they'd all been chopped in cost saving efforts, but I don't really pay attention to the MoD.




I'm not sure if they were folded into the Rifles a while back. ViolentPanda would know


----------



## JTG (Mar 1, 2014)

Scots Guards for a start


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 1, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm not sure if they were folded into the Rifles a while back. ViolentPanda would know



Scottish regts are still there (under the aegis of the Royal Regt of Scotland, a mega regt of 6 bttns). The Rifles are the former Light Infantry Regt (salt of the earth!) and The Royal Green Jackets (scum of the earth!)


----------



## JTG (Mar 1, 2014)

Royal Regiment of Scotland is what became of the KOSB and Royal Scots I think


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 1, 2014)

JTG said:


> Scots Guards for a start



Guards regts aren't quite the same proposition as standard infantry.  Their officer corps admits cuntbuckets like Iain Dunked-in Shit, for a start.  Plus they wear those ridic red uniforms and silly hats.


----------



## JTG (Mar 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Guards regts aren't quite the same proposition as standard infantry.  Their officer corps admits cuntbuckets like Iain Dunked-in Shit, for a start.  Plus they wear those ridic red uniforms and silly hats.


They all wear silly hats though


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 1, 2014)

JTG said:


> They all wear silly hats though



Think how many bears died just so that Guards could look like total fucking knobbers!


----------



## JTG (Mar 1, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Think how many bears died just so that Guards could look like total fucking knobbers!


They're made of cat now, damn cuts


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 1, 2014)

they should bring back the humble shako IMO. It may look like an overgrown fez but there is a certain panache to it


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 2, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> they should bring back the humble shako IMO. It may look like an overgrown fez but there is a certain panache to it



Wearing a steaming turd on their heads would have more panache than a bearskin!


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 2, 2014)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> (**but what about the Scots based in England, or Wales, who seem not to be entitled to any vote in this fight? Might those Scots, and I speculate  a bit here, be a _little_ bit more 'No' leaning I wonder? Especially if they, like most Scots, hate the Tories?  )





JTG said:


> Of course they're not entitled, just like you can't vote in south London any more



Wouldn't argue anything different.  
Was only suggesting/speculating that some Scots down here who don't have the vote might (?) not be quite so keen on 'Yes'. For the same pragmatic reasons that anti-Tory English and Welsh people might have reservations ....


----------



## free spirit (Mar 2, 2014)

It's a bit different to council elections when it potentially impacts on the passport you'll be allowed to carry.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 2, 2014)

Everything to play for:

Scottish independence: Union support at 53% - poll


> The latest study by polling firm YouGov found 53 per cent of those surveyed wanted Scotland to continue as part of the UK.
> 
> Meanwhile 35 per cent of people questioned said that Scotland should be an independent country, according to the research for the Scottish Sun newspaper.
> 
> More than one in 10 voters (12 per cent) were undecided about how to vote in the September 18 referendum.


http://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...dependence-union-support-at-53-poll-1-3324773


----------



## Sue (Mar 2, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Wouldn't argue anything different.
> Was only suggesting/speculating that some Scots down here who don't have the vote might (?) not be quite so keen on 'Yes'. For the same pragmatic reasons that anti-Tory English and Welsh people might have reservations ....


I'm Scottish and live in London. I'd say most of the Scots I know down here are pretty strongly pro independence.

Eta Actually, I don't know any who're against it -- all are either pro or undecided at the moment.


----------



## JTG (Mar 2, 2014)

Yep all the Scots I know are pro, undecided or ambivalent. No strong 'nos' at all.

Includes the Scots I know in Scotland and the ones I house share with in Bristol


----------



## brogdale (Mar 2, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Everything to play for:
> 
> Scottish independence: Union support at 53% - poll
> 
> http://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...dependence-union-support-at-53-poll-1-3324773



The biggest driver for the 'Yes' campaign would be a resurgence in UK tory polling numbers; the threat of another tory administration would almost certainly push large numbers of urban 'don't knows' into the Yes camp.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 3, 2014)

With hindsight, this Herald piece makes for interesting reading....



> *Cameron's plea to Putin: help  me stop Salmond*
> Sunday 12 January 2014
> 
> DAVID Cameron's Government wants the backing of Russian President Vladimir Putin in the battle against Scottish independence, the former USSR's leading news agency has reported.





> Itar-Tass, citing a source in the Conservative Prime Minister's office, said Britain was *"extremely interested" in referendum support from Russia*, which this year holds the presidency of the influential G8 group of rich industrial nations. The state-owned agency....said *the Cameron aide had warned Scottish independence could "send shockwaves across the whole of Europe". *
> 
> For the first time since devolution *an Edinburgh administration is pursuing a foreign policy that is at odds with the interests of the British state.* The Tass report..... reads: "*Great Britain is extremely interested in the support of Russia, as holder of the G8 presidency, in two vital areas in 2014: the Afghan pull-out and the Scottish independence referendum*."
> 
> ...


----------



## geminisnake (Mar 3, 2014)

I don't quite get asking Russia to help tbh. Scotland has very good relations with Russia/the former CCCP, England does not have such good relations.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 3, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> I don't quite get asking Russia to help tbh. Scotland has very good relations with Russia/the former CCCP, England does not have such good relations.


 England?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 3, 2014)

Eh?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 3, 2014)

brogdale said:


> With hindsight, this Herald piece makes for interesting reading....


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 3, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> I don't quite get asking Russia to help tbh. Scotland has very good relations with Russia/the former CCCP, England does not have such good relations.


Are you mad?


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 3, 2014)

About to respond to a couple of points, but first I just want to say that I've only now realised how Loch Ness-mega the main 'Would you vote for Independence' thread on the Scotland forum is -- 57 pages long now  

So despite earlier best intentions I'm not sure when/if I'm ever going to have time to do more than lightly skim it. For now I'll have to stick to this one.

Anyway :




			
				William of Walworth said:
			
		

> (**but what about the Scots based in England, or Wales, who seem not to be entitled to any vote in this fight? Might those Scots, and I speculate  a bit here, be a _little_ bit more 'No' leaning I wonder? Especially if they, like most Scots, hate the Tories?  )






			
				JTG said:
			
		

> Of course they're not entitled, just like you can't vote in south London any more






			
				William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Wouldn't argue anything different.
> Was only suggesting/speculating that some Scots down here who don't have the vote might (?) not be quite so keen on 'Yes'. For the same *pragmatic* reasons that anti-Tory English and Welsh people might have reservations ....


 [Bold now added]




Sue said:


> I'm Scottish and live in London. I'd say most of the Scots I know down here are pretty strongly pro independence.
> 
> Eta Actually, I don't know any who're against it -- all are either pro or undecided at the moment.






			
				JTG said:
			
		

> Yep all the Scots I know are pro, undecided or ambivalent.  No strong 'nos' at all.
> 
> Includes the Scots I know in Scotland and the ones I house share with in Bristol



I think I probably need to clarify my earlier point a bit here. I don't doubt what Sue and JTG are saying, I don't doubt either of you when you say that most/all Scots you know down here (and that's the only category of Scots I meant btw!) incline towards independence, or indeed fully support it.

But I deliberately used the word 'pragmatic' (and yes I was speculating anyway as I said, because I currently know almost no Scots IRL myself, and only a few on here).

Lots of people favour independence in principle (and I agree with them myself fwiw).

But they might, outside Scotland, become somewhat more conflicted *in pragmatic terms* when they think about the Tory-favouring implications for a Scotlandless rump-UK electorally.

And to to those who keep insisting Scottish independence won't make any difference either way to UK-wide/UKwide elections because of past GE results, well I can only repeat my scepticism about future elections. Seems utterly counterintuitive to me to ignore or dismiss the likely effect (in terms of boosting the Tories) of removing 70-odd Scottish seats, which currently number only one Tory ...

Perhaps those exiled Scots favouring independence will be in a position to move back after the referendum. Lucky them! 

More constructively :

John Harris's article on Scottish independence in today's Graun is quite interesting

That old West Lothian question ...


----------



## gosub (Apr 13, 2014)

good article

oh and in response to the OP


----------



## weltweit (Apr 13, 2014)

What are the implications for England, Wales and Northern Ireland if Scotland does vote yes?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 13, 2014)

weltweit said:


> What are the implications for England, Wales and Northern Ireland if Scotland does vote yes?


Hopefully it will strike fear into the "hearts" of the neoliberal elite, who will realise concessions will need to be made on the Welfare State and so on in the rUK too. I hope it has a real practical effect on working people's lives.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 13, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Hopefully it will strike fear into the "hearts" of the neoliberal elite, who will realise concessions will need to be made on the Welfare State and so on in the rUK too. I hope it has a real practical effect on working people's lives.


Perhaps there will be calls for a parliament for the English?

And I suppose the Nuclear Subs will go to an English port city somewhere.

Perhaps there will be greater demand for fracking as North Sea Oil may become more expensive for the southerners.

And the military will have to reorganise "again" as formerly Scottish forces will likely be closed and anyhow will not be available to Westminster any more.

I wonder if there will be any immigration control for English, Welsh or Northern Irish people working in Scotland?


----------



## weltweit (Apr 13, 2014)

Parts of the contracts to build the two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers are destined for Scotland.
Will that continue if Scotland votes yes?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 13, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I wonder if there will be any immigration control for English, Welsh or Northern Irish people working in Scotland?


No, there won't. And anyone resident in Scotland at the time of independence will have Scottish citizenship if they want it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 13, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Perhaps there will be calls for a parliament for the English?


After Scottish independence? Will that be necessary?


----------



## weltweit (Apr 13, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> No, there won't. And anyone resident in Scotland at the time of independence will have Scottish citizenship if they want it.


What about if after independence I, as a British person, get an oil job in Aberdeen, will I be eligible for Scottishness?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 13, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Parts of the contracts to build the two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers are destined for Scotland.
> Will that continue if Scotland votes yes?


That depends on the real reason the contracts were awarded. 

Many states buy arms from companies in other territories.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 13, 2014)

weltweit said:


> What about if after independence I, as a British person, get an oil job in Aberdeen, will I be eligible for Scottishness?


Scratch that, Salmond wants to remain in the EU so there is my answer at least in part..


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 13, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Scratch that, Salmond wants to remain in the EU so there is my answer at least in part..


Your full answer, should you want it, is in the White Paper.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 13, 2014)

weltweit said:


> What about if after independence I, as a British person, get an oil job in Aberdeen, will I be eligible for Scottishness?


Yes.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 13, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Scratch that, Salmond wants to remain in the EU so there is my answer at least in part..



The rUK will likely veto Scottish membership of the EU.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 13, 2014)

calling the remainder 'rump' UK is seriously swinging me to a no vote (if I had a say). We are not the rump. The loin maybe. And wales can be the haunch.


----------



## RedDragon (Apr 13, 2014)

I'd be gobsmacked if the vote was YES, it would certainly be a memorable day in UK politics.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 13, 2014)

RedDragon said:


> I'd be gobsmacked if the vote was YES, it would certainly be a memorable day in UK politics.


I think it is increasingly possible it might be a yes vote.
Of the two campaigns yes is getting momentum, no does not seem to have even gotten started yet.
Perhaps as time progresses no might begin to be persuasive, but so far it looks as weak as Darling is charismatic!


----------



## Quartz (Apr 13, 2014)

RedDragon said:


> I'd be gobsmacked if the vote was YES, it would certainly be a memorable day in UK politics.



A Yes vote is highly likely IMHO.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 13, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> calling the remainder 'rump' UK is seriously swinging me to a no vote (if I had a say). We are not the rump. The loin maybe. And wales can be the haunch.


The r in rUK is for "remainder". Until you guys come up with a new name, rUK is all we have.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 13, 2014)

why need a new name? we can just go back to Brittania Superior for the lols


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 13, 2014)

Quartz said:


> The rUK will likely veto Scottish membership of the EU.


Because it wants to have a balance of payments deficit with a country outside the EU. 

Of course it won't veto Scottish membership.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 13, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> why need a new name? we can just go back to Brittania Superior for the lols


Go for it.


----------



## strung out (Apr 13, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Perhaps as time progresses no might begin to be persuasive, but so far it looks as weak as Darling is charismatic!


Eh?


----------



## free spirit (Apr 13, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Because it wants to have a balance of payments deficit with a country outside the EU.
> 
> Of course it won't veto Scottish membership.


also, having to negotiate separate trade, immigration / emigration and legal arrangements with the country that's closest to us would be a complete nightmare.

Can't see the remaining UK doing anything other than encouraging Scotland to be allowed membership of the EU asap.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 13, 2014)

bit Roman I suppose, don't like the ancient romans. 

if scotland goes independant that means they'd be a republic wouldn't it. Thats annoying. Why do we have to bear all the weight of royal parasites all of a sudden? I don't think people have thought this through.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 13, 2014)

free spirit said:


> also, having to negotiate separate trade, immigration / emigration and legal arrangements with the country that's closest to us would be a complete nightmare.
> 
> Can't see the remaining UK doing anything other than encouraging Scotland to be allowed membership of the EU asap.


Exactly. It is in the rUK interests for Scotland to be in the EU. The idea of even the most dimwitted of Westminster governments vetoing Scottish membership just for badness is farcical.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 13, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Exactly. It is in the rUK interests for Scotland to be in the EU. The idea of even the most dimwitted of Westminster governments vetoing Scottish membership just for badness is farcical.


I'd not entirely discount it though, given how fucking stupid the politicians in westminster seem to be anything's possible.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 13, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> if scotland goes independant that means they'd be a republic wouldn't it.


Sadly, no. The plan is for the monarchy to be shared (a la Canada, Australia etc), but a possible referendum maybe sometime in the future.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 13, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I'd not entirely discount it though, given how fucking stupid the politicians in westminster seem to be anything's possible.


While I have to admit that has the ring of truth to it, I think the oil, gas & electricity imports alone would be seen as a good reason there should be no tariffs between Scotland & rUK.


----------



## likesfish (Apr 13, 2014)

The spanish might though
A piss off the english
b stop catalonia and others getting any  ideas.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Apr 13, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Parts of the contracts to build the two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers are destined for Scotland.



The first of them is quite far along in its assembly at Rosyth. They had to build a massive new dry dock for it and acquire an enormo-crane, so I doubt that work is going elsewhere.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Apr 13, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Exactly. It is in the rUK interests for Scotland to be in the EU. The idea of even the most dimwitted of Westminster governments vetoing Scottish membership just for badness is farcical.



Aye, you're right. A Yes vote is going to be a massive ballache for Westminster (and Holyrood) anyway - just the administrative stuff splitting up the Civil Service etc for a start - they'd be mad to add the hassle of the trade stuff being outside the EU framework to that.


----------



## gosub (Apr 13, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> That depends on the real reason the contracts were awarded.
> 
> Many states buy arms from companies in other territories.



EU only allows defence shipping to be awarded internally to prop up industry, all other even fleet axillary has to be commercial tender, which is why fleet axillary ships are being built in Korea.  EUrope can't compete on price its the added benefits of jobs for the boys that keep it viable. And those jobs, if they want to keep them will most likely move south along with the contractts


----------



## gosub (Apr 13, 2014)

Quartz said:


> The rUK will likely veto Scottish membership of the EU.



rUk vetoing would be in breach of the Edinburgh agreement.  26 other countries ALL have to agree and there are a number where they won't like the precident


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 13, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Sadly, no. The plan is for the monarchy to be shared (a la Canada, Australia etc), but a possible referendum maybe sometime in the future.




well thats a shitter. Forwards to a worldwide shedding of etc.

I did have to laugh at the salmond news as reported on UK radio. Apparently the biggest talking point was he saying that a vote for independance is not a vote for SNP but a vote for scotlands future regardless of who has the whip hand. He's been making this point for ages  how is this news?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 13, 2014)

likesfish said:


> The spanish might though
> A piss off the english
> b stop catalonia and others getting any  ideas.


http://newsnetscotland.com/index.ph...scots-membership-of-eu-are-qabsolutely-falseq


----------



## gosub (Apr 13, 2014)

W





danny la rouge said:


> http://newsnetscotland.com/index.ph...scots-membership-of-eu-are-qabsolutely-falseq


 
Spain would still make Scotland rejoin, from there you have the budget deficet difficulties, Schengen membership - which means a proper border to rUK and promise to join EUro and you still have the other countries hoops as well


----------



## Quartz (Apr 13, 2014)

RedDragon said:


> I'd be gobsmacked if the vote was YES



Why? It was Yes last time around, though not to the required degree.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Why? It was Yes last time around, though not to the required degree.


That wasn't a referendum on this issue.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 13, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Why? It was Yes last time around, though not to the required degree.


The last time round? In the 97 devolution referendum the Yes vote was 75 per cent. 

And as butchers says, that was on devolution nor independence.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 13, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> The last time round? In the 97 devolution referendum the Yes vote was 75 per cent.



I was thinking of the vote of 1979, but that too was for a devolved assembly. I stand corrected.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 13, 2014)

gosub said:


> W
> 
> Spain would still make Scotland rejoin, from there you have the budget deficet difficulties, Schengen gen membership - which means a proper border to rUK and promise to join EUro and you still have the other countries hoops as well


Could, not would. And as for the stipulations, the EU is pragmatically lax. Denmark doesn't use the euro, despite being where the Copenhagen Agreement was signed and named! 

As you know, this has been gone over and over on the other thread. 

And as you also know, I do not support Scotland joining the EU anyway.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 13, 2014)

Oh and the border thing is a Unionist scare story.


----------



## gosub (Apr 13, 2014)

As they have the power of veto if they say jump it's how high as is with all others.   Read that Farage piece on the other thread SNP vote yes to stay in reply is Newspeak bollocks of the highest order.  But don't scare the horses even if further EU ref makes most sense


----------



## gosub (Apr 13, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Oh and the border thing is a Unionist scare story.


No Schengen area is some thing UK opted out of, new member must accept look it up. Scotland has porus border rUK will require proper border to avoid joining Schengen by proxy


----------



## gosub (Apr 13, 2014)

EUro member ship could be a kick the can down the road


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 13, 2014)

gosub said:


> No Schengen area is some thing UK opted out of, new member must accept look it up. Scotland has porus border rUK will require proper border to avoid joining Schengen by proxy


"Look it up"?  I have looked extensively into this.  And it doesn't take long before the claim falls apart. First, the UK already has a border with Ireland (Northern Ireland/Ireland border). Scotland proposes remaining in the Common Travel Area with England, as already exists between Ireland and the UK (and the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands)

Scotland will not be required to join Schengen. 

Secondly, there are many porous borders between EU countries an non EU countries.  Here is the border between Leichtenstein and Austria, complete with fortifications and border guards:


----------



## gosub (Apr 13, 2014)

Eire also opted out of the Schengen agreement.  Schengen has been part of core EU body of law since Amsterdam and cannot be opted out of by any applicant country


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 13, 2014)

Nonsense on stilts.


----------



## Welsh lad (Apr 13, 2014)

As a Plaid Cymru supporter, I for one would welcome Scottish independence. Like Scots, we're sick of being controlled and told what do by the Tory-led Westminster government. We do not have a parliament that has to power to pass and repel all the laws we want to without having to go Westminster first. or instance, the SNP are vehemently opposed to the Bedroom Tax, yet can doing nothing about. The SNP are a social democratic party open to encouraging more migrants into Scotland and are far more left-wing than Labour currently are. It's about time the national interests of Scotland were protected.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 13, 2014)

Hi danny la rouge

Thanks for returning to this thread, you are the known expert here on all things Scottish Independence and otherwise related  

Quick statement in advance of my question : I'm *thoroughly* in favour of Scottish independence in principle, but I post here from an entirely selfish POV.

Do you have at least _some_ understanding of why it might seem totally *counterintuitive* to some of us lefties down here, that we're surely fated to live under a permanantly Tory majority for the indefinite election future, were Scotland to go their own way?

Counterintuitive : 70-ish MPs from Scotland, only one of which right now is Tory. Makes no difference to the rest-of-UK Westminster balance once they're gone? I laugh at that, and bitterly.

I don't buy that Independence-favouring Scottish clergyman's blog -- he argues from post war General Election history that Scotland makes no GE difference. It would have done in 2010 however as even he acknowledged, and my main fear is for the current and future political climate.

I suspect there's something  of a 'Blame yourselves if you can't be arsed to get rid of the Tories and UKIP off your own efforts' mentality going on, which on most levels I fully understand -- Labour aren't much cop to say the least  ,and Scotland want to go their own way which is fine and I support that -- why the fuck should Scots be in the slightest bit interested in helping stop South of the Border going permanently Tory anyway? It's not down to you, nor should it be.

But I'm *literally desparately* hoping that more Scots than not vote for the unavailable, at least not officially, option -- Devo Max. Those utterly incompetent 'Better Together' wankers should concentrate on bigging up that IMO.

Hope you understand 

PS -- just seen the post above from Welsh lad ad and I do see his thinking. But I live in Swansea myself, may as an exile want to move back east of the border at some point, and I don't see a Scottish breakway giving non Tories in either England or Wales any favours -- at  least not in the short term.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 13, 2014)

we won't get Devo Max if we vote no. We'll be lucky to keep the parliament if we vote no.


----------



## geminisnake (Apr 13, 2014)

*From wiki*

*Current composition*
*Affiliation* *Members*
Labour Party 41
Liberal Democrats 11
Scottish National Party 6
Conservative Party 1
*Total* 59

As for Devo max it was Wastemonster that took that OFF the fucking table!


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 13, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> As for Devo max it was Westmonster  that took that OFF the fucking table!



Not the first time you've mentioned this gemini, I should remind you that I also blame Westminster for that absence from the referendum myself. I'm really pissed off about it in fact.

Very far from a No-favouring argument this, except a little bit in realpolitik terms, but if Scotland does vote No, especially narrowly, the UK Govt would surely be panicked into Devo-Maxing it to Scotland quite large -- in his almost-but-not-quite-winning disappointment, Salmond would be in a very strong position to push for Max as well ....


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Apr 13, 2014)

weepiper said:


> We'll be lucky to keep the parliament if we vote no.



That's not true at all. The Scotland Act will come into force in the event of a no vote. It's not devo-max, but it isn't the status quo either.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 13, 2014)

weepiper said:


> we won't get Devo Max if we vote no. *We'll be lucky to keep the parliament if we vote no*.




Is there any politician in Scotland, SNP or otherwise, who's seriously arguing that? Have my doubts ...


----------



## gosub (Apr 13, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Nonsense on stilts.



http://europa.eu/legislation_summar...t_of_persons_asylum_immigration/l33020_en.htm

from wiki :
Prior to 1999, the Schengen treaties and the rules adopted under them operated independently from the European Union; however, the Amsterdam Treaty incorporated them into European Union law, while providing opt-outs for the only two EU member states which had remained outside the Area: Ireland and the United Kingdom. Schengen is now a core part of EU law and all EU member states without an opt-out who have not already joined the Schengen Area are legally obliged to do so when technical requirements have been met. Several non-EU countries are also included in the area.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 13, 2014)

Hi William of Walworth I’ll take your points in order.


_Do you have at least some understanding of why it might seem totally counterintuitive to some of us lefties down here, that we're surely fated to live under a permanantly Tory majority for the indefinite election future, were Scotland to go their own way?_​
Yes, because you’ve been led to believe that Scotland hits bigger in parliamentary terms than it actually does.  Perhaps you even think that our 59 MPs all count against a Tory majority.  (That’s 59 out of 650, or 9.07%). But remember not all are Labour, at the moment 41 of them are.  (So that’s 6.3%).  Labour’s majority in 1997 was 179 (albeit before boundary changes).  In 2001 it was 167.

Even in 2005, where Labour (in the wake of the 2003 Iraq War) scored the lowest majority of any majority government in British history, it still managed a majority of 66, greater than the total number of seats in Scotland.  Even had all the Scottish seats been Labour (which they weren’t), Labour would still have had a majority even then.  Do the sums for yourself, if you don’t believe me.

Of course there might be some time or other that 41 seats might make a difference.  But it hasn’t been very often.

_Counterintuitive : 70-ish MPs from Scotland, only one of which right now is Tory. Makes no difference to the rest-of-UK Westminster balance once they're gone? I laugh at that, and bitterly._​
Not 70, it’s only 59.

_I don't buy that Independence-favouring Scottish clergyman's blog -- he argues from post war General Election history that Scotland makes no GE difference. It would have done in 2010 however as even he acknowledged, and my main fear is for the current and future political climate._​
Yes, the difference in 2010 would be that instead of a Lib-Dem/Tory Coalition (and remember Scottish Lib-Dem seats counted towards the Lib-Dem part of that Coalition) there would be a Tory majority. So, what exactly do you imagine the difference would have been? Do you think that Clegg or Vince Cable has been holding the Tories back at all?

For many Scots, the main fear is also “the current and future political climate”.  And, putting it in electoral terms, our tiny %age of Labour seats in Westminster makes no difference if England returns a majority of Tory seats.  Which it did for 18 long years.

(I know that this is down to FPTP and the fact that Westminster is won or lost in only a handful of swing marginals, but the fact remains: many people here feel powerless in terms of Westminster elections).

_But I'm literally desparately hoping that more Scots than not vote for the unavailable, at least not officially, option -- Devo Max. Those utterly incompetent 'Better Together' wankers should concentrate on bigging up that IMO._​
Better Together has a huge credibility problem in general.  Not even people who intend to vote No (which is still a majority in the polls) believe a word they say. Whether on the NHS, on currency, or George Robertson’s intervention, they are simply not credible to anyone, even their own supporters.

So, remembering that, here are the facts: Alex Salmond and the SNP were well aware that “devo max” was the most popular option.  They suggested that the Unionist camp draw up proposals on Devo Max, and have that scheme put on the referendum ballot paper, as part of a three way vote. Independence, devo max, or status quo.

The Unionist parties all declined. They had a chance to have it on the ballot paper, but said no.  Everyone agrees it would have won, and polling continues to suggest it would have won.

Indeed, the Better Together team even commissioned a poll in the last few days asking the three option question, and devo max won.  Yes, that’s right, the Better Together parties who declined to offer devo max in a three question referendum are still commissioning polls as if there were such an option.

Again proving their lack of credibility.

So, when the polls started to show the gap closing and the Unionist parties started to mutter about promising “something better” and “enhanced devolution”, even people who would prefer that are disinclined to trust the offers.

Many also remember Lord Home’s intervention in the 1979 referendum.  On February 14th, the former PM, Sir Alec Douglas-Home (then Lord Home), appeared on TV to say that pro-devolution Scots should vote No to the Wilson/Callaghan scheme, as it was weak and flawed.  A No vote would not kill off devolution; no, on the contrary, the Tories would ensure a better, stronger Act, with taxation powers and PR.  So, you see, a No vote would deliver “something better”.

No such scheme ever emerged.

So when Brown appeared to talk about his proposals for “something better”, many said, why now? And, if you were so committed to “something better”, why didn’t you enact it when you were actually PM? How long was Labour in power? 13 years? If you felt so strongly about enhancing devolution, why didn’t you find the time to do something about it?

So yes, devo max is popular, but it isn’t on offer.  And Better Together isn’t agreeing on what they’re offering if there is a No vote.  And why should we believe them anyway?

_Hope you understand_​
Well, in a way.  But also, I hope you understand that this is a rare chance for us to do a number of things that aren’t otherwise do-able.  We can get rid of WMD (Labour in Westminster doesn’t offer that). We can re-nationalise the Royal Mail (Labour doesn’t offer to re-nationalise, they only say the sale was botched).  We can defend the Welfare State (Labour voted for the Tory Welfare Cap). We can defend the NHS (Labour has proven useless at doing this).  We can make a stand against austerity ideology (Labour has promised to retain all the austerity measures if it is elected).

If you lived in Scotland, what would you do?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 14, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Is there any politician in Scotland, SNP or otherwise, who's seriously arguing that? Have my doubts ...



Yes, for example Ian Davidson (Labour MP) has said: “Once we get our No vote in 2014, we’ll rip so many powers from those neo-Nats that they might as well meet once a month above a pub, for all they’ll have left to talk about”.

Tom Harris, Labour MP, is also openly campaigning for powers to be removed from Holyrood to Westminster.

It's true that technically the Scotland Act (2012) would be enacted if there's a No vote, but nobody on the No side is mentioning that any more.  Try and find any news coverage where it is even mentioned, never mind promoted by a Better Together figure.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 14, 2014)

Vote No because baby George.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 14, 2014)

Thanks for those answers danny. Will return to this when I have time to do them justice (busy today).


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 14, 2014)

rick astley weighs into the debate in song


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 14, 2014)

lets have it right, see the cons take a beating in the euros, preide over the break up of the union and then lose the GE so badly it goes down in history as the tory parties most crushing defeat.

lets have this hatrick pls


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 14, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> If you lived in Scotland, what would you do?



Can I answer that for me?

I have a lot of sympathy for what dotcom says above. But any reasoning for voting yes would only come from such negative motives. If I lived in Scotland, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be voting, or if I did, it would just be to draw a big cock on the ballot paper. I don't think I could bring myself to vote with the nationalists. The situation isn't desperate enough for that.

But if yes wins, I don't think that would necessarily be such a big blow to the tories in the fUK. Yes, they're the most strongly unionist party, but all the major national parties are in the no camp. You could have the horrible vision of Labour getting behind Cameron in the subsequent negotiations. That would harm Labour, as the perceived need to get behind the tories over the Falklands harmed them - it removes a point of difference between them, but sets up the Tories as the primary champions of a shared position.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 14, 2014)

voting out of spite is the only logical choice. Annoyingly enough with the current lead Labours got this next GE so I have no spiteful option, except of course LBJ's spunking cock and balls suggestion


----------



## Riklet (Apr 14, 2014)

As an english lefty i think its frankly embarrassing calling upon the scots to keep things new labour for us.

Sounds utterly pathetic and handwringy to me, and assumes that Scotland unlike England is some lefty paradise without its own internal conflicts n struggles.

Frankly if we need scottish labour to save us, it's almost like we deserve nothing better than what we got. Up to us to demand better and to live it,tbh.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 14, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Can I answer that for me?


Of course.



> I have a lot of sympathy for what dotcom says above. But any reasoning for voting yes would only come from such negative motives. If I lived in Scotland, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be voting, or if I did, it would just be to draw a big cock on the ballot paper. I don't think I could bring myself to vote with the nationalists. The situation isn't desperate enough for that.


 My choices are voting Yes or abstaining.  I could never vote No. 

I think the situation is pretty fucking desperate.

http://www.bigissue.com/features/3637/atos-deaths-and-welfare-cuts


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 14, 2014)

I must say that it still appears to be the case that every time a 'no' camp person speaks, the 'yes' option gets a boost. Warmonger Robertson absurdly trying to scare Scots is the latest example of this. Possibly the strongest scare tactic is over the currency. The prospect of a nominally independent Scotland having its economic agenda dictated to it by Tory fUK is a very real one, and the example of Ireland's decades tied in to the pound isn't encouraging on that score.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 14, 2014)

It's worth remembering that whichever way you vote, you're voting with nationalists. The Unionist camp is the side most relying on identity politics, too. It relies heavily on British nationalism.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 14, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> It's worth remembering that whichever way you vote, you're voting with nationalists. The Unionist camp is the side most relying on identity politics, too. It relies heavily on British nationalism.


Yes, that's a good point. For me, it just reinforces the cock-and-balls option, though.

"You can both fuck off."


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 14, 2014)

Personally I hope there is much more hysteria from the likes of Ringpiece Robertson, "Lord" Foulkes, Michael Forsyth et al, I hope there are more dire yet strangely nebulous threats from Osborne & co on the currency.

The more Bitter Together open their mouths, the worse it gets for them. The old Welsh Labour adage of "Bash the Nats, the Nat vote goes up" seems to have been lost on the buffoons at BT Towers.

A vote for Bitter Together is a vote for extended austerity, nukes, fracking, the further "rolling out of a market agenda" in what used to be known as public services, and so on.

The SNP are a long way from perfect but then voting Yes is not really a vote for the SNP. With a yes vote in place I'll be very happy never to vote for them again. A successful no vote means that in Westminster and for a semi-tolerable Holyrood government, the SNP will continue to be the only game in town.

Drawing cocks and balls on the ballot paper is just juvenile narcissism really. What's your alternative? A yes vote is not a vote for the SNP. A no vote is very much a vote for the corrupt neoliberal circus at Westminster. An independent Scotland will not be a land of milk and honey, but we will have the chance to make it better - much better- than the alternative.


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 14, 2014)

Worth adding that on the point of the original question- most English folk that I know couldnt care less. There is a residual bad feeling about it amongst some, particularly the further south you go, where the far-right anal dribblings regarding Scots being "subsidy junkies" are still given credibility.

However in the event of a Yes vote then a series of events will be set in motion which will have very profound consequences for the average English voter, which will play out over many years.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 14, 2014)

steeplejack said:


> However in the event of a Yes vote then a series of events will be set in motion which will have very profound consequences for the average English voter, which will play out over many years.


I think the consequences of a yes vote are very hard to predict - both for Scotland and the fUK.


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 14, 2014)

well the future is very hard to predict. But I think the current permanently-raging unionists of BitterTogether will all of a sudden become conciliatory and "accepting of the will of the people" in the event of a Yes vote; the group working on independence negotiations will be cross party; behind the scenes briefing and position papers for those negotiations have already been drawn up by civil servants; I see few issues causing a major headache on either side. 

The bluster and hot air about sending bobbies over the border to recover all pounds on sight from the Jocks, "pro-Russian activists" emerging in all major centres and turning indyScotland into an international terrorist haven, etc. will dissipate and become an embarrassing footnote in history. "Lord" Robertson's evildoers globally will toast Scottish independence and then quickly realise it matters not a jot in whatever agenda it is they have.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 14, 2014)

Sure. I agree with all that. I was thinking more about the kinds of changes in society that might happen in Scotland and the fUK.


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 14, 2014)

such as?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 14, 2014)

Such as the continuation and deepening of 'austerity' measures in an independent Scotland.


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 14, 2014)

well, the evidence so far doesnt back that up. The NHS is still free, so is higher education, there has been a good focus on long term care for the elderly. The SNP can be criticised for a cosy relationship with one or two big business figures (Donald Trump was particualrly disastrously ill advised), their addiction to road transport, and happy-clapping zero hours jobs being "created". But as I have said already, voting Yes does not mean voting Alec Salmond president for life. it is much easier to try and ameliorate / reverse the austerity agenda as part of a country of 5 million people than pissing in the wind in the vague direction of London.

what will be guaranteed is a deepening and extending of austerity through a NO vote. The reasons for voting NO seem to be split between not liking change, being feart, being worried about being worse off, specious comparisons of Salmond to Mugabe / Kim Il Sing, fantasy island bullshit about needing your passport to go to Carlisle / becoming a haven for international terrorism, , and Orange Order / Glasgow Rangers Britnattery. Not really compelling stuff.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 14, 2014)

It is generally the case with regional assemblies that they will provide more in the way of public services than the national govt would have provided, not less. That way they have clear things that they can point to showing how voters should feel good about their regional assembly. With independence, this point of contrast is taken away.


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 14, 2014)

That may well be true of "regional assemblies".

what about Scotland's parliament?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 14, 2014)

steeplejack said:


> Scotland's parliament...


... is a regional assembly, with some powers devolved to it from the national UK parliament, others not.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Apr 14, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Nonsense on stilts.



Bit confused by this reply.  Could you advise which part of gosub 's post you're referring to?


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 14, 2014)

well, devolution is a process not an event...as is national self determination.

Scotland's parliament never was a "regional assembly" in the way that it could be argued Wales was when it was first set up.

anyway, aside from the fact that "nationalism" gives you the boak, what is your issue with Scotland going independent?


----------



## gosub (Apr 14, 2014)

Passport isn't bullshit as linked to and massive cuts also necessary to meet the 60 percent limit if,  as Yes want,  Scotland rejoins the EU.  It doesn't have to but it should be more honestly duscussed


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 14, 2014)

Ok, we're obviously defining terms differently. I really don't think it matters whether you call it a parliament or a regional assembly. It's an elected body in one section of a larger polity with certain powers devolved to it, others not.


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 14, 2014)

gosub said:


> Passport as linked to isn't bullshit as linked to and massive cuts also necessary to meet the 60 percent limit if,  as Yes want,  Scotland rejoins the EU.  It doesn't have to but it should be more honestly duscussed



the passports are a question of interpretation, and there is absolutely no appetite for border controls and passports on the Scotland -England border (the same as there are none on the border between RoI and NI.)

whether Scotland will have to "rejoin" the EU is also open to interpretation and legal opinion is divided. Realpolitik will win the day. Why would the EU want to exclude an energy rich and wealthy independent contributor?

Neither side of the debate has really covered itself in glory in terms of "honest discussion" so far, to be honest.


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 14, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ok, we're obviously defining terms differently. I really don't think it matters whether you call it a parliament or a regional assembly. It's an elected body in one section of a larger polity with certain powers devolved to it, others not.



well, as Scotyland is in no sense a "region" then the Scottish parliament cannot be be dismissed as a "regional assembly".


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 14, 2014)

steeplejack said:


> well, as Scotyland is in no sense a "region" then the Scottish parliament cannot be be dismissed as a "regional assembly".


'region', 'nation'. Same difference.


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 14, 2014)

well no, not really. but whatever.


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 14, 2014)

steeplejack said:


> the passports are a question of interpretation, and there is absolutely no appetite for border controls and passports on the Scotland -England border (the same as there are none on the border between RoI and NI.)
> 
> whether Scotland will have to "rejoin" the EU is also open to interpretation and legal opinion is divided. Realpolitik will win the day. Why would the EU want to exclude an energy rich and wealthy independent contributor?



I find it strange that the EU issue is seemingly always regarding whether the EU will have Scotland and not whether Scotland wants the EU.  The example of Norway is bandied around a lot until the EU question comes up.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 14, 2014)

steeplejack said:


> well no, not really. but whatever.


You say that, but here is exactly where I have a problem with both sides of the debate.


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 14, 2014)

I agree with you.

as soon as the negotiations for independence are concluded, in the event of a Yes vote, there should be a referendum on whether Scotland wants to stay / rejoin the EU, do a Norway, or stay away altogether. It is too big a decision, to be left to be nodded through by Holyrood politicians.

At present Scotland would vote to remain in the EU, pretty comfortably, although I am one of the minority who would vote against.


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 14, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You say that, but here is exactly where I have a problem with both sides of the debate.



eh?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 14, 2014)

steeplejack said:


> eh?


I'm not interested in nationalist arguments that imagine communities based on vertical lines, in which rich and poor, powerful and dispossessed all somehow have something in common with each other that means they should divide along those vertical lines. It is generally a con trick.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 14, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Vote No because baby George.





> Increasingly, hostility to England, or ‘Westminster’, animates the SNP campaign.


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 14, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not interested in nationalist arguments that imagine communities based on vertical lines, in which rich and poor, powerful and dispossessed all somehow have something in common with each other that means they should divide along those vertical lines. It is generally a con trick.



well true, but then I'm a pragmatist, and for me a Yes vote is the only way to slip away from the Westminster model which invites me to assume kinship with Eric Pickles, Fred Goodwin, and Nigel Farage under a fluttering Union Jack.

The time for abstruse Jesuitry about how many working class anarchists can dance on the head of a pin can wait for later.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 14, 2014)

steeplejack said:


> well true, but then I'm a pragmatist, and for me a Yes vote is the only way to slip away from the Westminster model which invites me to assume kinship with Eric Pickles, Fred Goodwin, and Nigel Farage under a fluttering Union Jack.
> 
> The time for abstruse Jesuitry about how many working class anarchists can dance on the head of a pin can wait for later.


We're in agreement then. I'm a pragmatist too, and I understand why the likes of Danny la rouge are likely to hold their noses and vote yes. 

fwiw I have found the 'no' arguments in the press infinitely more vile than the 'yes' arguments. I'm about as neutral on it as is possible, really. A 'yes' vote would shake things that need shaking. I would merely caution those who might expect positive outcomes from independence. I fear they will end up bitterly disappointed.


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 14, 2014)

weepiper said:


>



Proper tick box exercise there from the mail:

Baby George - Tick
Kate - Tick
Sly digs at someone because their relationship does not conform to mandated standards - Tick
Thinly veiled dig at Scottish - Tick

etc etc


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 14, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> We're in agreement then. I'm a pragmatist too, and I understand why the likes of Danny la rouge are likely to hold their noses and vote yes.
> 
> fwiw I have found the 'no' arguments in the press infinitely more vile than the 'yes' arguments. I'm about as neutral on it as is possible, really. A 'yes' vote would shake things that need shaking. I would merely caution those who might expect positive outcomes from independence. I fear they will end up bitterly disappointed.



well the outcomes from a No vote are pretty clear. 

the outcomes of a Yes vote are not so clear...there is a chance that a yes vote may well improve things in Scotland (if that is what the people want).

Of course it's also possible that things could not get better. If they don't, we will only have ourselves to balme for it.

I'm well aware that there are pretty nasty right wing neoliberal elements in the SNP (Swinney, Mike Russell) who will likely leave the SNP and join a rebranded Tory party in the event of independence. Either that, or try and steer the SNP in a Fine Fail type direction when Salmond steps aside. In an independent country, many more people will return to the Tory standard, as the Thatcher stigma will finally be gone for them (and there are plenty of right wingers in Scotland). There is of course the romantic nationalist Ewingite fringe who ran the SNP in their years of irrelevance in the 80s, who havent gone away, even if their power within the party largely has.

There are many imponderables and many arguments to be had and won in that situation. I am not a nationalist, but there are plenty of non-nationalist reasons for voting yes. I am really struggling to process much beyond the fuckwitted arguments listed a few posts above for voting no.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 14, 2014)

steeplejack said:


> Of course it's also possible that things could not get better. If they don't, we will only have ourselves to balme for it..



There is lots to like in the above post, but not this. If you are not rich or powerful now, you still won't be in an independent Scotland.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 14, 2014)

steeplejack said:


> Either that, or try and steer the SNP in a Fine Fail type direction when Salmond steps aside.



Hahahahaha! Salmond won't step aside until he dies or is incapacitated or a better position presents itself. And I think the only way upwards for him would be Secretary-General of the UN.


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 14, 2014)

..again, it is a process not an event.

Yes if you live in Darnley, Muirhouse or a run down part of Methil things will not change overnight in the event of a Yes vote.

In an independent Scotland there will be the possibility to try and enact a range of policies and measures to try and improve the lives and expectations of folk living in these and other areas blighted by neglect and poverty.

In the UK, all you get to choose is who administers more or less identical policies. the chances of a UK cabinet minister going near methil or Muirhouse is close to non existent (IDS was carried about Easterhouse in a sedan chair a few years ago and wrote a bonkers report about it- that's Easterhouse's lot for the next 50 years i think).

If in an independent Scotland, in 20 years time, people are still living socially excluded and marginalised lives, then that will be the fault of Scottish politicians, elected by Scottish voters alone. I am struggling to process what is controversial about that point.

What is clear is that if we vote no then nothing whatever will change, except for the worse. There is a chance of improvement with yes and in my view it is worth taking.


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 14, 2014)

steeplejack said:


> There are many imponderables and many arguments to be had and won in that situation. I am not a nationalist, but there are plenty of non-nationalist reasons for voting yes. I am really struggling to process much beyond the fuckwitted arguments listed a few posts above for voting no.



If Scotland votes yes I think your point above will be the overriding reason.  As far as I can see the No camp has failed to form a single coherent argument for the Union beyond 'Yes, it's a bit shit but it could be worse'.


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 14, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Hahahahaha! Salmond won't step aside until he dies or is incapacitated or a better position presents itself. And I think the only way upwards for him would be Secretary-General of the UN.



what do you base this on?


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 14, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> If Scotland votes yes I think your point above will be the overriding reason.  As far as I can see the No camp has failed to form a single coherent argument for the Union beyond 'Yes, it's a bit shit but it could be worse'.



there's been some tear stained stuff about the Olympic games and I am sure the Battle of Britain memorial flight will be scrambled at the appropriate moment.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 14, 2014)

steeplejack said:


> what do you base this on?



His ego.


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 14, 2014)

know him personally, do you?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 14, 2014)

Lemon Eddy said:


> Bit confused by this reply.  Could you advise which part of gosub 's post you're referring to?


All of it. I had already covered all his points, and not for the first time. There's a very long thread in the Scotland sub forum. The issue has been discussed repeatedly there. 

Furthermore, I occasionally take a scanner at having to explain a position which is, while easy to explain, not my own. 

For the record (again not for the first time), if there is to be an independent Scotland, I don't think it should be in the EU. (It should join EFTA. That gives us access to the EU market without tariffs, but wouldn't mean having to sign up to agreements such as the fisheries policy with discards and so on). 

I also think that there should be a separate currency, not currency union. There should be a Scottish central bank, not continued use of B of E. 

There should be no NATO membership. 

There should be no monarchy. 

The renationalisation of the Royal Mail should include a democratic structure. As should rail renationalisation. 

And much more I haven't covered. 

Finally, the phrase "nonsense on stilts" was cheekily pilfered from George Galloway, who used it repeatedly in his pro Union TV debate recently.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Apr 14, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> All of it. I had already covered all his points, and not for the first time. There's a very long thread in the Scotland sub forum. The issue has been discussed repeatedly there.



But that's not got anything to do with his actual post.  All he said was that Ireland's not in Schengen, whereas any new applicants must join.  Seems accurate to me.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 14, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> If Scotland votes yes I think your point above will be the overriding reason.  As far as I can see the No camp has failed to form a single coherent argument for the Union beyond '*Yes, it's a bit shit but it could be worse*'.


tbh if they'd just stuck with that, they'd probably be doing better. My guess is that George Osborne's highlighting of the currency issue has probably been their strongest negative argument. It is true that the fUK will hold all the aces wrt currency and arrangements that will necessarily limit Scotland's fiscal autonomy. The bollocks about problems with the EU is exactly that, bollocks. But the fear that the fUK would interfere with Scotland's fiscal policies is real enough.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 14, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Finally, the phrase "nonsense on stilts" was cheekily pilfered from George Galloway, who used it repeatedly in his pro Union TV debate recently.


He stole it from Jeremy Bentham.


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 14, 2014)

the EU negotiations will very much be a moveable feast. Again, realpolitik will win the day.

The idea that the EU will be happy for energy-rich Scotland to stay outside of the EU because it is a bit reluctant about Schengen and / or imposing a border with England really is laughable.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 14, 2014)

If there is a yes vote will be seeing Russian special forces seizing Berwick town hall? That's the real question


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 14, 2014)

"pro-Russian activists" on the march even before the vote 

(don't tell the _Daily Mail_)


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 14, 2014)

Lemon Eddy said:


> But that's not got anything to do with his actual post.  All he said was that Ireland's not in Schengen, whereas any new applicants must join.  Seems accurate to me.


Already covered. See my previous posts.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 14, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He stole it from Jeremy Bentham.


I know he didn't invent it. But he was so pleased with it, he overused it to the extent of parody. It has become something of an injoke in the commentary here.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 14, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> For the record (again not for the first time), if there is to be an independent Scotland, I don't think it should be in the EU. (It should join EFTA. That gives us access to the EU market without tariffs, but wouldn't mean having to sign up to agreements such as the fisheries policy with discards and so on).
> 
> I also think that there should be a separate currency, not currency union. There should be a Scottish central bank, not continued use of B of E.
> 
> ...


Ah, you old romantic.


----------



## gosub (Apr 14, 2014)

steeplejack said:


> the passports are a question of interpretation, and there is absolutely no appetite for border controls and passports on the Scotland -England border (the same as there are none on the border between RoI and NI.)
> 
> whether Scotland will have to "rejoin" the EU is also open to interpretation and legal opinion is divided. Realpolitik will win the day. Why would the EU want to exclude an energy rich and wealthy independent contributor?
> 
> Neither side of the debate has really covered itself in glory in terms of "honest discussion" so far, to be honest.



http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S...opean_Commission_dated_20_March_2014__pdf.pdf

Holyrood is hearing evidence that it might be like Croatia to boost its position but Spain (who are in a position of veto) both PM and Foreign minister say have to rejoin. Rejoin and its Schengen and there is even less appetite for that in rUK.  Hence borders.  Stay out and the island can muddle along similar as before.

proper indepenance is what is on the table (as wanted by the Nats I know) but the only way they think they can win the vote is by dishonestley trying to claiming theat change won't mean change.  Hell of a way to set about becoming a full on country.

I'm not a fan of EU either but do know a fair amount about it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 14, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Hahahahaha! Salmond won't step aside until he dies or is incapacitated or a better position presents itself. And I think the only way upwards for him would be Secretary-General of the UN.


This is one of the more bizarre elements of the No campaign; personifying a Yes vote with Salmond. 

The Yes campaign is actually a very lively grassroots movement, and far from being centred the SNP, is a broad left coalition. The RIC is very active, and entirely non SNP. 

Furthermore, Salmond is not a dictator. Nor is he particularly settled in his role. He has already retired once, when his wife was ill, and had to be coaxed back (when John Swinney made a pig's ear of the job of leadership). 

And while I'm here, the Mail article I linked to above said he has a grievance with the English. That's entirely in the writer's mind. I will not be voting SNP. But Salmond's case is about Scottish self government and democracy. The English don't come into it.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 14, 2014)

It's an interesting one, and I suspect largely connected to the utter shiteness of the Westminster Government that the No campaign do not and cannot have a positive message - even a slightly more progressive and competent government in London would undermine the pro-independence campaign in my view...


----------



## geminisnake (Apr 14, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> And while I'm here, the Mail article I linked to above said he has a grievance with the English.



A warning would have been nice  I didn't even let it finish loading once I realised! And I'd rather have a panda than a prince  Unless it's the purple prince. I'd have him


----------



## weepiper (Apr 14, 2014)

People don't seem to realise that the SNP and Salmond himself are very popular. There's this element of 'oooh now they've snuck in you'll never get rid of them'. They're in because we voted them in in a massive landslide.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 14, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> This is one of the more bizarre elements of the No campaign; personifying a Yes vote with Salmond.



As the leader of the SNP, he is very much the face of the Yes campaign. And yes, there are many more people to the Yes campaign than Salmond. Both statements have little to do with my observation.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 14, 2014)

gosub said:


> I'm not a fan of EU either but do know a fair amount about it.


It's funny how so many of the UKIP fellow traveler Euro sceptics want the EU to behave in ways it never behaves. Yes, the rule exists, but the EU drops rules left right and centre if it has to. I already gave you the example of the Copenhagen Agreement which says new members have to sign up to the euro. And yet Denmark, where it was composed, doesn't use the euro. That is entirely illustrative of how the EU works.


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 14, 2014)

gosub said:


> http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S...opean_Commission_dated_20_March_2014__pdf.pdf
> 
> Holyrood is hearing evidence that it might be like Croatia to boost its position but Spain (who are in a position of veto) both PM and Foreign minister say have to rejoin. Rejoin and its Schengen and there is even less appetite for that in rUK.  Hence borders.  Stay out and the island can muddle along similar as before.
> 
> ...



Spain have also said that they will not interfere in Scotland's application / EU continuation  if the result of the referendum is democratic and fair. So their position is not really all that consistent.

you seem to be consistently overlooking the point about realpolitik which (also knowing a wee bit about the EU) has consistently trumped everything else in its evolving history.

The nationalists badly mishandled the EU thing and that was more damaging to their cause, early on, than anything Bitter Tigether have come up with. Their stated policy of "Indpendence in Europe" is a legal and political absurdity which may have made some sense in the early 1990s, when they came up with, but which has badly needed revising for over a decade. Then  their blandishments that they would get into the EU no bother came unstuck, there was the legal advice being hushed up...all very embarrassing and avoidable.

That said the positions are caricatured on both sides of the argument. I'm sure it wont be as easy as just continuing as a new EU member as though nothing has happened, but then I'd be astonished if (realpolitik again) there was an outright veto either.


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 14, 2014)

Quartz said:


> As the leader of the SNP, he is very much the face of the Yes campaign. And yes, there are many more people to the Yes campaign than Salmond. Both statements have little to do with my observation.



^^ definitely of the "Salmond is worse than Mugabe" persuasion....


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 14, 2014)

Quartz said:


> As the leader of the SNP, he is very much the face of the Yes campaign. And yes, there are many more people to the Yes campaign than Salmond. Both statements have little to do with my observation.


No he isn't. He hasn't even been the face of the SNP’s campaign, Sturgeon has. (And she's my bet on the next leader before long, btw, but don't bother the betting shop with my tip, everyone else thinks so, too).


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 14, 2014)

If NS takes over from Salmond that will send the naysayers into a total tailspin; though whilst Salmond is seen as too "smug" and "if he was chocolate he'd eat himself", Sturgeon gets dismissed by detractors as a "nippy sweetie" and other such derogatory terms.

Sturgeon is really the obvious candidate to take the SNP on.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 14, 2014)

steeplejack said:


> ^^ definitely of the "Salmond is worse than Mugabe" persuasion....



Speak for yourself.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Apr 14, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Already covered. See my previous posts.



I just reviewed your posts in this thread, and could not find anything contradicting/answering gosub's point (other than a claim that the EU is pragmatically lax because Denmark uses the Krone)

A little help, please?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 14, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Speak for yourself.


You have previously claimed that he's a wannabe dictator and once independence is won he will look to be aggressively expansionist.


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 14, 2014)

where did he say that? what a roaster.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 14, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Right now I'm thinking that Salmond's anti-English rhetoric and actions bode ill for democracy in an independent future. Once Scotland's separated, he'll turn his ire elsewhere. It makes me think that Salmond wants to become a dictator.


----------



## gosub (Apr 14, 2014)

steeplejack said:


> Spain have also said that they will not interfere in Scotland's application / EU continuation  if the result of the referendum is democratic and fair. So their position is not really all that consistent.
> 
> you seem to be consistently overlooking the point about realpolitik which (also knowing a wee bit about the EU) has consistently trumped everything else in its evolving history.
> 
> ...



Don't think it will be a veto, think as the Commision have told Holyrood it will be a rejoin. The whole EU thing sells itself on being about stopping nationalistic disputes developing  (skeptical myself). To help catalyse fractures in existing nation states runs counter to stated proEuropean ideals, that's the politics real or otherwise. 
 A lot of disgruntlement the people of EUrope have with their political classes stem from the non democratic stuff coming out of EU and the hollowing out of national parliaments. Take Royal Mail that's EU for a start and third way privatisation of the Health Service - EU budgetary constraints and opening up to competition straight out of the Single Market play book.  Westminster deserves a kicking for allowing itself to be the front man for these policies but Salmond just wants to wear the same mask and doesn't warrant support.  Its the opposite of Littlebabyjesus its the removing the democratic accountable nation sate that warrants drawing a cock on the paper rather than fervent "nationalism'


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 14, 2014)

Lemon Eddy said:


> I just reviewed your posts in this thread, and could not find anything contradicting/answering gosub's point (other than a claim that the EU is pragmatically lax because Denmark uses the Krone)
> 
> A little help, please?


This is not the only thread gosub and I have discussed this on.  There is also a _very_ long thread here: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/will-you-vote-for-independence.287096/

But my 2 posts on this matter here were:

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...t-to-give-a-crap.319994/page-16#post-13064394

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...t-to-give-a-crap.319994/page-17#post-13064530


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 14, 2014)

butchersapron - good spot


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 14, 2014)

gosub said:


> Don't think it will be a veto, think as the Commision have told Holyrood it will be a rejoin. The whole EU thing sells itself on being about stopping nationalistic disputes developing  (skeptical myself). To help catalyse fractures in existing nation states runs counter to stated proEuropean ideals, that's the politics real or otherwise.
> A lot of disgruntlement the people of EUrope have with their political classes stem from the non democratic stuff coming out of EU and the hollowing out of national parliaments. Take Royal Mail that's EU for a start and third way privatisation of the Health Service - EU budgetary constraints and opening up to competition straight out of the Single Market play book.  Westminster deserves a kicking for allowing itself to be the front man for these policies but Salmond just wants to wear the same mask and doesn't warrant support.  Its the opposite of Littlebabyjesus its the removing the democratic accountable nation sate that warrants drawing a cock on the paper rather than fervent "nationalism'



well quite- and the processes you mention are two of the big reasosn I actually want to leave the EU, in the event of a yes vote. I just hope that is put befoe the Scottish people in a referendum.

As mentioned earlier the SNP's handling of EU policy has been pisspoor for a long time. I think they have rather cynically gambled that few in the electorate understand EU politics fully / are interested in them, therefore they can say what they like, as long as it sounds positive. That backfired pretty badly.

That said, the SNP's clumsiness (and subsequent cover up) is not evidence that Scotland will not be allowed in. For the pragmatic reasons mentioned I think the "re-join" will be a rubberstamp exercise. But this is uncharted territory. The last states to uncouple in Europe (Czech / Slovak Republics, Serbia / Montenegro) have both been outside of the EU altogether. A state fragmenting *within* the EU is a new thing altogether.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You have previously claimed that he's a wannabe dictator and once independence is won he will look to be aggressively expansionist.



Once again your lack of basic comprehension of English is displayed.

Nope. I've said it makes me think that he wants to be a dictator. Big difference. As for being aggressively expansionist, I said that he'd turn his ire elsewhere, which is nothing to do with being aggressively expansionist. Right now he blames England; after independence, he'll look for another scapegoat.


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 14, 2014)

come off it, you're trolling here.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 14, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Right now he blames England; after independence, he'll look for another scapegoat.


No he doesn't. That's utter nonsense.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 14, 2014)

me said:
			
		

> You have previously claimed that he's a wannabe dictator






			
				you said:
			
		

> Nope. I've said it makes me think that he wants to be a dictator



Give it up.


----------



## Fedayn (Apr 14, 2014)

steeplejack said:


> If NS takes over from Salmond that will send the naysayers into a total tailspin; though whilst Salmond is seen as too "smug" and "if he was chocolate he'd eat himself", Sturgeon gets dismissed by detractors as a "nippy sweetie" and other such derogatory terms.
> 
> Sturgeon is really the obvious candidate to take the SNP on.



There's an interesting debate to be had about Salmond (and to a lesser extent Sturgeon for a similar journey) as regards his political trajectory from left-wing 79 Group member to 'modern social democrat' with an eye to traditional Labour values. Not as 'extreme' as Blair but a similar modernising path, with Blair against any semblance of 'socialism' whereas with Salmond it was a battle with the (fundamentalists' some of whom, after he defeated them, are now loyal cabinet members and supporters). Sturgeons speech this weekend appealing to Labour voters to vote yes to get their party back is part of that appeal. She too made a move from her radical speeches and writings back in the post 1992 'Scotland United' period where she made near firebrand socialist speeches and her associating with the former SNP Leftist group at the time around the magazine 'Liberation'. The same magazine counted Roseanna Cunningham and Fiona Hyslop (both now Cabinet Ministers in the Scottish Government) among its supporters. Arguably it was Liberation who forced her adoption as the by-election candidate in Perth in 1995 against the gossipy and near slanderous opposition from the Ewingites and their more right-wing supporters in the NE of Scotland.
As an aside Cunningham, Salmond, Hyslop and Kenny MacAskill another Cabinet minister, were all expelled from the SNP for their 79 Group activities. All are now front benchers. Margo Macdonald, then a bit of an SNP hero for winning in Govan, resigned in protest at the expulsions.

Steeplejack would know more about some of the shennanigans in that part of the world but there's some interesting parrallels with Salmond and Sturgeons journeys and an interesting 'understory'to the SNP as opposed to the sweeping 'Tartan Tory' generalisation.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 14, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> No he doesn't. That's utter nonsense.



I'm sorry, but that's the way I see it. Politicians always need an explanation as to why things aren't working out, and Salmond is no exception.


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 14, 2014)

Please provide one quotation from a speech or article, where Salmond uses the English as a "scapegoat", for a political problem in Scotland.

Be very specific.


----------



## andysays (Apr 14, 2014)

steeplejack said:


> ...However in the event of a Yes vote then a series of events will be set in motion which will have very profound consequences for the average English voter, which will play out over many years.



I was hoping you would expand on this, but the discussion has gone back to focussing on what independence would mean for Scotland.

Do you really think it will have "very profound consequences" for those of us in southern Britain? I can't see it myself.


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 14, 2014)

Fedayn said:


> There's an interesting debate to be had about Salmond (and to a lesser extent Sturgeon for a similar journey) as regards his political trajectory from left-wing 79 Group member to 'modern social democrat' with an eye to traditional Labour values. Not as 'extreme' as Blair but a similar modernising path, with Blair against any semblance of 'socialism' whereas with Salmond it was a battle with the (fundamentalists' some of whom, after he defeated them, are now loyal cabinet members and supporters). Sturgeons speech this weekend appealing to Labour voters to vote yes to get their party back is part of that appeal. She too made a move from her radical speeches and writings back in the post 1992 'Scotland United' period where she made near firebrand socialist speeches and her associating with the former SNP Leftist group at the time around the magazine 'Liberation'. The same magazine counted Roseanna Cunningham and Fiona Hyslop (both now Cabinet Ministers in the Scottish Government) among its supporters. Arguably it was Liberation who forced her adoption as the by-election candidate in Perth in 1995 against the gossipy and near slanderous opposition from the Ewingites and their more right-wing supporters in the NE of Scotland.
> As an aside Cunningham, Salmond, Hyslop and Kenny MacAskill another Cabinet minister, were all expelled from the SNP for their 79 Group activities. All are now front benchers. Margo Macdonald, then a bit of an SNP hero for winning in Govan, resigned in protest at the expulsions.
> 
> Steeplejack would know more about some of the shennanigans in that part of the world but there's some interesting parrallels with Salmond and Sturgeons journeys and an interesting 'understory'to the SNP as opposed to the sweeping 'Tartan Tory' generalisation.



Yes it is an interesting story, the whole '79 Group scenario. Looking back now, that was the last twitch of the old romantic-nationalist SNP and the 80s (a bleak decade of purposeless opposition and near-total irrelevance) was the last decade when they wielded real power in the party. When Salmond took over the leadership in 1990, with Gordon Wilson stepping down, the Ewingite influence dropped year on year. The last redoubt of Ewing-ite nationalism is probably in Perth and parts of Angus, territory that used to be held by Tories like Fairbairn and Bill Walker (who if he had lived would undoubtedly be in UKIP today- a total loon).

The roots of the SNP were in the aristocracy and middle class intellectuals- the Duke of Montrose, and RB Cunnighame Graham, with a bonkers fringe represented by Hugh MacDiarmid and Fionn MacColla. The from the mid 30s under Andrew Dewar Gibbs leadership (and with Wendy Wood as an eminence grise) it became a solidly Tory formation with a nationalist fringe. A streak of radicalism was there with people like the pacificst Douglas Young, and the idealistic hot air of the post war Scottish Covenant, but it never amounted to very much.

The socialist / social democratic tradition in the SNP really gained traction under Billy Wolfe in the 60s, but the generation of my parents used to criticise the SNP for facing both ways- being radical in the central belt and Tory in Perthshire, Angus and the Highlands. "Tartan Tiry" was a Labour criticism specific to the context of the dying days of Callaghan and was a convenient generalisation that stuck.

Briefly, the left wing tradition was decimated by the failure of 1979 and the subsequent political infighting in the party. It rebuilt around Salmond after the brief expulsion episode (Salmond was first elected to Westminster in 1983 IIRC). I think we have to be careful in presenting it as a parallel to Kinnock and the rise of New Labour, though.

In the SNP, it was always about "fundamentalism" (i.e. old-right wing UDI style nationalism which had no truck with devolution) and "gradualism". That was at the root of the Salmond-Sillars fissure after the '92 general election, a fissure that never has been resolved. the fundies were swept away by the realities of devolution- something that required very careful internal negoatiations within the SNP to accept- and from then on, the fundies have been like an extinct volcano. They may very occasionally emit ome white smoke still, but there won't be any more eruption from them. the last "white smoke" was in the elderly Wilson's bigoted comments about gay / samesex marriage a few years back, but the speed and unanimity with which he was slapped down shows how far that tendency has fallen.

Fundamentalism was of its time and was an ideology born of a period of hopelessness in the SNP's history, when a Scottish parliament seemed light years away, let alone independence. The Salmond / Sturgeon wing has been about maneovering much more nimbly through successive rapidly changing sets of political realities than anything else.


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 14, 2014)

andysays said:


> I was hoping you would expand on this, but the discussion has gone back to focussing on what independence would mean for Scotland.
> 
> Do you really think it will have "very profound consequences" for those of us in southern Britain? I can't see it myself.



well it will mean pretty profound constituional changes, yes.

There will be demands for a written constitution, for a start.

Energy costs may well go up.

What will rUK's view be on the Northern irish question? I think the relationship between the "mainland" and NI will alter very quickly.

Will England continue to be governed centrally from Westminster, or will there be a call for regional parlaiments to offset some of the consequences of Scottish independence?

Will the English trajectory away from EU membershiop continue?

what will be the cultural consequnces of a yes vote? with the English / British conflation over, how will the English people redefine themselves and in what ways and with what consequences? Not a matter for anyone but the English, but it will be interesting to observe.

If the vote is for Scottish independence then it might be argued that part of the reason for the failure of the Union was because the English never really got beyong the cricket/warm beer/oldmaids cycling to evensong/ Spitfire aeroplanes / knotted hankies on the beach at Margate cliches about themselves.

just off the top of my head, but the idea that Scottish independence will largely be an irrelevance to people in England is mistaken, i think.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 14, 2014)

andysays said:


> I was hoping you would expand on this, but the discussion has gone back to focussing on what independence would mean for Scotland.


This is a good point. There's already a thread in the Scotland forum. This one should be for the impact on rUK.


----------



## andysays (Apr 14, 2014)

steeplejack said:


> well it will mean pretty profound constituional changes, yes. There will be demands for a written constitution, for a start.
> 
> Energy costs may well go up.
> 
> ...



I really can't see that there will be any significant constitutional changes or moves to greater regional autonomy. You would need to make some sort of argument for each of the things you've suggested. I'm not saying they're impossible, but I don't think, personally, that any of them will follow as a result of Scotland voting yes to independence.

As far as the cultural changes go, you may be interested to learn that the picture of stereotypical English culture which you paint doesn't actually exist anymore, if indeed it ever did. It's about as accurate as the crass stereotype of Scottish culture which I'm sure I don't need to spell out to you.


----------



## andysays (Apr 14, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> This is a good point. There's already a thread in the Scotland forum. This one should be for the impact on rUK.



I'm not seeking to dictate what people should or shouldn't discuss here, but there has been a fair bit of duplication


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 14, 2014)

sorry, I am writing quickly, I dont actually believe that stereotype of Englishness (and John Major was rightly ridiculed when he invoked it). Nonetheless, it must be said that the English have never really come to an accommodation of what "English" actually means, the different ways in which it is defined, the basis from which these conclusions are drawn, etc. That is a fairly fundamental process which England will certainly go through if the current UK ceases to be come March 2016.

Scotland and Northern Ireland (and the "Troubles") are fairly intimately intertwined and you only have to look at the utterances from the likes of the Orange Order, Trimble, John Taylor (ludicrously calling for a "partition" of Scotland in the event of a yes vote) to see that. I wonder what appetite there will be in England for the continuance of a "Union" if Scotland goes.

I think if Scotland does go then a lot wll be learned from this putative EU referendum- if of course it is ever delivered upon. If England decides to leave then that may have consequences for the "re-calibration" process of what Englishness might be, with some seeking to portray it as isolationist, Little Englander, etc etc. Also, would a Yes vote north of the border animate or galvanaise an English radical tradition?

Like you say none of this necessarily follows, but equally I'll be astonished if rUK just carries on as though nothing has happened if Yes is the outcome.

I also think the fault-lines between London (now a global city which could easily declare UDI tomorrow and leave the rest of England to rot) and the rest of England will come into much sharper and more painful focus, which in my view will re-invigorate calls for devolution of power to the regions.

another interesting question might be, if yes- why did Scotland bother leaving a 300 year old union? This will particualrly be asked in the north, midlands and far south west, which share many of ex-industrial Scotland's chronic economic problems.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 14, 2014)

steeplejack said:


> sorry, I am writing quickly, I dont actually believe that stereotype of Englishness (and John Major was rightly ridiculed when he invoked it). Nonetheless, it must be said that the English have never really come to an accommodation of what "English" actually means, the different ways in which it is defined, the basis from which these conclusions are drawn, etc. That is a fairly fundamental process which England will certainly go through if the current UK ceases to be come March 2016..


I think you make very good points about the potential for changes in England. However, I don't think this is right at all. Speaking as a Welsh person living in England, I can tell you that most English people already talk of 'England' when what they really mean is 'Britain'. They will no doubt continue to do just the same, except that it will just be Welsh people who notice, not Welsh and Scots. (When I point this out to English people, they generally haven't even been aware that they've been doing it. Normally I don't bother, tbh.)


----------



## andysays (Apr 14, 2014)

steeplejack said:


> sorry, I am writing quickly, I dont actually believe that stereotype of Englishness (and John Major was rightly ridiculed when he invoked it). Nonetheless, it must be said that the English have never really come to an accommodation of what "English" actually means, the different ways in which it is defined, the basis from which these conclusions are drawn, etc. That is a fairly fundamental process which England will certainly go through if the current UK ceases to be come March 2016.
> 
> Scotland and Northern Ireland (and the "Troubles") are fairly intimately intertwined and you only have to look at the utterances from the likes of the Orange Order, Trimble, John Taylor (ludicrously calling for a "partition" of Scotland in the event of a yes vote) to see that. I wonder what appetite there will be in England for the continuance of a "Union" if Scotland goes.
> 
> ...



I don't think there is any great need or desire for "the English" to come to an accomodation about what it means to be English. Maybe I'm not best placed to judge (my family moved from Scotland just before I was born, and to the extent I think about it, I think of myself as British, not English or Scottish). I suspect that many people living in England identify more with their region than with England as a whole, and there are also, of course, many people living in England who* identify with another part of the world that their parents or grandparents came from.

As far as the suggestion of regions wanting more political autonomy goes, there were referendums a few years back which spectacularly failed to excite - has anything changed since then? Will anything change as a result of Scotland gaining independence? I can't see it, though others may be better placed to judge (I'm in London).

ETA I should say who also identify


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 14, 2014)

well, the referendums that did happen took place in a *very* different political context to the one that would host future *possible* referendums on regional devolution in a future rUK. I don't think that point is terribly relevant to be honest.

If you are in London you will probably notice any yes vote the least- London is pretty much insulated from developments elsewhere in the UK, as already stated. All that will change is that Ken Livingstone won't be able to call for the repatriation of funds from the sponging Jocks to a credulous electorate anymore.


----------



## andysays (Apr 14, 2014)

steeplejack said:


> well, the referendums that did happen took place in a *very* different political context to the one that would host future *possible* referendums on regional devolution in a future rUK. I don't think that point is terribly relevant to be honest.
> 
> If you are in London you will probably notice any yes vote the least- London is pretty much insulated from developments elsewhere in the UK, as already stated. All that will change is that Ken Livingstone won't be able to call for the repatriation of funds from the sponging Jocks to a credulous electorate anymore.



How is it different now, and how is that difference actually significant?

Is there really a massive groundswell of demand for autonomy in the north, the midlands or the south west? Can anyone living in those areas actually point to such a thing?


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 14, 2014)

you're missing the point- there isn't *now*

over time, such demands *may grow* *possibly* in the context of an rUK England seeking to redefine itself in a post GB era.

no one really knows what will happen. Nothing at all, seems by far the least likely outcome, however.


----------



## andysays (Apr 14, 2014)

steeplejack said:


> you're missing the point- there isn't *now*
> 
> over time, such demands *may grow* *possibly* in the context of an rUK England seeking to redefine itself in a post GB era.
> 
> no one really knows what will happen. Nothing at all, seems by far the least likely outcome, however.



In the post of yours I first quoted you said



> ...However in the event of a Yes vote then a series of events will be set in motion which will have very profound consequences for the average English voter, which will play out over many years.


You seem now to be backtracking, or at least unwilling to actually back your statement up with specific examples and, most importantly, justifications for those examples. 

I don't think most people in the rest of the UK will suffer some sort of existential crisis, either political, constitutional or cultural, should Scotland vote for independence.

Scotland is in many ways a special case within the UK, which is what makes independence possible in the first place. Scottish independence needn't result in any wider constitutional change, and it needn't be the impetus for people in the rest of the UK changing the way they think about themselves or the way they relate to the UK state, unless you can actually explain why.


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 14, 2014)

No I'm not backtracking really- you invited me to speculate what might happen, I gave some answers, you don't agree.

That's about the size of it I think.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 14, 2014)

rUK = resurgent !!


----------



## andysays (Apr 14, 2014)

steeplejack said:


> No I'm not backtracking really- you invited me to speculate what might happen, I gave some answers, you don't agree.
> 
> That's about the size of it I think.



I was hoping you'd come up with something a bit more substantial than just speculation, but fair enough


----------



## Quartz (Apr 14, 2014)

steeplejack said:


> Please provide one quotation from a speech or article, where Salmond uses the English as a "scapegoat", for a political problem in Scotland.



He's clever and never does it directly, but it's ever-present behind the scenes and between the lines.



steeplejack said:


> There will be demands for a written constitution, for a start.



I don't think there will be an increase in demand; there have been demands for some time.



> just off the top of my head, but the idea that Scottish independence will largely be an irrelevance to people in England is mistaken, i think.



I agree. Generally, those to whom I've spoken respect our right to choose, but have either given little thought to the impact on England or been phlegmatic and said something along the lines of, "We'll muddle through." Politically, it will be disastrous for the Tories - 'the party that lost the Union' will be the cry.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 14, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Politically, it will be disastrous for the Tories - 'the party that lost the Union' will be the cry.


Nah.


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 14, 2014)

Quartz said:


> He's clever and never does it directly, but it's ever-present behind the scenes and between the lines.



so that's a humiliating "_no quote exists where Salmond scapegoats the English for a Scottish political problem_" climbdown, then? Glad we cleared that up, cheers.

Given that you found your original position indefensible, perhaps you can give examples of Salmond's "cleverness", where he implies a scapegoating of the English for a political problem in Scotland, without actually stating it plainly?

Again, a quote from a speech or article will do. Be very specific.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 14, 2014)

steeplejack said:


> so that's a humiliating "_no quote exists where Salmond scapegoats the English for a Scottish political problem_" climbdown, then?



No it isn't.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 14, 2014)

Surely Salmond's whole position is that the best thing is for Scotland to sort out Scotland's problems. If the English are the ones at fault, that implies that England needs to do something to sort out Scotland's problems. I may be missing something here, but doesn't he go out of his way not to blame the English for exactly this reason?


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 14, 2014)

Quartz said:


> No it isn't.



so what is it then?

either

1. Salmond has directly scapegoated the English for a Scottish political problem- in which case you will be able to produce a _specific_ quote from one of his speeches or articles

or

2. Your fall back position, which is that Salmond is "too clever" and implies scapegoating of the English without actually specifically mentioning them- leaving it for the audience to read the obvious signs between the lines. In which case, again, you'll have specific examples to hand to back up such a claim.

there is of course 

3. you have been talking complete pish from the beginning, but I'll be charitable for now and leave that off the table.

which is it, Quartz? 1 or 2? can't have it both ways.


----------



## andysays (Apr 14, 2014)

Quartz said:


> He's clever and never does it directly, but it's ever-present behind the scenes and between the lines.
> 
> I don't think there will be an increase in demand; there have been demands for some time.
> 
> I agree. Generally, those to whom I've spoken respect our right to choose, but have either given little thought to the impact on England or been phlegmatic and said something along the lines of, "We'll muddle through." Politically, it will be disastrous for the Tories - 'the party that lost the Union' will be the cry.



Given your magical powers to read between the lines of what Alec Salmond is saying, I'm surprised you don't recognise that when many non-Scots say "we'll muddle through" what they likely mean is "it won't actually make a blind bit of difference to us, but we don't want to hurt your feelings by saying that, so we'll pretend it will".


----------



## Quartz (Apr 14, 2014)

andysays said:


> Given your magical powers



Heh.



> to read between the lines of what Alec Salmond is saying, I'm surprised you don't recognise that when many non-Scots say "we'll muddle through" what they likely mean is "it won't actually make a blind bit of difference to us, but we don't want to hurt your feelings by saying that, so we'll pretend it will".



I'm sufficiently aware to know the difference, thank you.


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 14, 2014)

so...any chance of a shred of evidence to back up your claims?


----------



## Quartz (Apr 14, 2014)

steeplejack said:


> so...any chance of a shred of evidence to back up your claims?



I regret that I don't transcribe what I see on TV.


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 14, 2014)

...or are able to use google /youtube/news websites, clearly.

sadly it seems to be option 3- you have been talking utter pish from the beginning.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 14, 2014)

steeplejack said:


> ...or are able to use google /youtube/news websites, clearly.
> 
> sadly it seems to be option 3- you have been talking utter pish from the beginning.



I respect your right to be wrong.


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 14, 2014)

oh I'm wrong? good-o then.

so where is the evidence for your claims about Alex Salmond? shouldn't be hard for you to find.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 14, 2014)

Quartz said:


> I regret that I don't transcribe what I see on TV.


Alex Salmond never, ever scapegoats, blames or points the finger at the English, either directly or "cleverly". Never.

Neither he nor the SNP have any grievance, overt or cryptic, with the English.  Around 6% of SNP members were born in England, which is the same as the proportion of English people living in Scotland. (Mitchell, Bennie & Johns, 2012, _The Scottish National Party: Transition to Power_, Oxford: Oxford Uni Press, p65).

The SNP is not an ethnic nationalist party.  Its aim is to build a social movement representative of modern Scotland - including Asian Scots, Irish Scots, Anglo Scots and others - seeking a democratic mandate for the sovereignty of the people of Scotland.  Not versus anyone, but exercised on behalf of those who live here.

This is the bit that London based journalists often don't get. They imagine it must be "against us". But it really isn't.  (It's against the Westminster system.  But it also sees that as failing the people of the rUK).

Now, I'm an anarchist communist.  I disagree with the SNP on a number of levels (not least on the nature of sovereignty).  But if I thought they were in the least bit bigoted towards the English, I would say so.  Not just on a political level, but a personal level: Mrs la rouge is English, my children are therefore half English, my in-laws (whom I am visiting later in the week) are English.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 14, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Alex Salmond never, ever scapegoats, blames or points the finger at the English, either directly or "cleverly". Never.



Really? I've heard him 'refuse to blame', by which he really means he blames.



> This is the bit that London based journalists often don't get. They imagine it must be "against us".



Maybe it's all the alcohol I've had tonight but that seems ironic, because that's equivalent to the position many pro-independence Urbanites hold: if you're not rabidly pro-independence, then you're against it.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 14, 2014)

Top notch buffooning quartz!


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 14, 2014)

When I read London based journalists saying Salmond has a grievance against the English, my reaction is always that it tells me more about them than it does about Salmond.  It tells me the journalist is self-absorbed (it's not about you!) and ill-informed about Scottish politics (as London journalists often are, on both counts).

The pro Yes movement is not a flag-waving nationalist movement, with identity politics to the fore.  It's a movement that wants to give expression to what it believes is a social democratic consensus in Scotland.  By contrast, the Better Together side is a flag-waving nationalist movement, obsessed with identity, and with very little else to say (except increasingly bizarre scares stories).

I was at a referendum debate hosted in Stirling Uni tonight, and the Yes side was (as always) putting forward instrumental arguments (get rid of Trident, stop welfare cuts, and so on).  The Better Together side was all about pride in being British.  All three of them said, often more than once: "I'm a proud Scot, and also proud to be British".  The Yes side had an SNP minister (Angela Constance), who never even mentioned her nationality or whether she was proud of it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 14, 2014)

Quartz said:


> that's equivalent to the position many pro-independence Urbanites hold: if you're not rabidly pro-independence, then you're against it.


No it isn't.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Apr 14, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> The SNP is not an ethnic nationalist party.  Its aim is to build a social movement representative of modern Scotland - including Asian Scots, Irish Scots, Anglo Scots and others - seeking a democratic mandate for the sovereignty of the people of Scotland.  Not versus anyone, but exercised on behalf of those who live here.



The SNP, and the wider "Yes" movement, do have a certain amount of ethnic nationalists attached, but they've both as organisations done a good job of marginalising those voices, and rightly so. But I suppose any sort of movement contains all sorts.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 14, 2014)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> The SNP, and the wider "Yes" movement, do have a certain amount of ethnic nationalists attached, but they've both as organisations done a good job of marginalising those voices, and rightly so. But I suppose any sort of movement contains all sorts.


the mainstream lot are concerning enough as they've their snouts in the trough just like their westminster counterparts - an independent scotland a) won't be independent in more than name under the snp independence-lite, but b) would offer scottish politicians the chance to show they're just the same greedy shits as politicians in the united states or england or ireland


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 14, 2014)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> The SNP, and the wider "Yes" movement, do have a certain amount of ethnic nationalists attached, but they've both as organisations done a good job of marginalising those voices, and rightly so. But I suppose any sort of movement contains all sorts.


Ah, that's a different thing.  There are of course bigoted idiots who might be voting Yes.  As there are bigoted idiots voting No.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> the mainstream lot are concerning enough as they've their snouts in the trough just like their westminster counterparts.


Yes, if you wanted to talk about Salmond's actual shortcomings rather than imaginary ones, there are plenty to be found.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 14, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Yes, if you wanted to talk about Salmond's actual shortcomings rather than imaginary ones, there are plenty to be found.


i am talking about alex salmond's actual shortcomings. - see the picture in the post.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Apr 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> the mainstream lot are concerning enough as they've their snouts in the trough just like their westminster counterparts.



Well yes. Also, John Swinney doesn't get on the telly much, but he's got an interesting history in corporate finance.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i am talking about alex salmond's actual shortcomings. - see the picture in the post.


I know; I agree. My peroration was aimed in the direction of Quartz.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 14, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> The pro Yes movement is not a flag-waving nationalist movement



Really? It certainly seems to be a large part of it. And Salmond isn't above waving the Saltire.



> I was at a referendum debate hosted in Stirling Uni tonight, and the Yes side was (as always) putting forward instrumental arguments (get rid of Trident, stop welfare cuts, and so on).  The Better Together side was all about pride in being British.  All three of them said, often more than once: "I'm a proud Scot, and also proud to be British".  The Yes side had an SNP minister (Angela Constance), who never even mentioned her nationality or whether she was proud of it.



Defending the status quo is rather difficult without waving the Union flag. After all, so many policies are decided not in Westminster but Holyrood which is under the control of the SNP, and you can hardly have them promote the SNP, can you?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 14, 2014)

The main criticism of Salmond is that he is too close to the banks.  He was an RBS economist (way back, before his political career).


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 14, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Really? It certainly seems to be a large part of it. And Salmond isn't above waving the Saltire.


No, he isn't above it.  But that isn't the meat of his case, or of the wider Yes case. It does seem to be the meat of the BT case, those.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 14, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Defending the status quo is rather difficult without waving the Union flag. After all, so many policies are decided not in Westminster but Holyrood which is under the control of the SNP, and you can hardly have them promote the SNP, can you?


I don't think that is quite true. But defending the union without also acknowledging the popularity of devolution in Scotland and the constitutional imbalances that this has produced across the rest of the UK is hard. There is a principled case for a properly federal state that could be made, but that would involve Westminster devolving powers to the English regions, and they don't want to do that - none of them wants it.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Apr 14, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> The main criticism of Salmond is that he is too close to the banks.  He was an RBS economist (way back, before his political career).



Say one thing for him and Nicola Sturgeon though, if it is a Yes vote, I'm glad those two will be on our side. I doubt I'll ever warm to Salmond, and I used to not rate Sturgeon, but she's demonstrated a really cool and calm head in governing. I think it was one of the potential flu pandemics, the one that started in Mexico. She was available, giving out info in the best way "This is what we know", "This is what we plan to do about it", "This is what you may need to do". Anyway...


----------



## Quartz (Apr 14, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't think that is quite true. But defending the union without also acknowledging the popularity of devolution in Scotland and the constitutional imbalances that this has produced across the rest of the UK is hard.



To acknowledge the popularity of devolution would be to surrender the argument, wouldn't it? 



> There is a principled case for a properly federal state that could be made, but that would involve Westminster devolving powers to the English regions, and they don't want to do that - none of them wants it.



I think I've made a similar suggestion here before, but restricted to England / Scotland / NI / Wales.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 14, 2014)

Quartz said:


> To acknowledge the popularity of devolution would be to surrender the argument, wouldn't it?


Not if you were having a grown-up conversation about federalism, no. Local government has still not recovered from Thatcher's profoundly undemocratic attacks on it, and continues to be undermined in England/Wales - see education and 'academies'. There could be a space for a genuinely left of centre party to make a case for reinvigorating it and really devolving real powers to the regions.

I think this would have a positive effect, and I would cite Germany as an example. It is no coincidence that the bit of the UK with a devolved parliament responsible for education is the bit with no tuition fees. In Germany recently, tuition fees have been scrapped, and they were fought and rescinded state-by-state within Germany. Once one state has successfully been fought and scrapped fees, then people in the next state say 'hang on, not here either, thanks'. Fighting austerity is more possible in such a system. Here in the (r)UK, we do not have such democratic avenues open to us.

It's the people of _England_ who should be most pissed off with the status quo.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 15, 2014)

Is there no subject that Quartz is not deeply wrong about?


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 15, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Really? I've heard him 'refuse to blame', by which he really means he blames.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe it's all the alcohol I've had tonight but that seems ironic, because that's equivalent to the position many pro-independence Urbanites hold: if you're not rabidly pro-independence, then you're against it.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 15, 2014)

Just to add, I'm not particularly pro-independence ( I think that whatever the outcome of the referendum a new generation of potential progressive activists will end up disillusioned ) but have to say this is one of those threads where it has been the other side, the pro-yes side that has made the most coherent arguments and I can't say I've detected any hostility even from steeplejack who can be a bit grouchy normally


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 15, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Is there no subject that Quartz is not deeply wrong about?


there is indeed no subject known where quartz is not found wanting.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 15, 2014)

David Cameron will resign if he loses Scotland.

It's our pleasure. No need to thank us.


----------



## teqniq (Apr 15, 2014)

I spoke to some Scots guys on the train back from our hols in York a few weeks ago - nice people, really friendly. I asked one of them about the whole independence thing and how he thought the vote might go. He said he thought it was in the balance atm, most of his family were voting yes but he was thinking of voting no but not completely decided. One of his main fears was finance; to his mind there were a lot of grand ideas being put forth with little or no substance behind them to back them up particularly those of a 'well how are we going to pay for it?' nature. Another was the sectarian thing which he felt was bubbling under the surface and wouldn't take too much to break out into real nastiness. It would have been good to talk to them for longer but they got off a few stops down from York to attend a footie match. I wished them all the best and said I hoped they voted yes if for no other reason (as an Englishman) that it would go some way to diminishing the power of Westminster.


----------



## LiamO (Apr 15, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> David Cameron will resign if he loses Scotland.
> 
> It's our pleasure. No need to thank us.



I sometimes think those in charge of the pro-Union argument are pro-Independence Sleepers


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 15, 2014)

teqniq said:


> it would go some way to diminishing the power of Westminster.


I think it would.  I think it'd give Westminster a big shock to the system.  It'd be weakened, and that's an ideal time for the working class to make demands. The Welfare State was won at a time when the state recognised that the demands of the people had to be acceded to.  If the people of the rUK seize the moment, I think a similar realignment of the consensus is possible. Especially if looking north, the rUK sees WMD going, the mail service being renationalised, the NHS being defended from cuts etc etc.

(As to the point about how can Scotland afford it, we could take that to the Other Place if you like).


----------



## andysays (Apr 15, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> ...Mrs la rouge is English, my children are therefore half English...



Wow. If I was in your position I'd be campaigning frantically against independence. 

Surely you risk having your family split assunder as your wife is expelled and your children become stateless-persons


----------



## teqniq (Apr 15, 2014)

danny la rouge I will watch that thread too thanks


----------



## andysays (Apr 15, 2014)

Irony meter needs new batteries Quartz


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 15, 2014)

andysays said:


> Wow. If I was in your position I'd be campaigning frantically against independence.
> 
> Surely you risk having your family split assunder as your wife is expelled and your children become stateless-persons




Yes, if you believed the scare stories, I'd have to change to driving on a different side of the road every time I crossed the border to visit relatives; that there'd be passport booths set up where the M6 becomes the M74 at Gretna; that I'd need to go to England to watch Dr Who.  Seriously - all those have really been uttered by top Labour politicians.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 15, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> there is indeed no subject known where quartz is not found wanting.



And as you have just demonstrated there is no subject on which anyone who dares to question - let alone err from - an Urban Collective line is not bludgeoned, bullied, ridiculed, shouted down, and insulted. Facts, figures, etc seem to be beyond the reach of many. danny la rouge is the honourable exception in these threads (and I'll mention brogdale and ferrelhadley from other threads). I entered the Scottish independence threads to learn more and danny la rouge aside, the major participants have proved to be a bunch of arseholes. Do you wonder why Sasaferrato isn't in these threads defending the Union?

I reckon a Yes vote is pretty much a done deal absent revelations of shenanigans but will not decide myself which way to vote for some months.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 15, 2014)

Quartz said:


> And as you have just demonstrated there is no subject on which anyone who dares to question - let alone err from - an Urban Collective line is not bludgeoned, bullied, ridiculed, shouted down, and insulted. Facts, figures, etc seem to be beyond the reach of many. danny la rouge is the honourable exception in these threads (and I'll mention brogdale and ferrelhadley from other threads). I entered the Scottish independence threads to learn more and danny la rouge aside, the major participants have proved to be a bunch of arseholes. Do you wonder why Sasaferrato isn't in these threads defending the Union?
> 
> I reckon a Yes vote is pretty much a done deal absent revelations of shenanigans but will not decide myself which way to vote for some months.


there is no urban collective line. there is no cunts' collective. if you find yourself at the wrong end of a bludgeoning it is because you're wrong, not because everyone else is in a collective consciousness.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 15, 2014)

Thank you for your kind words, Quartz.  I'm sorry you feel bludgeoned and bullied.  As for Sass, I'd love to see him put a positive case for the Union.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 15, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Thank you for your kind words, Quartz.  I'm sorry you feel bludgeoned and bullied.  As for Sass, I'd love to see him put a positive case for the Union.


it would be easier to put a case for the union if it was in fact a union rather than - as it is presently - a rather imbalanced relationship.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 15, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> it would be easier to put a case for the union if it was in fact a union rather than - as it is presently - a rather imbalanced relationship.


As it is *currently*. 

/pickman's pedant mode


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 15, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> As it is *currently*.
> 
> /pickman's pedant mode


i wondered who'd be the first to spot that


----------



## andysays (Apr 15, 2014)

Quartz said:


> And as you have just demonstrated there is no subject on which anyone who dares to question - let alone err from - an Urban Collective line is not bludgeoned, bullied, ridiculed, shouted down, and insulted. Facts, figures, etc seem to be beyond the reach of many. danny la rouge is the honourable exception in these threads (and I'll mention brogdale and ferrelhadley from other threads). I entered the Scottish independence threads to learn more and danny la rouge aside, the major participants have proved to be a bunch of arseholes. Do you wonder why Sasaferrato isn't in these threads defending the Union?
> 
> I reckon a Yes vote is pretty much a done deal absent revelations of shenanigans but will not decide myself which way to vote for some months.



Ah, the old "Urban Collective" card, the desperate last wriggle of someone who knows they've lost the argument.

You're not being ridiculed for your opinions, you're being ridiculed because your arguments are so weak, and in this latest case because you've made this claim about Salmond's anti-Englishness and then failed to provide a single example to back it up.

As an "exiled Scot", I'm not in favour of Scottish independence, though I'll accept it if it comes, but judging from this thread and the other one, the pro-independence side have won the argument hands down.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 15, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i wondered who'd be the first to spot that


As you were, Mainwaring.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Apr 15, 2014)

andysays said:


> Ah, the old "Urban Collective" card, the desperate last wriggle of someone who knows they've lost the argument.



Point of order.  I believe "I've had numerous private messages from people who agree with me" is the _last_ wriggle tactic.  "You're all ganging up on me" is far higher up the list.


----------



## andysays (Apr 15, 2014)

So anyway, is there any appetite for discussing what effect Scottish independence might have on those of us in the rest of the UK? Does anyone think there will be calls for greater regional autonomy, for instance?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 15, 2014)

andysays said:


> So anyway, is there any appetite for discussing what effect Scottish independence might have on those of us in the rest of the UK? Does anyone think there will be calls for greater regional autonomy, for instance?


Devolution hasn't really led to this, despite the glaring examples of tuition fees and old age care showing how we're losing out. So I don't know. I do think that someone smart in the Labour party could make a case for federalism, _celebrating_ Scottish devolution and advocating the adoption of similar models across the UK. But they are so locked in to a pro-austerity narrative that they don't appear able to see past their noses on anything else.

It's hard to underestimate the abilities and vision of the Labour party. Their leadership has none at all. Ever since Kinnock, they have looked at the Tories and tried to see how they can do the same thing.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 15, 2014)

andysays said:


> Ah, the old "Urban Collective" card, the desperate last wriggle of someone who knows they've lost the argument.



Umm.. no. I didn't have an argument to make. I came to this thread and the other one to learn.


----------



## andysays (Apr 15, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Devolution hasn't really led to this, despite the glaring examples of tuition fees and old age care showing how we're losing out. So I don't know. I do think that someone smart in the Labour party could make a case for federalism, _celebrating_ Scottish devolution and advocating the adoption of similar models across the UK. But they are so locked in to a pro-austerity narrative that they don't appear able to see past their noses on anything else.
> 
> It's hard to underestimate the abilities and vision of the Labour party. Their leadership has none at all. Ever since Kinnock, they have looked at the Tories and tried to see how they can do the same thing.



Leaving aside the idea of there being anyone smart in the Labour Party, I really can't see any case for federalism getting off the ground.

Firstly, there isn't any sign of any grassroots demand for such a thing.

Secondly, all of the Westminster parties are too tied to the UK state to even consider initiating such a thing.

I think that Scottish autonomy/devolution/independence is a special case within the UK, different even to Wales, which is the nearest possible comparison. Not only has Scotland been a seperate and independent country, it also retain at least vestiges of its own legal, financial and education systems. There has been sizeable support for greater autonomy/independence, with a specific geographical focus, for as long as I can remember.

None of that exists in, say, the north of England - there is no clear focus for what federal English regions would look like, whereas Scotland has always been identifiable and somewhat seperate as an entity.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 15, 2014)

It is possible to remain tied to the idea of a larger state _and_ to advocate federalism. The Germans manage it. Yes, German federalism has deep historical roots, but local government had deep historical roots in the UK too before Thatcher dug them up. The current situation is a mess and it is horribly centralised for a country so populous.

As for the absence of an appetite for it, well here in London there are plenty of people who missed the GLC. And London at least has an assembly now even if its powers are limited.

Also, call me old-fashioned, but it is possible for politicians to lead, rather than just follow opinion polls. To make the case and attempt to inspire and persuade people - you latch on to a desire at grassroots for improvement in public services, for instance, and you attempt to persuade people that this is the best way to achieve those desires.


----------



## likesfish (Apr 15, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> it would be easier to put a case for the union if it was in fact a union rather than - as it is presently - a rather imbalanced relationship.



Well england is a population of 55million plus, scotland 5million and falling how could it possibly be equal??????

Even if you added wales and the whole of ireland still less people and less gdp than london alone thats why the relantionship is so screwed


----------



## teqniq (Apr 15, 2014)

It could be a real game changer though I don't know how much of that is wishful thinking on my part.


----------



## geminisnake (Apr 15, 2014)

Quartz said:


> I entered the Scottish independence threads to learn more and danny la rouge aside, the major participants have proved to be a bunch of arseholes.



That's nice to know. Thanks.


----------



## andysays (Apr 15, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is possible to remain tied to the idea of a larger state _and_ to advocate federalism. The Germans manage it. Yes, German federalism has deep historical roots, but local government had deep historical roots in the UK too before Thatcher dug them up. The current situation is a mess and it is horribly centralised for a country so populous.
> 
> As for the absence of an appetite for it, well here in London there are plenty of people who missed the GLC. And London at least has an assembly now even if its powers are limited.



There will be others here with greater knowledge of Germany than me, but...

The various German regions weren't unified into a single state until 1871. The federal structure was set up to allow the previously existing states to retate some of their sovereignty. There aren't any historically existing states which could form the bases for English federal regions, far less currently existing ones.

Even before the trashing of local government, it never had the autonomy which would be implied/necessary in a federal structure. And we're not talking about counties getting federal status, are we? Even within federal structures (Germany, US, etc) there is still another layer of local government equivalent to our counties.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 15, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Well england is a population of 55million plus, scotland 5million and falling how could it possibly be equal??????
> 
> Even if you added wales and the whole of ireland still less people and less gdp than london alone thats why the relantionship is so screwed


i was thinking more of the fact that there are fuck all tory mps from scotland and precious few if any lib dem ones. so english parties govern scotland with no input into govt at westminster from scots within the parties in government.


----------



## andysays (Apr 15, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is possible to remain tied to the idea of a larger state _and_ to advocate federalism...



Historically, isn't it the case that federal states have tended to come about by a voluntary (at least among their rulers) agreement between existing states, rather than by conquest.

This is not to say that a state which came together largely through conquest couldn't decide to become federal, but it doesn't seem very likely.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 15, 2014)

salmond. Sturgeon. is scottish future to be governed by people with fishy names? Lord Turbot


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 15, 2014)

andysays said:


> Historically, isn't it the case that federal states have tended to come about by a voluntary (at least among their rulers) agreement between existing states, rather than by conquest.
> 
> This is not to say that a state which came together largely through conquest couldn't decide to become federal, but it doesn't seem very likely.


the united states famously came about through conquest


----------



## andysays (Apr 15, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> the united states famously came about through conquest



Well, the geographical area was colonised/conquered by outsiders, but after independence from England each of its constituent states had significant autonomy which they agreed to cede some of to a federal state structure. That's what I'm talking about.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 15, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> the united states famously came about through conquest


And Argentina, Brazil, Australia, India etc etc


----------



## Quartz (Apr 15, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> That's nice to know. Thanks.



Sorry, should have cited you and pogofish too.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 15, 2014)

andysays said:


> Well, the geographical area was colonised/conquered by outsiders, but after independence from England each of its constituent states had significant autonomy which they agreed to cede some of to a federal state structure. That's what I'm talking about.


which "outsiders" killed the indians in the nineteenth century?

when did the indians agree to this federal structure?


----------



## andysays (Apr 15, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> And Argentina, Brazil, Australia, India etc etc



OK, I obviously haven't made my point very clearly.

These are all examples of conquest, colonisation and then independence, so not the sort of "straight" conquest I was thinking of, where one state conquers another, or part of another, and it becomes part of the conquering state. 

With the notable exception of Scotland, this is how the UK was formed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 15, 2014)

andysays said:


> OK, I obviously haven't made my point very clearly.
> 
> These are all examples of conquest, colonisation and then independence, so not the sort of "straight" conquest I was thinking of, where one state conquers another, or part of another, and it becomes part of the conquering state.
> 
> With the notable exception of Scotland, this is how the UK was formed.


so scotland sprang into being fully formed?


----------



## andysays (Apr 15, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> which "outsiders" killed the indians in the nineteenth century?
> 
> when did the indians agree to this federal structure?



I may not have expressed myself as clearly as I might, but I suggest you can get the gist of what I'm talking about. 

And I think you'll find that the currently accepted term is "native americans"


----------



## andysays (Apr 15, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> so scotland sprang into being fully formed?



No, Scotland was itself formed as a nation by conquest, but became part of the UK by agreement.

Now please fuck off with your pointless derailing pedantry


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 15, 2014)

andysays said:


> I may not have expressed myself as clearly as I might, but I suggest you can get the gist of what I'm talking about.
> 
> And I think you'll find that the currently accepted term is "native americans"


yes. indian. native american. all very good to the living but you haven't accepted the point that the united states was very much formed through conquest and the massacre of the indians/native americans, despite the lousiana purchase and the purchase of alaska from russia. did new mexico voluntarily join the united states? you seem to be forgetting deliberately e.g. the mexican-american war of the 1840s or the indian wars of the second half of the nineteenth century.


----------



## andysays (Apr 15, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> yes. indian. native american. all very good to the living but you haven't accepted the point that the united states was very much formed through conquest and the massacre of the indians/native americans, despite the lousiana purchase and the purchase of alaska from russia. did new mexico voluntarily join the united states? you seem to be forgetting deliberately e.g. the mexican-american war of the 1840s or the indian wars of the second half of the nineteenth century.



I'm talking about the formation of the United States immediately after the war of independence, not the subsequent history and expansion of the United States which has, obviously, involved various acts of conquest.

Anyway, getting back to the possibility of a federal structure in post-Scottish independence UK...


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Apr 15, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> yes. indian. native american. all very good to the living but you haven't accepted the point that the united states was very much formed through conquest and the massacre of the indians/native americans, despite the lousiana purchase and the purchase of alaska from russia. did new mexico voluntarily join the united states? you seem to be forgetting deliberately e.g. the mexican-american war of the 1840s or the indian wars of the second half of the nineteenth century.


No, it was formed by the big bang, you fucking moron


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 15, 2014)

andysays said:


> I'm talking about the formation of the United States immediately after the war of independence, not the subsequent history and expansion of the United States which has, obviously, involved various acts of conquest.
> 
> Anyway, getting back to the possibility of a federal structure in post-Scottish independence UK...


before which let's not forget a) you're wrong about the united states, 37 of whose 50 states joined after 1783, and b) wrong to say 





> This is not to say that a state which came together largely through conquest couldn't decide to become federal, but it doesn't seem very likely.


 as the example of canada shows.


----------



## andysays (Apr 15, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> before which let's not forget a) you're wrong about the united states, 37 of whose 50 states joined after 1783, and b) wrong to say  as the example of canada shows.



Christ, you're a boring, pedantic, destructive cunt.

OK, I choose a bad example in an attempt to illustrate a point which may or may not be relevant to the subject of the thread.

You've have demonstrated conclusively that you know more about the United States than me, that you are more knowledgeable generally than me, that you are better than me in every way possible. You have won on the internet.

Now why don't you just go and have a victory wank to celebrate, you sad point-scoring arse.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 15, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> which "outsiders" killed the indians in the nineteenth century?
> 
> when did the indians agree to this federal structure?



I think you'll find that since 1995 they prefer to be called American Indians ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 15, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I think you'll find that since 1995 they prefer to be called American Indians ...


i think you'll find you've missed that particular boat.


----------



## andysays (Apr 15, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i think you'll find you've missed that particular boat.



Ah, but is it really a boat, and if so what sort of boat, and what do the appropriate marine regulations say about missing the boat?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 15, 2014)

andysays said:


> Christ, you're a boring, pedantic, destructive cunt.
> 
> OK, I choose a bad example in an attempt to illustrate a point which may or may not be relevant to the subject of the thread.
> 
> ...


the way this place works is you say something and then other people address the point. your claims shown to be bollocks yet instead of gracefully accepting such, you go on something of a spree of abuse. you're like a spoilt brat, tho' at least a brat has an excuse due to their tender years.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 15, 2014)

andysays said:


> And I think you'll find that the currently accepted term is "native americans"


Many indigenous people in the US still prefer American Indians fwiw, and consider 'native Americans' to be just another inaccurate term for them that has been coined by others. The Canadian 'First Nations' sounds better than either to my ears.


----------



## andysays (Apr 15, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> the way this place works is you say something and then other people address the point



Other people address the point. You indulge in the sort of boring, unhelpful and derailing pedantry for which you're infamous. I suspect there are as yet undiscovered tribes of hunter gatherers in far-flung corners of the globe for whom "Pickman's model" is not a short story by HP Lovecraft but a by-word for pedantry.



Pickman's model said:


> your claims shown to be bollocks yet instead of gracefully accepting such, you go on something of a spree of abuse. you're like a spoilt brat, tho' at least a brat has an excuse due to their tender years.



I've accepted that my suggestion was ill-expressed and perhaps even ill-informed.

If calling you a boring, pedantic, destructive cunt is spree of abuse, behaving like a spoilt brat, then you're absolutely correct. But it isn't, and you're not, you're just being a boring, pedantic, destructive cunt. Again.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 15, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i think you'll find you've missed that particular boat.



As of 1995, according to the US Census Bureau, 50% of people who identified as indigenous preferred the term _American Indian_, 37% preferred _Native American_, and the remainder preferred other terms or had no preference.

In 2002 the words Indigenous people of America were being used / proposed. But still a majority of indigenous Americans use the older term. 

As the Bureau of Indian Affairs elaborates:

The term, 'Native American,' came into usage in the 1960s to denote the groups served by the Bureau of Indian Affairs: American Indians and Alaska Native (Indians, Eskimos and Aleuts of Alaska). Later the term also included Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders in some Federal programs. It, therefore, came into disfavor among some Indian groups. The preferred term is American Indian.
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions, from the Bureau of Indian Affairs

Russell Means, the Lakota activist and founder of the American Indian Movement (AIM), has strongly rejected _Native American_ in favor of _Indian:_

I abhor the term Native American. It is a generic government term used to describe all the indigenous prisoners of the United States. These are the American Samoans, the Micronesians, the Aleuts, the original Hawaiians, and the erroneously termed Eskimos, who are actually Upiks and Inupiats. And, of course, the American Indian.

I prefer the term American Indian because I know its origins . . . As an added distinction the American Indian is the only ethnic group in the United States with the American before our ethnicity . . . We were enslaved as American Indians, we were colonized as American Indians, and we will gain our freedom as American Indians, and then we will call ourselves any damn thing we choose.


It is generally accepted that Americans with indian heritage or the indigenous American Indians prefer to be referred to as American Indians .
​


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 15, 2014)

mind you, this thread is the wank, arsehatted cousin to the actual sensible one so I am happy to see the walls smeared with shit and gabba being played at volume 110%


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 15, 2014)

andysays said:


> Other people address the point. You indulge in the sort of boring, unhelpful and derailing pedantry for which you're infamous. I suspect there are as yet undiscovered tribes of hunter gatherers in far-flung corners of the globe for whom "Pickman's model" is not a short story by HP Lovecraft but a by-word for pedantry.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you're using accusations of pedantry here as a shorthand for 'i'm embarrassed to have been caught out'. if there's been any pedantry in our exchange, it's your declaration about the united states in its 1783 form. so much for your claim to want to move on.


----------



## teqniq (Apr 15, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> mind you, this thread is the wank, arsehatted cousin to the actual sensible one so I am happy to see the walls smeared with shit and gabba being played at volume 110%



lol 

Which is the sensible one btw? The one Danny pointed me at?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 15, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> As of 1995, according to the US Cens<snip>
> 
> ​


i meant the discussion has moved on.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 15, 2014)

teqniq said:


> lol
> 
> Which is the sensible one btw? The one Danny pointed me at?




yersh. There is some facepalmery in that one but in the main its proper grown up talking over the issues and implications. Maybe it should be the rule that every thread about serious things should have a crap also-ran, in this specific case its worked brilliantly


----------



## RedDragon (Apr 15, 2014)

Scottish Battles, interesting reading


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 15, 2014)

andysays said:


> OK, I obviously haven't made my point very clearly.
> 
> These are all examples of conquest, colonisation and then independence, so not the sort of "straight" conquest I was thinking of, where one state conquers another, or part of another, and it becomes part of the conquering state.
> 
> With the notable exception of Scotland, this is how the UK was formed.


What about Germany and the Low Countries? And Spain and Italy?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 15, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> What about Germany and the Low Countries? And Spain and Italy?


not to mention that any conquest in great britain was completed centuries ago.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 15, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> not to mention that any conquest in great britain was completed centuries ago.



Great Britain? 
Do you mean the place inhabited by modern humans during the upper paleolithic period, or the place where the Angles, one of the Germanic tribes who settled during the 5th and 6th centuries lived?


----------



## andysays (Apr 15, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> What about Germany and the Low Countries? And Spain and Italy?



OK, my idea that countries which have a federal constitution have mostly been formed by agreement, whereas the others have mostly been formed by conquest is obvious nonsense, and I apologise to everyone* for mentioning it and beginning this derailing of the thread away from the prospects of a federal structure emerging in post-independant-Scotland UK.

*Everyone except Pickman's model, because he's still behaving like a boring pedantic cunt


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 15, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Great Britain?
> Do you mean the place inhabited by modern humans during the upper paleolithic period, or the place where the Angles, one of the Germanic tribes who settled during the 5th and 6th centuries lived?


it's the island we're on you ignorant twat


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 15, 2014)

andysays said:


> I've accepted that my suggestion was ill-expressed and perhaps even ill-informed.
> 
> If calling you a boring, pedantic, destructive cunt is spree of abuse, behaving like a spoilt brat, then you're absolutely correct. But it isn't, and you're not, you're just being a boring, pedantic, destructive cunt. Again.


calling me a boring, pedantic, destructive cunt doesn't make it true. repeating it doesn't make it true. it just shows you to be a sad dull loser with a very limited vocabulary.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 15, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> calling me a boring, pedantic, destructive cunt doesn't make it true. repeating it doesn't make it true. it just shows you to be a sad dull loser with a very limited vocabulary.



Now you know how I feel.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 15, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Now you know how I feel.


i hope you feel worse than that.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 15, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> it's the island we're on you ignorant twat



Politically, though, (and that's what the thread is about), it also includes many others that we're not on.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 15, 2014)

The Catalan-Spanish rhetoric is almost identical to the Scottish-British stuff. Some of the figures are even the same, including the unelected former totally not CIA agent 'Maoist' Barroso, threatening the Catalans with exclusion from the EU just as he did the Scots.


----------



## andysays (Apr 15, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Now you know how I feel.





Pickman's model said:


> i hope you feel worse than that.



I hope she feels better realising that it's not just her that gets pulled up on stuff they've said, however deserving/not deserving she feels it's been.

It's just the normal rough and tumble of debate here, not anything to cry abuse or bullying over.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 16, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Is there no subject that Quartz is not deeply wrong about?


What you mean Cameron isn't a socialist?


----------



## tbtommyb (Apr 16, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> calling me a boring, pedantic, destructive cunt doesn't make it true. repeating it doesn't make it true.


yeah, but only because you were all of those before he called you such.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 16, 2014)

Matthew Norman in the Independent says:

In the entire global history of the political campaign, has any been more misconceived, wretchedly executed and potentially self-defeating than the one designed to keep Scotland within the United Kingdom?

This week’s attempt to spook the Scots into holding on to nurse - in succession to “you’ll lose the pound/ the BBC/ your embassies around the world”; “you’ll come under Brussels' iron yoke/ be blackballed from the EU”; “you’ll starve to death when the oil runs out”; “you’ll be crippled by mobile phone international roaming charges the second you cross the border” and all the others - concerns defence.

Not long ago, Lord (George) Robertson, the one-time Labour defence secretary and former Nato secretary-general, gravely warned his compatriots that “the loudest cheers for the break-up of Britain would be from our enemies”; and that Scottish independence “would be cataclysmic in geopolitical terms”. Well, wouldn’t it just? Without the Scots Dragoons under the Union banner, China would nuke Taiwan, the Americans would annexe Mexico, and the third battalion of the Swiss Army Knives might very well invade Guam.
[...]

Scotland, if it chooses independence and then resists all the maritime powers hell bent on capturing it, will be fine. It is a left-leaning country with a character that would not be changed by becoming a sovereign state. England, on the other hand, would be transformed, and in no way for the better.

[...]
Labour would have no choice but to reinvent itself as a party of the centre-right.​
I was with him, more or less, up to that point.  But he seems to be under the illusion that Labour isn't currently a party of the centre right.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 16, 2014)

Yep last bit is bollocks, and a misunderstanding of the nature of England.


----------



## andysays (Apr 16, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Matthew Norman in the Independent says:
> 
> I was with him, more or less, up to that point.  But he seems to be under the illusion that Labour isn't currently a party of the centre right.





> the inevitable release of latent English shrill intolerance





> in smug and tone-deaf England, her hearing still distorted by the echo of Empire, rampant arrogance drowns out an obvious fact



So there we have the answer to the question. If Scotland goes her own way, we're all doomed to revert back to the inherent little-Englishness that steeplejack parodied for us recently.

Maybe Matthew Norman should stick to film reviews, because that is piss-poor stuff


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 16, 2014)

he's always been an irritating, vain little squit Matthew Norman.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 16, 2014)

K


Pickman's model said:


> not to mention that any conquest in great britain was completed centuries ago.





bubblesmcgrath said:


> Great Britain?
> Do you mean the place inhabited by modern humans during the upper paleolithic period, or the place where the Angles, one of the Germanic tribes who settled during the 5th and 6th centuries lived?



To which you reply.....

"Its the island we're on you ignorant twat"

You brought up the conquests hundreds of years ago. ..and I pointed out that great Britain didn't exist hundreds of years ago by referring to the older names used hundreds of years ago to describe the country now callled england.........as I'm pretty pedantic about these things. 

Then you come back with the outburst "it's the island we're on you ignorant twat".....
I think you may have proven that you were the ignorant twat here...not me.


----------



## andysays (Apr 16, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> K
> 
> To which you reply.....
> 
> ...



Anyway bubbles, rather than squabbling with pickmans (which TBH you can do on any thread) do you have any opinion on whether those of us left in the rest of the UK will be affected in any dramatic way should Scotland vote for independence?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 16, 2014)

Well Andysays...speaking as an Irish person, I doubt England and the English will be affected in any dramatic way......and I'm pretty sure that neither ye nor the Scots will have a civil war, like we did after our fight for independence.


----------



## andysays (Apr 16, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Well Andysays...speaking as an Irish person, I doubt England and the English will be affected in any dramatic way......and I'm pretty sure that neither ye nor the Scots will have a civil war, like we did after our fight for independence.



Speaking as a British person, whose parents come from northern Britain but who has always lived in southern Britain, I think I'd probably agree with you.

Some apparently think the rest of the UK will never been the same again, but seem unable to come up with any real justfication for this belief.


----------



## JTG (Apr 16, 2014)

Seems to me that there are certain types on the liberal left in England who have so little faith in the English working classes that they see Scotland as a crutch without which we shall revert to right wing barbarousness immediately they pack their bags and leave.

I think they're wrong


----------



## andysays (Apr 16, 2014)

JTG said:


> Seems to me that there are certain types on the liberal left in England who have so little faith in the English working classes that they see Scotland as a crutch without which we shall revert to right wing barbarousness immediately they pack their bags and leave.
> 
> I think they're wrong



And there are others who think that some sort of English radicalism will re-ignite and there'll be overwhelming demands for a federalised regional structure.

I think they're wrong too.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 16, 2014)

JTG said:


> Seems to me that there are certain types on the liberal left in England who have so little faith in the English working classes that they see Scotland as a crutch without which we shall revert to right wing barbarousness immediately they pack their bags and leave.
> 
> I think they're wrong



Going on past history....when most of Ireland became independent  there was very little impact on people in England, Scotland or Wales. The North of Ireland is a different matter as it was left with the UK.  But I doubt the regular English Joe saw much of an impact on their lives.....at the time.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 16, 2014)

andysays said:


> And there are others who think that some sort of English radicalism will re-ignite and there'll be overwhelming demands for a federalised regional structure.
> 
> I think they're wrong too.




Anglia demands her historic separatism.


----------



## JTG (Apr 16, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> Anglia demands her historic separatism.


Anglia Ripon?


----------



## andysays (Apr 16, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> Anglia demands her historic separatism.



good luck with that


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 16, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> K
> 
> 
> 
> ...


let me take this in a couple of simple steps.

great britain is an island.

england is a country within the island of great britain. england is not the same as great britain.

is this clear? england, scotland and wales are all on the island of great britain. the island of great britain existed millennia before england wales or scotland were dreamt of by men and women, in the same way the falkland islands or ireland or diego garcia have been there for millennia before people found them.

can we move on now?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 16, 2014)

JTG said:


> Seems to me that there are certain types on the liberal left in England who have so little faith in the English working classes that they see Scotland as a crutch without which we shall revert to right wing barbarousness immediately they pack their bags and leave.
> 
> I think they're wrong


revert?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 16, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> let me take this in a couple of simple steps.
> 
> great britain is an island.
> 
> ...




Whooooosh......that's the sound of  you totally missing my point as it flies over your head.... my point was that england, scotland and wales and indeed ireland, were not always called great britain... and just as hundreds of years ago england had a different name then the future may well bring differences of government and name


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 16, 2014)

Ps ... Great Britain did not exist millenia ago .....even if pickmans model insists it did.


----------



## spring-peeper (Apr 16, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> let me take this in a couple of simple steps.
> 
> great britain is an island.
> 
> ...




Great Britain is a collection of islands.


Carry on....


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 16, 2014)

spring-peeper said:


> Great Britain is a collection of islands.
> 
> 
> Carry on....



An island archipelago if you will?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 16, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Thank you for your kind words, Quartz.  I'm sorry you feel bludgeoned and bullied.  As for Sass, I'd love to see him put a positive case for the Union.



The positive case for the union is overwhelming. I have asked my MSP five times what the cost of a Scottish HMRC would be. She doesn't know (or is frightened to say).

The elements of government that are at present provided by the UK, but would need to be funded by Scotland alone are frightening.

Salmond is either telling outright lies, or is mentally ill. He has been told by all the major parties that there will be no currency union, yet persists in the lie that there will be. He has been told that there is no automatic membership of the EU, by the EU president, yet insists that there will be. As to other aspects of EU membership, such as Schengen, which is automatic for new entrants, silence.

The 'White Paper' is 600 pages of uncosted aspirational bullshit.

Anyone who feels that Scotland would benefit from independence needs a reality check. Vote 'NO' and stop the 'Little Scotlanders' in their tracks. From their utterances, a lot of the 'Yes' voters are xenophobic racists.

Edited to add:

I am not applying the term 'xenophobic racists' to all of the 'Yes' supporters. Just the significant minority that are.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 16, 2014)

My mother was Scottish so I have Scottish relatives but I find it hard to keep in touch because, despite all the arguments that we are just one country, Scotland, especially the north, is a long way away. There is a sort of gap between England and Scotland just north of Newcastle. Anyhow I don't often get up there, from the "ease of access" point of view they may as well be in mid France.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 16, 2014)

It can't be far off the same distance from London to Cornwall as it is from London to Scotland.

Looking at Google maps, 306 miles from London to Penzance, 307 to Carlisle.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> It can't be far off the same distance from London to Cornwall as it is from London to Scotland.
> 
> Looking at Google maps, 306 miles from London to Penzance, 307 to Carlisle.


An error of only 100% plus there. Well done.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 16, 2014)

860m from Land's End to John O'Groats (the way I went).

Cardiff to Barcelona is only about 1,000m


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 16, 2014)

spring-peeper said:


> Great Britain is a collection of islands.
> 
> 
> Carry on....


The island of Great Britain, containing England, Scotland and Wales is one island. Perhaps you know of the different name for the island. But I am not referring to the British Isles, which is indeed an archipelago.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 16, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> K
> 
> 
> 
> ...


tbh what i had in my mind when i talked of conquests finishing in the island of great britain some hundreds of years ago wasn't the angles or the saxons or the jutes or the picts or offa or even the danes or the normans. i wasn't thinking of the battle of bannockburn or llewellyn or the battle of pinkie. i was thinking of the last great rebellion in this island, which would be, i suppose, the '45 which effectively ended at culloden nearly 300 years ago. at that point the island was known as great britain. and even if it wasn't we don't go about describing places by their former names in everyday speech, e.g. york as the city formerly known as eboracum. or most people don't, you might do. as for your ps about great britain not existing millennia ago, the island which was formerly nameless and is now known as great britain has indeed been about for millennia - even if you're one of those loons who believe - with bishop ussher - that the world was created in 4004BC it's been about for millennia.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 16, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> The island of Great Britain, containing England, Scotland and Wales is one island. Perhaps you know of the different name for the island. But I am not referring to the British Isles, which is indeed an archipelago.




An old argument. Great Britain and Northern Ireland, IIRC is the correct term for the nation as a whole, ergo, Great Britain would indeed describe the 'mainland' part.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 16, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> An old argument. Great Britain and Northern Ireland, IIRC is the correct term for the nation as a whole, ergo, Great Britain would indeed describe the 'mainland' part.


formally the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland
formerly, well, a lot of other things


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 16, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh what i had in my mind when i talked of conquests finishing in the island of great britain some hundreds of years ago wasn't the angles or the saxons or the jutes or the picts or offa or even the danes or the normans. i wasn't thinking of the battle of bannockburn or llewellyn or the battle of pinkie. i was thinking of the last great rebellion in this island, which would be, i suppose, the '45 which effectively ended at culloden nearly 300 years ago. at that point the island was known as great britain. and even if it wasn't we don't go about describing places by their former names in everyday speech, e.g. york as the city formerly known as eboracum. or most people don't, you might do. as for your ps about great britain not existing millennia ago, the island which was formerly nameless and is now known as great britain has indeed been about for millennia - even if you're one of those loons who believe - with bishop ussher - that the world was created in 4004BC it's been about for millennia.



Funnily enough, I was talking about Culloden with my grandson the other day. What brought it to mind was that I have a farthing, dated 1746, which could have been in someone's pocket during the battle. (Yes, yes, unlikely.  The lad will remember the date of the battle though, because of the farthing.) 

Culloden was not a battle between the Scots and the English. The following clans fought for Cumberland.

Clan Campbell

Clan Cathcart

Clan Colville

Clan Cunningham

Clan Grant of Freuchie

Clan Gunn

Clan Kerr

Clan MacKay

Clan Munro

Clan Ross

Clan Semphill

Clan Sinclair

Clan Sutherland


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 16, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> formally the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland
> formerly, well, a lot of other things




Hell yes. Makes me laugh a bit when Scots bang on about their 'Scottish' ancestry. The Scots came from Ireland.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 16, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh what i had in my mind when i talked of conquests finishing in the island of great britain some hundreds of years ago wasn't the angles or the saxons or the jutes or the picts or offa or even the danes or the normans. i wasn't thinking of the battle of bannockburn or llewellyn or the battle of pinkie. i was thinking of the last great rebellion in this island, which would be, i suppose, the '45 which effectively ended at culloden nearly 300 years ago. at that point the island was known as great britain. and even if it wasn't we don't go about describing places by their former names in everyday speech, e.g. york as the city formerly known as eboracum. or most people don't, you might do. as for your ps about great britain not existing millennia ago, the island which was formerly nameless and is now known as great britain has indeed been about for millennia - even if you're one of those loons who believe - with bishop ussher - that the world was created in 4004BC it's been about for millennia.




Glad you cleared up exactly which century you were talking about....pity you called me an ignorant twat for not realising it was three hundred years you meant and not longer ... seeing as you were talking about conquests hundreds of years ago.....


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 16, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Hell yes. Makes me laugh a bit when Scots bang on about their 'Scottish' ancestry. The Scots came from Ireland.



Aye that they did


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Hell yes. Makes me laugh a bit when Scots bang on about their 'Scottish' ancestry. The Scots came from Ireland.


And in what way does that mean they do not have Scottish ancestry?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 16, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Glad you cleared up exactly which century you were talking about....pity you called me an ignorant twat for not realising it was three hundred years you meant and not longer ... seeing as you were talking about conquests hundreds of years ago.....


if you had engaged brain you might have thought conquests in gb ended relatively recent you daft twat


----------



## JTG (Apr 16, 2014)

weltweit said:


> There is a sort of gap between England and Scotland just north of Newcastle.


Has Northumbria fallen into the sea then? Fuck me, they kept that quiet


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 16, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> if you had engaged brain you might have thought conquests in gb ended relatively recent you daft twat




"Conquest" has a different meaning to " rebellion". You reference the battle of Culloden as the last conquest in GB. Yet it was a rebellion not a conquest in the sense you referred to in your earlier posts.


----------



## Frankie Jack (Apr 16, 2014)

So Sass and bubbles are saying there wasn't a single human in the whole of Scotland, as was, until some came over the sea from Ireland. Yeah right.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Apr 16, 2014)

Frankie Jack said:


> So Sass and bubbles are saying there wasn't a single human in the whole of Scotland, as was, until some came over the sea from Ireland. Yeah right.



No...read Sass post again. 

The Picts inhabited Scotland before the Scots arrived from Ireland.


----------



## teqniq (Apr 16, 2014)

my whogivesafuck-ometer has broken


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 16, 2014)

Frankie Jack said:


> So Sass and bubbles are saying there wasn't a single human in the whole of Scotland, as was, until some came over the sea from Ireland. Yeah right.



Well. When are we talking about? The Scots of Dalriada were Irish invaders. To save a lot of typing:

In the Early Middle Ages, Scotland had several ethnic or cultural groups labelled as such in contemporary sources, namely the Picts, the Gaels, the Britons, with the Angles settling in the southeast of the country. Culturally, these peoples are grouped according to language. Most of Scotland until the 13th century spoke Celtic languages and these included, at least initially, the Britons, as well as the Gaels and the Picts.[21] Germanic peoples included the Angles of Northumbria, who settled in south-eastern Scotland in the region between the Firth of Forth to the north and the River Tweed to the south. They also occupied the south-west of Scotland up to and including the Plain of Kyle and their language, Old English, was the earliest form of the language which eventually became known as Scots. Later the Norse arrived in the north and west in quite significant numbers, recently discovered to have left about thirty percent of men in the Outer Hebrides with a distinct, Norse marker in their DNA[_citation needed_].

Use of the Gaelic language spread throughout nearly the whole of Scotland by the 9th century,[22] reaching a peak in the 11th to 13th centuries, but was never the language of the south-east of the country.[22]

After the division of Northumbria between Scotland and England by King Edgar (or after the later Battle of Carham; it is uncertain, but most medieval historians now accept the earlier 'gift' by Edgar) the Scottish kingdom encompassed a great number of English people, with larger numbers quite possibly arriving after the Norman invasion of England (Contemporary populations cannot be estimated so we cannot tell which population thenceforth formed the majority). South-east of the Firth of Forth then in Lothian and the Borders (OE: _Loðene_), a northern variety of Old English, also known as Early Scots, was spoken.



The people of Scotland are a very ethnically diverse group.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Well. When are we talking about? The Scots of Dalriada were Irish invaders. To save a lot of typing:
> 
> In the Early Middle Ages, Scotland had several ethnic or cultural groups labelled as such in contemporary sources, namely the Picts, the Gaels, the Britons, with the Angles settling in the southeast of the country. Culturally, these peoples are grouped according to language. Most of Scotland until the 13th century spoke Celtic languages and these included, at least initially, the Britons, as well as the Gaels and the Picts.[21] Germanic peoples included the Angles of Northumbria, who settled in south-eastern Scotland in the region between the Firth of Forth to the north and the River Tweed to the south. They also occupied the south-west of Scotland up to and including the Plain of Kyle and their language, Old English, was the earliest form of the language which eventually became known as Scots. Later the Norse arrived in the north and west in quite significant numbers, recently discovered to have left about thirty percent of men in the Outer Hebrides with a distinct, Norse marker in their DNA[_citation needed_].
> 
> ...


None of that matters you prat, once those peoples became Scottish anyone coming after can then legitimately claim Scottish heritage.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 16, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> No...read Sass post again.
> 
> The Picts inhabited Scotland before the Scots arrived from Ireland.



They did indeed. IIRC St Columba met the Pictish king.

The *Picts* were a tribal confederation of Late Iron Age and Early Medieval Celtic people living in ancient eastern and northern Scotland.[1] The place where they lived and what their culture was like can be inferred from the geographical distribution of brochs, Brythonic place name elements, and Pictish stones. Picts are attested to in written records from before the Roman conquest of Britain to the 10th century, when they are thought to have merged with the Gaels. They lived to the north of the rivers Forth and Clyde, and spoke the now-extinct Pictish language, which is thought to have been related to the Brythonic languages spoken by the Britons who lived to the south of them. Picts are assumed to have been the descendants of the Caledonii and other tribes that were mentioned by Roman historians or on the world map of Ptolemy. Pictland, also called Pictavia by some sources, gradually merged with the Gaelic kingdom of Dál Riata to form the Kingdom of Alba (Scotland). Alba then expanded, absorbing the Brythonic kingdom of Strathclyde and Bernician Lothian, and by the 11th century the Pictish identity had been subsumed into the "Scots" amalgamation of peoples.

Pictish society was typical of many Iron Age societies in northern Europe, having "wide connections and parallels" with neighbouring groups.[2] Archaeology gives some impression of the society of the Picts. While very little in the way of Pictish writing has survived, Pictish history since the late 6th century is known from a variety of sources, including Bede's _Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum_, saints' lives such as that of Columba by Adomnán, and various Irish annals.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 16, 2014)

The language of Scotland is also diverse. There may well be an argument for a second non-English TV channel for Scotland, the number of Polish Speakers in Scotland according to the 2011 census, is on par with Gaelic speakers numerically, and Urdu speakers are not far behind. Despite this, BBC Alba, with a budget of £17m consumes 30% of BBC Scotland's budget. Rather a lot for circa 1% of the population. (Roughly 2% of the population stated that they had some ability in Gaelic, that would include me and Mrs Sas. I can read Gaelic fluently, but don't understand all that I am reading. I would not in any way regard myself as a fluent speaker.)


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> The language of Scotland is also diverse. There may well be an argument for a second non-English TV channel for Scotland, the number of Polish Speakers in Scotland according to the 2011 census, is on par with Gaelic speakers numerically, and Urdu speakers are not far behind. Despite this, BBC Alba, with a budget of £17m consumes 30% of BBC Scotland's budget. Rather a lot for circa 1% of the population. (Roughly 2% of the population stated that they had some ability in Gaelic, that would include me and Mrs Sas. I can read Gaelic fluently, but don't understand all that I am reading. I would not in any way regard myself as a fluent speaker.)


BBC Scotland's budget is about £60 million is it?


----------



## weltweit (Apr 16, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> The language of Scotland is also diverse. There may well be an argument for a second non-English TV channel for Scotland, the number of Polish Speakers in Scotland according to the 2011 census, is on par with Gaelic speakers numerically, and Urdu speakers are not far behind. Despite this, BBC Alba, with a budget of £17m consumes 30% of BBC Scotland's budget. Rather a lot for circa 1% of the population. (Roughly 2% of the population stated that they had some ability in Gaelic, that would include me and Mrs Sas. I can read Gaelic fluently, but don't understand all that I am reading. I would not in any way regard myself as a fluent speaker.)


I find it a bit confusing in that Wales has an active welsh speaking population yet does not seem to want independence, while Scotland has very few gaelic speakers and does.

I know the issues are unrelated, but still, there is a lot of national Welsh pride in their language.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 16, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I find it a bit confusing in that Wales has an active welsh speaking population yet does not seem to want independence, while Scotland has very few gaelic speakers and does.
> 
> I know the issues are unrelated, but still, there is a lot of national Welsh pride in their language.



Gaelic totters along. It will not die out, there are many enthusiasts, and of course it is spoken prolifically in the Islands. I lived on Harris for eight years, 5-13. When we first arrived, a lot of the pre-school children didn't speak English. There was no TV at that time; it didn't arrive until I was 12; and in a lot of households the wireless was only on for the news. (Lot of Wee Frees, a joyless sect.) A lot of the older people didn't speak English at all, or had as much English as I had Gaelic. It was quite funny, when a group of us were getting a bollocking from an adult, over some idiocy or other, it was delivered, first in Gaelic, then for my 'benefit', in English.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 16, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Gaelic totters along. It will not die out, there are many enthusiasts, and of course it is spoken prolifically in the Islands. I lived on Harris for eight years, 5-13. When we first arrived, a lot of the pre-school children didn't speak English. There was no TV at that time; it didn't arrive until I was 12; and in a lot of households the wireless was only on for the news. (Lot of Wee Frees, a joyless sect.) A lot of the older people didn't speak English at all, or had as much English as I had Gaelic. It was quite funny, when a group of us were getting a bollocking from an adult, over some idiocy or other, it was delivered, first in Gaelic, then for my 'benefit', in English.


I met a Scot recently down here in England, they had recently retired from the army. They said joining the army, and their ensuing career, had been the best thing they ever did. What do you think Sass about the likely changes there will be to the army, and the lives people used to make in it, if independence comes about?


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 16, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> The positive case for the union is overwhelming. I have asked my MSP five times what the cost of a Scottish HMRC would be. She doesn't know (or is frightened to say).
> 
> The elements of government that are at present provided by the UK, but would need to be funded by Scotland alone are frightening.
> 
> ...



what country in history has not "benefitted from independence", really? what makes Scotland so uniquely incapable that it cannot come up with and fund its own instituions of government?

I think the un-named Tory minister torpedoed Osborne and Beaker's ludicrous line that there will be no currency union. There will be. Why? business wants it and, from this government, what business wants, it gets. 

As already discussed no one really knows what will happen with the EU and EU entry as it is uncharted territory. The idea that energy rich Scotland will be kept out because it refuses to put up a guarded border with England, or is reluctant to join Schengen, is laughable. The EU will want Scotland in and contributing.

I'd also like to see some evidence of the "xenophobic racism" of yes campaigners, please. That is a pretty serious charge. Quartz boldly tried a parallel tack a few pages back and failed miserably to make the case. I am sure you will do better.

(as for the weird sub-_Spearhead_ ramblings about Picts and the "real Scots", who honestly gives a fuck? It is the 21st century and we are a mongrel nation like pretty much everywhere else on earth- and are all the better for it.)


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 16, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I met a Scot recently down here in England, they had recently retired from the army. They said joining the army, and their ensuing career, had been the best thing they ever did. What do you think Sass about the likely changes there will be to the army, and the lives people used to make in it, if independence comes about?



Well, Salmond has stated that Scotland would have a standing army of 15,000, I'm unsure whether this will encompass air,sea and lad, or land only. Either way up, a militia rather than an army. I would imagine that people would continue to enlist down south.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 16, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> The positive case for the union is overwhelming. I have asked my MSP five times what the cost of a Scottish HMRC would be. She doesn't know (or is frightened to say).
> 
> The elements of government that are at present provided by the UK, but would need to be funded by Scotland alone are frightening.
> 
> ...


And that's the positive case for the Union, is it? Your diagnosis of Alex Salmond's mental health?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 16, 2014)

steeplejack said:


> what country in history has not "benefitted from independence", really? what makes Scotland so uniquely incapable that it cannot come up with and fund its own instituions of government?
> 
> I think the un-named Tory minister torpedoed Osborne and Beaker's ludicrous line that there will be no currency union. There will be. Why? business wants it and, from this government, what business wants, it gets.
> 
> ...




I don't have to justify my view. Independence is not wanted by the majority, and is a divisive proposal engendered my the monomaniacal SNP.

Historically, once the referendum is lost, the SNP will be put to the sword at the subsequent election. Then the 'Little Scotlanders' can shut up for another generation. 

Funny that, I dare say you regard the 'Little Englander' with a deal of derision, yet miss the delicious irony that you are a 'Little Scotlander'.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 16, 2014)

spring-peeper said:


> Great Britain is a collection of islands.
> 
> 
> Carry on....


No, Great Britain is the largest island of the archipelago. The archipelago itself is called the British Isles.


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 16, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I find it a bit confusing in that Wales has an active welsh speaking population yet does not seem to want independence, while Scotland has very few gaelic speakers and does.
> 
> I know the issues are unrelated, but still, there is a lot of national Welsh pride in their language.



not really comparing like with like, though. Wales, until recently, was *a lot* more integrated into England (in transport terms it is easier to travel from Cardiff to London than it is from Cardiff to Caernarfon; the M4 and the 55 are routes out of Wales).

Wales has no banking system and until very recently lacked separate legal powrs of any kind. (recent developments at the Assembly and the Silk Cimmission may change all that but it is at the very beginning of the process).

Wales was united with England c. 400 years earlier than Scotland.

It might be argued that the Church and the lnaguage are the only real vestiges of a *separate* Welsh identity, along with more recent inventions like national sports teams. Whilst there has always been a stroing cultural nationalist identity in Wales, a much weaker and less diversified economy, is fundamental to the lack of enthusiasm for independence IMO. Put simply even those minded to favour a separate Welsh state do not see a developed economic basis for it IMO. 

Even within Plaid there was a rather fierce debate between those who advocated independence, or the rather more nebulous "full self government for Wales" formulation adovcated by the hapless Ieuan Wyn Jones. With IWJ thankfully now out of the picture the much more leftist oriented leadership has swung fully behind independence. But it really is still a minority sport. The outcome of the Commission looking into further powers for wales will be fascinating.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 16, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> And that's the positive case for the Union, is it? Your diagnosis of Alex Salmond's mental health?



We can argue round and round, and reach no point of agreement. I am implacably opposed, and will certainly be making sure that I vote.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 16, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> We can argue round and round, and reach no point of agreement. I am implacably opposed, and will certainly be making sure that I vote.


There's no point in you and me trying to persuade each other. But I was interested in hearing the positive case for the Union from you. I still would be.


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 16, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> I don't have to justify my view. Independence is not wanted by the majority, and is a divisive proposal engendered my the monomaniacal SNP.



so if it is down to SNP monomania and nothing else, how do you explain the presence of Greens, Socialists, hell even an independent minded section of the Labour party, being involved in the campaign? Bit of a swing and a miss there.



Sasaferrato said:


> Historically, once the referendum is lost, the SNP will be put to the sword at the subsequent election. Then the 'Little Scotlanders' can shut up for another generation.



nonsense. Voters are very savvy in Scotland. Even if the referendum produces a No vote, the SNP will win the next Scottish election. The reason being that not one of the other mainstream parties can lay a glove on them at present. 1979 is a long time ago and people seeking to draw comparisons between the situations then and now are (at best) deluded.



Sasaferrato said:


> Funny that, I dare say you regard the 'Little Englander' with a deal of derision, yet miss the delicious irony that you are a 'Little Scotlander'.



This is just empty speculation in lieu of an argument. I'll content myself with the observation that it isnt me who has been pebbledashing the last page of the thread with a quack-historical diahorretic spasm about Picts, the Irish and Culloden.

(still wating for some kind of evidence to back up your crites of "xenophobic racism" vis a vis the Yes camapign, by the way. Inane specualtion as to what you presume might be my views dont count as that).


----------



## kebabking (Apr 16, 2014)

weltweit said:


> ...What do you think Sass about the likely changes there will be to the army, and the lives people used to make in it, if independence comes about?



from a straw poll, conversations, and general nosiness, i have found 3 soldiers - out of about 50 - who said they would seriously consider a transfer to a SDF.  the big 'anti' seemed to be a belief that the SDF would be the most boring job ever created. all the 50-odd i spoke to had either Scottish accents, or were people i knew to have a significant connection to Scotland - as do i.

the 'pros' were it meant living nearer family and a rather more relaxed operating tempo. all those who thought they might be interested were fairly junior, none above the rank of Bombardier/Corporal.. 

my understanding from talking to others - in historically Scottish Regiments - is thats it a higher percentage, but nothing like 20%. again, living nearer family, 'easier' job, and overwelmingly at the junior ranks end of the career scale.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 17, 2014)

DC was on the money with this being the daft thread.


----------



## andysays (Apr 17, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> No, Great Britain is the largest island of the archipelago. The archipelago itself is called the British Isles.



Just a minor point, but don't eg Isle of Wight and Anglesey both come under the heading of Great Britain?

Are you making a distinction between a geographical and a political definition?


----------



## andysays (Apr 17, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> DC was on the money with this being the daft thread.



I guess that's because we've already dealt fairly quickly with the "am I wrong not to give a crap?" question. Those of us living the rest of the UK are not going to have our lives altered in any significant way.


----------



## teqniq (Apr 17, 2014)

If the Scots vote yes, I wouldn't be so sure of that.


----------



## charliechalk (Apr 17, 2014)

That's so arrogant, and also completely wrong, you stand to lose 25% of the UK's corporation tax overnight, the home for your nuclear weapons and a region that subsidises all of England except London, then you will see the eventual break up of the rest of the UK as the welsh follow suit and n Ireland is cut adrift.  That's why your politicians are desperate to keep us.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 17, 2014)

andysays said:


> Just a minor point, but don't eg Isle of Wight and Anglesey both come under the heading of Great Britain?
> 
> Are you making a distinction between a geographical and a political definition?


I was using the geographical term. The political term is in flux.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 17, 2014)

You have a source for the 25% of corporation tax figure? Sounds lke a dodgy stat.


----------



## charliechalk (Apr 17, 2014)

Google it


----------



## andysays (Apr 17, 2014)

charliechalk 

teqniq 

Would either of you care to argue a case for that?

And I don't think I'm being arrogant, of course there will be changes, adjustments etc. I just don't think they will be anywhere near as significant as is being claimed.

To take an example, how/why will Wales follow suit? And if you'd prefer to argue another example, feel free, but simply asserting that the UK will be shaken apart doesn't get us anywhere.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2014)

charliechalk said:


> Google it


Why do that charlie - if you know the figure is correct and where you got it from then why not say? If you don't and it's going on memory, then just say.


----------



## charliechalk (Apr 17, 2014)

Its not me who doubts the veracity if it I don't need a source


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 17, 2014)

charliechalk said:


> Google it


It's bollocks then? Thought so.


----------



## charliechalk (Apr 17, 2014)

andysays said:


> Would either of you care to argue a case for that?
> 
> And I don't think I'm being arrogant, of course there will be changes, adjustments etc. I just don't think they will be anywhere near as significant as is being claimed.
> 
> To take an example, how/why will Wales follow suit? And if you'd prefer to argue another example, feel free, but simply asserting that the UK will be shaken apart doesn't get us anywhere.




Its natural that after we go wales will too, they will see the sky didn't collapse on us and nationalism will rise and Wales will go too, then England won't want to keep just n Ireland no more uk


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2014)

charliechalk said:


> Its not me who doubts the veracity if it I don't need a source


Come on you're a grown man, 70ft tall. You know better than this.


----------



## andysays (Apr 17, 2014)

charliechalk said:


> Its natural that after we go wales will too, they will see the sky didn't collapse on us and nationalism will rise and Wales will go too, then England won't want to keep just n Ireland no more uk



I was hoping for a reasoned argument rather than a mere assertion of your personal fantasy. 

There has been significant and substantial demand for an independent Scotland for generations, it hasn't appeared in the past few years, or even the past few decades. Such demand does not exist in Wales, or if you think it does, please show your source (and don't tell me to google it...)


----------



## charliechalk (Apr 17, 2014)

Its not fantasy its simple logic and human nature and if you don't think nationalism exists in Wales you might want to watch a Wales rugby match or go and check what language most of them speak in Wales.  Your position is simple fantasy I'm afraid, mine is the natural conclusion of an ongoing process, did you really think the UK would last forever?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 17, 2014)

Most people in Wales speak English.


----------



## andysays (Apr 17, 2014)

charliechalk said:


> Its not fantasy its simple logic and human nature and if you don't think nationalism exists in Wales you might want to watch a Wales rugby match or go and check what language most of them speak in Wales.  Your position is simple fantasy I'm afraid, mine is the natural conclusion of an ongoing process, did you really think the UK would last forever?



Nationalism is not the same as a demand for independence.

And just remind me, what percentage of welsh residents do speak welsh?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 17, 2014)

andysays said:


> Nationalism is not the same as a demand for independence.
> 
> And just remind me, what percentage of welsh residents do speak welsh?


Not sure percentages are charlie's strong suit.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 17, 2014)

andysays said:


> Nationalism is not the same as a demand for independence.
> 
> And just remind me, what percentage of welsh residents do speak welsh?


 25% has a good ring to it.


----------



## charliechalk (Apr 17, 2014)

andysays said:


> Nationalism is not the same as a demand for independence.
> 
> And just remind me, what percentage of welsh residents do speak welsh?




A demand for independence is the natural result of nationalism when that nation is trapped in an unfair union, Wales will follow suit.  

The 2001 UK census was criticised in Wales for not offering 'Welsh' as an option to describe respondents' national identity.[218] Partly to address this concern, the 2011 census asked the question "How would you describe your national identity?". Respondents were instructed to "tick all that apply" from a list of options that included Welsh. The outcome was that 57.5% of Wales' population indicated their sole national identity to be Welsh; a further 7.1% indicated it to be both Welsh and British.


----------



## fishfinger (Apr 17, 2014)

brogdale said:


> 25% has a good ring to it.


19%
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20677528


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 17, 2014)

Well I guess it's in the interest of balance to have some pro-independance fruit loops to counter balance the daft union wafflings of Quartz and Sass.


----------



## charliechalk (Apr 17, 2014)

brogdale said:


> 25% has a good ring to it.




Its 20%, after hundreds of years of Westminster trying to destroy it as a language and mass immigration diluting it, that is extremely high, in Scotland only 1% speak Gaelic.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 17, 2014)

Should I have used a smiley, then?


----------



## andysays (Apr 17, 2014)

charliechalk said:


> Its 20%, after hundreds of years of Westminster trying to destroy it as a language and mass immigration diluting it, that is extremely high, in Scotland only 1% speak Gaelic.



Which is as good an indication as any that numbers of people speaking a particular language is not directly related to demands for independence.

I'm still waiting for an indication (any indication) of the current size of demand for Welsh independence.


----------



## andysays (Apr 17, 2014)

charliechalk said:


> A demand for independence is the natural result of nationalism when that nation is trapped in an unfair union, Wales will follow suit.
> 
> The 2001 UK census was criticised in Wales for not offering 'Welsh' as an option to describe respondents' national identity.[218] Partly to address this concern, the 2011 census asked the question "How would you describe your national identity?". Respondents were instructed to "tick all that apply" from a list of options that included Welsh. The outcome was that 57.5% of Wales' population indicated their sole national identity to be Welsh; a further 7.1% indicated it to be both Welsh and British.



Again, this says nothing about desire for independence.

If I had been given the option on my Census form (I live in London) I might well have described my nat ID as Scottish in addition to British, but I'm certainly not arguing for Scottish independence.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2014)

Political nationalism is not the same as supporting wales in the rugby ffs.


----------



## charliechalk (Apr 17, 2014)

No you're not you're being a typical little contrary wanker cause you are affronted that so e have the temerity to want to leave your glorious motherland and set out on their own, its that typical misplaced English superiority complex at play is all.


----------



## teqniq (Apr 17, 2014)

andysays said:


> charliechalk
> 
> teqniq
> 
> ...


I have not asserted that the UK will be 'shaken apart', indeed us regular folks may not notice any difference, certainly in the short term but I do think it would be inadvisable not to account for possible changes in a future without Scotland as part of the Union. The folks in the Westminster bubble seem to be getting nervous otherwise why would we be seeing the current sequence of car-crashes that pass as PR these days?

I think it unlikely that Wales would follow suit, though who knows?


----------



## andysays (Apr 17, 2014)

teqniq said:


> I have not asserted that the UK will be 'shaken apart', indeed us regular folks may not notice any difference, certainly in the short term but I do think it would be inadvisable not to account for possible changes in a future without Scotland as part of the Union. The folks in the Westminster bubble seem to be getting nervous otherwise why would we be seeing the current sequence of car-crashes that pass as PR these days?
> 
> I think it unlikely that Wales would follow suit, though who knows?



I apologise for lumping you in with the other one 

I agree that there are likely to be some significant practical changes. I don't foresee (though I may be wrong) that there will be any significant constitutional changes.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 17, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> Well I guess it's in the interest of balance to have some pro-independance fruit loops to counter balance the daft union wafflings of Quartz and Sass.



If you'd bothered to read, you'd know that I am undecided.


----------



## andysays (Apr 17, 2014)

charliechalk said:


> No you're not you're being a typical little contrary wanker cause you are affronted that so e have the temerity to want to leave your glorious motherland and set out on their own, its that typical misplaced English superiority complex at play is all.



Assuming this is directed at me...

I'm not affronted that Scotland wants independence. I don't agree, but I understand it, and had my parents not moved south shortly before I was born, I might very well be arguing for it right now.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2014)

Quartz said:


> If you'd bothered to read, you'd know that I am undecided.


Yeah. Totally.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 17, 2014)

teqniq said:


> I think it unlikely that Wales would follow suit, though who knows?



Wales wouldn't be 'following suit' though. If demand for independence were to grow in Wales (there is very very little atm) it would need to follow its own trajectory. At the moment, Wales shares a judicial system, education system and pretty much every other system with England. There is a reason why the Welsh flag is not a part of the Union flag - by the time of the Union, Wales had been entirely absorbed into England politically, and this remains largely the case. Currently, it is very hard to see what an independent Wales might even look like. 

As someone else pointed out, South Wales and North Wales are both far better connected to England than they are to each other.


----------



## charliechalk (Apr 17, 2014)

You're clearly affronted enormously it drips from all your posts that's why you want to shoot down everything anybody says in support of independence why else would you, I suggest you mind your own business.


----------



## teqniq (Apr 17, 2014)

littlebabyjesus ok 'suit' was the wrong word, otherwise you have articulated the reasons why I think it unlikely.


----------



## andysays (Apr 17, 2014)

charliechalk said:


> You're clearly affronted enormously it drips from all your posts that's why you want to shoot down everything anybody says in support of independence why else would you, I suggest you mind your own business.



Again assuming this is directed at me...

Where have I "shot down" anything anyone says in support of independence?

What I'm arguing against on this thread is the idea that Scottish independence (which I don't personally support, but am not directly affected by) will automatically lead to any significant political or constitutional change in the rest of the UK.

And that subject clearly is my business. Assuming you're in Scotland, it's actually more my business than yours, but you're still welcome to contribute, as long as you can string a coherent argument together.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 17, 2014)

Regardless of where you stand on this, it seems odd to tell people in the rest of the UK that the question of Scotland leaving the Union is not their business. It very clearly is.


----------



## charliechalk (Apr 17, 2014)

Are you fuckin stupid?   You don't think one out of four constituent parts of the UK representing a third of its land mass and 10% of its popu?ation leaving represents a significant constitutional and political change in and of itself?   I know the schools are pretty shit down there but Jesus christ


----------



## charliechalk (Apr 17, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Regardless of where you stand on this, it seems odd to tell people in the rest of the UK that the question of Scotland leaving the Union is not their business. It very clearly is.




Of course it's not, it's our democratic right to self determination, we will make our decision, inform you of what it is and you will have to accept it and work with us either way, it is very much not your business.


----------



## andysays (Apr 17, 2014)

charliechalk said:


> Are you fuckin stupid?   You don't think one out of four constituent parts of the UK representing a third of its land mass and 10% of its popu?ation leaving represents a significant constitutional and political change in and of itself?   I know the schools are pretty shit down there but Jesus christ


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2014)

charliechalk said:


> Of course it's not, it's our democratic right to self determination, we will make our decision, inform you of what it is and *you will have to accept it and work with us either way, it is very much not your business*.



The last contradictory bit is why it is people in the UK's business. You've just outlined why.


----------



## charliechalk (Apr 17, 2014)

No its not that's reality you will have no choice but to accept what we decide and work with us either way, you have no place in the debate or to try too fluence our decision, despite your po?iticians best efforts to do so.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2014)

charliechalk said:


> No its not that's reality you will have no choice but to accept what we decide and work with us either way, you have no place in the debate or to try too fluence our decision, despite your po?iticians best efforts to do so.


This is nonsense. Anyone effected by the potential results of any decision anywhere is entitled to attempt to analyse how it effects them, what the consequences might be, and how best to then prepare for and meet those consequences. That is entirely different from them interfering in the process of that decision making or with the result. This is the basis for reciprocal social solidarity after all. You're sounding like a BBC-jock.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 17, 2014)

Quartz said:


> If you'd bothered to read, you'd know that I am undecided.


Of course you are, utterly neutral about voting with dictator wannabe Salmond.


----------



## andysays (Apr 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The last contradictory bit is why it is people in the UK's business. You've just outlined why.



No! Mind your own business


----------



## charliechalk (Apr 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> This is nonsense. Anyone effected by the potential results of any decision anywhere is entitled to attempt to analyse how it effects them, what the consequences might be, and how best to then prepare for and meet those consequences. That is entirely different from them interfering in the process of that decision making or with the result. This is the basis for reciprocal social solidarity after all. You're sounding like a BBC-jock.




That's totally different, and I don't appreciate being called a jock, would you call a black poster a nigger?


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 17, 2014)

Jesus Christ.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2014)

charliechalk said:


> That's totally different, and I don't appreciate being called a jock, would you call a black poster a nigger?


I said you're acting like a BBC-jock - like the oft seen BBC upper class stereotype of chest-prodding irrationally nationalistic and aggressive scots who loudly give out to the english whenever they get the chance. Which, i think has to be the first time on the two threads - so a sign of progress at least.


----------



## charliechalk (Apr 17, 2014)

Is it any wonder?   For the second time jock is a racist term that I don't appreciate Nigel so stop using it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 17, 2014)

charliechalk said:


> No its not that's reality you will have no choice but to accept what we decide and work with us either way, you have no place in the debate or to try too fluence our decision, despite your po?iticians best efforts to do so.


I would use the analogy of a divorce. If one party in a marriage wants to leave, ultimately there is nothing the other can do to stop them, but it is clearly very much their business whether or not the divorce happens, and they very much have a place in any conversation that takes place before the divorce. At this point, we're still at the stage where the party thinking about divorcing hasn't even made the decision yet either way.


----------



## charliechalk (Apr 17, 2014)

What analogy you would use is irrelevant, the fact is Intl law says its none of your business.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 17, 2014)

charliechalk said:


> What analogy you would use is irrelevant, the fact is Intl law says its none of your business.


Ah, another one of your 'facts'.


----------



## charliechalk (Apr 17, 2014)

Correct.  Its also the same reason your pm used to bottle out of a debate with our FM.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 17, 2014)

The narrow-minded Scottish nationalists have been a bit thin on the ground on Urban. CC here provides a rare sighting. Their arguments are as hopeless as the arguments of the narrow-minded British nationalists on the other side of the debate.


----------



## charliechalk (Apr 17, 2014)

Positively swimming with smarmy nobodies wanting to poke their nose into other peoples business though eh


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Apr 17, 2014)

charliechalk said:


> Positively swimming with smarmy nobodies wanting to poke their nose into other peoples business though eh



Other peoples' business?

The UK?

That's the business of everyone who lives in the UK, surely?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 17, 2014)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Other peoples' business?
> 
> The UK?
> 
> That's the business of everyone who lives in the UK, surely?


No._ International Law _says so.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 17, 2014)

charliechalk said:


> Positively swimming with smarmy nobodies wanting to poke their nose into other peoples business though eh


You have no arguments beyond vague sentiment and made-up 'facts'. You're exactly the kind of 'yes' advocate that the 'no' campaign is geared up to counter. And given the hopeless nature of the 'no' campaign, that ought to tell you something about the nature of your position.


----------



## charliechalk (Apr 17, 2014)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Other peoples' business?
> 
> The UK?
> 
> That's the business of everyone who lives in the UK, surely?



Its a referendum about Scotland not the UK

And yes Intl law does say so, it is illegal to try to influence the outcome of an election in another country


----------



## charliechalk (Apr 17, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You have no arguments beyond vague sentiment and made-up 'facts'. You're exactly the kind of 'yes' advocate that the 'no' campaign is geared up to counter. And given the hopeless nature of the 'no' campaign, that ought to tell you something about the nature of your position.



Its not your argument so your opinion is irrelevant either way


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2014)

charliechalk said:


> Its a referendum about Scotland not the UK
> 
> And yes Intl law does say so, it is illegal to try to influence the outcome of an election in another country


What election is that then?


----------



## charliechalk (Apr 17, 2014)

Or a referendum.  Pedantry doesn't make you any less wrong.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Apr 17, 2014)

charliechalk said:


> Its a referendum about Scotland not the UK



It's a referendum about Scotland AND the UK.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 17, 2014)

charliechalk said:


> And yes Intl law does say so, it is illegal to try to influence the outcome of an election in another country


One tiny problem with that (one of many). Under INTERNATIONAL LAW, Scotland isn't another country yet.

You keep citing international law, yet it is clear that you understand about as much about it as you do percentages.


----------



## charliechalk (Apr 17, 2014)

ElizabethofYork said:


> It's a referendum about Scotland AND the UK.




No its not don't be so stupid its nothing to do with the UK, its about how Scotland wants to be governed.


----------



## charliechalk (Apr 17, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> One tiny problem with that (one of many). Under INTERNATIONAL LAW, Scotland isn't another country yet.
> 
> You keep citing international law, yet it is clear that you understand about as much about it as you do percentages.




Actually Nigel it is, but that doesn't matter anyway as we are a nation and nations are also protected


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 17, 2014)

charliechalk said:


> Actually Nigel it is, but that doesn't matter anyway as we are a nation and nations are also protected



Cite me the particular passages of Int Law, then. I don't think you understand the first thing about International Law, which is a very murky, rather nebulous and highly disputed place.


----------



## teqniq (Apr 17, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> mind you, this thread is the wank, arsehatted cousin to the actual sensible one so I am happy to see the walls smeared with shit and gabba being played at volume 110%



*Wob Wob Wob Wob*

Christ, isn't that music a tad loud? And is that shit I can smell?

No, it hasn't gotten any better. In fact it may have detereiorated somewhat


----------



## charliechalk (Apr 17, 2014)

Google it nigl, how arrogant is it to think everybody needs to justify themselves to you how very English you're not the king and us your loyal subjects, if you doubt somethi g I've said go and prove it wrong.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Apr 17, 2014)

charliechalk said:


> No its not don't be so stupid its nothing to do with the UK, its about how Scotland wants to be governed.



Of course it's to do with the UK.   And don't be so rude!


----------



## Frankie Jack (Apr 17, 2014)

Can all those who oppose Independence tell me their valid economical and social reasons why we should stay?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 17, 2014)

charliechalk said:


> Google it nigl, how arrogant is it to think everybody needs to justify themselves to you how very English you're not the king and us your loyal subjects, if you doubt somethi g I've said go and prove it wrong.


Nah. Generally speaking on here, if you can't back up factual statements, people assume you're talking out of your arse. 

I'm Welsh, btw, but don't let that worry your bigoted little head.


----------



## charliechalk (Apr 17, 2014)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Of course it's to do with the UK.   And don't be so rude!




Its not


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nah. Generally speaking on here, if you can't back up factual statements, people assume you're talking out of your arse.
> 
> I'm Welsh, btw, but don't let that worry your bigoted little head.


That's just about a welsh name now isn't it? Most Nigels i know are welsh.


----------



## charliechalk (Apr 17, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nah. Generally speaking on here, if you can't back up factual statements, people assume you're talking out of your arse.
> 
> I'm Welsh, btw, but don't let that worry your bigoted little head.



People can assume anything they want that doesn't mean anything to anyone.  You can't prove anything g wrong is what you really mean, but just seek to undermine anyway.  And you are the bigot Nigel, you're the one who started the racist terminology I am merely replying in kind.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That's just about a welsh name now isn't it? Most Nigels i know are welsh.


Yeah, that's true.


----------



## andysays (Apr 17, 2014)

charliechalk said:


> Its not your argument so your opinion is irrelevant either way


----------



## cesare (Apr 17, 2014)




----------



## charliechalk (Apr 17, 2014)

That's racist, would you post a golliwog if we were talking about Nigeria?   Absolute disgrace Nigel, your fake Scottish parents would be ashamed odpf you if they existed.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 17, 2014)

You should meet a certain Welsh poster called Trampie, CC. I reckon you'd get on.


----------



## charliechalk (Apr 17, 2014)

You should go to a combat 18 meeting, you'd probably fit in.


----------



## Frankie Jack (Apr 17, 2014)

Forget the question I asked. M'off to the bandwidth thread.


----------



## teqniq (Apr 17, 2014)

lol


----------



## gosub (Apr 17, 2014)

andysays said:


>



Adds an air of autheticity, cybernats are omnipresent.  Ed should be flattered


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 17, 2014)

Well, this has been nice.


----------



## charliechalk (Apr 17, 2014)

We're arranging a fight at the border via pm if you want in


----------



## Quartz (Apr 17, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> Of course you are, utterly neutral about voting with dictator wannabe Salmond.



He is one factor out of many.


----------



## cesare (Apr 17, 2014)

charliechalk said:


> We're arranging a fight at the border via pm if you want in


Pm rather than conversation?


----------



## charliechalk (Apr 17, 2014)

We're also hiring a plane to fly over London with insulting messages tied to the back of it


----------



## andysays (Apr 17, 2014)

cesare said:


> Pm rather than conversation?








There was something else earlier which struck me a bit odd from someone who's only been here a week. Can't now remember what it was


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 17, 2014)

cesare said:


> Pm rather than conversation?


Some people are just stuck in the past and resistant to change.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 17, 2014)

Long time to go till the actual vote, little bit of movement in the opinion polls, it seems to me the yes campaign is working hard but the no has not yet got going. Will be interesting to see what the no camp comes out with. And whether Darling remains in charge of it for long.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Apr 18, 2014)

steeplejack said:


> what country in history has not "benefitted from independence",



South Sudan?


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 18, 2014)

the parallels with Scotland are frightening there, by the way.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Apr 18, 2014)

steeplejack said:


> the parallels with Scotland are frightening there, by the way.



You phrased the question, not me.  "what country in history has not "benefitted from independence", really? "  There's actually quite a long list of countries where things have got worse after independence, in terms of standard of living, life expectancy, gdp, etc (North Korea, East Timor, Central African Republic, South Yemen...)


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 18, 2014)

sorry, I was giving people credit for having the intelligence to realise that a wide range of completely non-comparable examples from other continents would not actually be relevant.

clearly I gave you far too much credit, for one.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Apr 18, 2014)

Ah right, so when you talked about other countries in history you actually meant purely the ones that you think are comparable, and from Europe.  Any other factors you'd like to chuck in?  Maybe specific to this century as well?

In short, you shouldn't make a sweeping statement that independence is a universal success, and then try to claim you actually meant only for a very specific set of factors.  If you should make such a mistake, it really doesn't help your cause much to blame it on the intelligence (or lack thereof) of others.


----------



## geminisnake (Apr 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You have a source for the 25% of corporation tax figure? Sounds like a dodgy stat.



Disclaimer, I don't understand how this works but the link below gives you the onshore and offshore figures, tables 9 and 10. If the link doesn't take you straight to page 10 then that is the page you want to look at. Onshore ct seems to be 7.7 % but offshore it's 80+%.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/receipts/disagg-method.pdf


----------



## geminisnake (Apr 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ah, another one of your 'facts'.



Wiki- but my underline 
The right of nations to *self-determination* (from German: _Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Völker_), or in short form, the right to self-determination is the cardinal principle in modern international law (jus cogens), binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter’s norms.[1][2] It states that nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no external compulsion or interference[3] which can be traced back to the Atlantic Charter, signed on 14 August 1941, by Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, and Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom who pledged The Eight Principal points of the Charter.[4]

Btw, Scotland IS a country, regardless of the bullshit Blair did. It has a long history of being a country. It has its own banks and legal system which are still in place and take precedence over UK in Scotland. It still has its own education system and health service.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Apr 18, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> Disclaimer, I don't understand how this works but the link below gives you the onshore and offshore figures, tables 9 and 10. If the link doesn't take you straight to page 10 then that is the page you want to look at. Onshore ct seems to be 7.7 % but offshore it's 80+%.
> 
> http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/receipts/disagg-method.pdf



Going through those stats, combining the figures for on and offshore Corporation Tax, that makes Scotland 16.8% of the total.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 18, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> Wiki- but my underline
> The right of nations to *self-determination* (from German: _Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Völker_), or in short form, the right to self-determination is the cardinal principle in modern international law (jus cogens), binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter’s norms.[1][2] It states that nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no external compulsion or interference[3] which can be traced back to the Atlantic Charter, signed on 14 August 1941, by Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, and Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom who pledged The Eight Principal points of the Charter.[4]
> 
> Btw, Scotland IS a country, regardless of the bullshit Blair did. It has a long history of being a country. It has its own banks and legal system which are still in place and take precedence over UK in Scotland. It still has its own education system and health service.



Ok, but then we have the question 'what is a nation?' Who decides which groups of people are nations with the right to self-determination and which are not? This stuff is inevitably disputed territory.

Spain is a good example of the disputed nature of the nation. The inheritors of Francoist nationalism will state that there is one nation, Spain, whole and indivisible. That is a point of faith for them, and the current Spanish constitution, a work of compromise drawn up after Franco's death, recognises only one nation. Many - most - Catalans would disagree, but Spanish law does not recognise Catalunya as a nation, and there is no international law that can overrule Spanish law on this point.


----------



## geminisnake (Apr 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ok, but then we have the question 'what is a nation?' Who decides which groups of people are nations with the right to self-determination and which are not? This stuff is inevitably disputed territory.



Historically Scotland is a nation, the people were en mass against the Union, they were sold out by their 'nobles'. I can't speak for everyone who lives here but I have never felt British and very few people I have met in nearly 50 years have felt British. Sas is possibly one of about 10 people I know who do(one of the others is NI). Obviously this may be influenced by the fact I live in NE but I have friends all over the country, you only have to look at plentiful maps on wiki to see we vote differently to further south/central belt, but even that is changing. Look at Holyrood election results on wiki.

Would you say the welsh are not a nation too? Just wondering.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 18, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> Historically Scotland is a nation, the people were en mass against the Union, they were sold out by their 'nobles'. I can't speak for everyone who lives here but I have never felt British and very few people I have met in nearly 50 years have felt British. Sas is possibly one of about 10 people I know who do(one of the others is NI). Obviously this may be influenced by the fact I live in NE but I have friends all over the country, you only have to look at plentiful maps on wiki to see we vote differently to further south/central belt, but even that is changing. Look at Holyrood election results on wiki.
> 
> Would you say the welsh are not a nation too? Just wondering.



What has this got to do with the post you're replying to?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 18, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> What has this got to do with the post you're replying to?


only sequentially...


----------



## brogdale (Apr 18, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> Historically Scotland is a nation, the people were en mass against the Union, they were sold out by their 'nobles'. I can't speak for everyone who lives here but I have never felt British and very few people I have met in nearly 50 years have felt British. Sas is possibly one of about 10 people I know who do(one of the others is NI). Obviously this may be influenced by the fact I live in NE but I have friends all over the country, you only have to look at plentiful maps on wiki to see we vote differently to further south/central belt, but even that is changing. Look at Holyrood election results on wiki.
> 
> Would you say the welsh are not a nation too? Just wondering.



Yep, Wales is a nation too. I suppose one problem facing the 'No' campaign is that the UK is not a nation, but a multi-national state.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 18, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> Would you say the welsh are not a nation too? Just wondering.


I'll be honest and say that I'm not bothered. I think of myself as Welsh and British, and the second of those is probably more important in terms of describing my cultural background, but then I do live in England. But it's not something that concerns me much. I more or less think of myself as a Londoner now.

I'm not trying to deny Scottish nationhood here. I was merely commenting on the narrow point about International Law. Most Catalans that I've met object to being called Spanish in the same way that many Scots object to being called British. But currently that carries no legal weight in Spain. To achieve international recognition as a nation is a complex business.

(btw I know editor disagrees on this, but culturally, I would say that South Wales and the West of England are far closer to each other than either is to many other parts of England. I don't see any great differences between the Welsh and the English.)


----------



## weepiper (Apr 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't see any great differences between the Welsh and the English.


apart from the language, the culture and the history, you mean?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 19, 2014)

weepiper said:


> apart from the language, the culture and the history, you mean?


The cultures have an enormous amount in common. 80 per cent of Welsh people share a language with England. And they have a 500-year history as part of the same country.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The cultures have an enormous amount in common. 80 per cent of Welsh people share a language with England. And they have a 500-year history as part of the same country.


Surely an even greater proportion of Scots speak English?


----------



## JTG (Apr 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> (btw I know editor disagrees on this, but culturally, I would say that South Wales and the West of England are far closer to each other than either is to many other parts of England. I don't see any great differences between the Welsh and the English.)


It's an interesting point and I can certainly see much to support it. Personally I'd say I feel I have more in common with south Wales than I do with points east of Swindon in many respects


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 19, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Surely an even greater proportion of Scots speak English?


Yes, but language is only one aspect. I would say that the Welsh and English have a lot more in common than the Scots and the English.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, but language is only one aspect. I would say that the Welsh and English have a lot more in common than the Scots and the English.


I don't know anymore. I am a bit shocked if I am honest about how many Scots want independence, even if there is in the end not enough to win, a significant proportion have made it clear they don't want to be in the United Kingdom, something I have lived with all my life.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 19, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I don't know anymore. I am a bit shocked if I am honest about how many Scots want independence, even if there is in the end not enough to win, a significant proportion have made it clear they don't want to be in the United Kingdom, something I have lived with all my life.


Why shocked? I'm not shocked in the slightest. There is a majority there that is pissed off with Westminster and being ruled by various colours of tories. As are a huge number of English and Welsh people - the one thing I don't buy at all is the idea that Scotland is somehow a more left-wing country than England/Wales.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why shocked? I'm not shocked in the slightest. There is a majority there that is pissed off with Westminster and being ruled by various colours of tories. As are a huge number of English and Welsh people - the one thing I don't buy at all is the idea that Scotland is somehow a more left-wing country than England/Wales.


Shocked because I have possibly more connections to Scotland than many people who live down south as my mothers family is there, and yet I haven't really noticed the craving to be free which seems to be gripping a proportion of Scotland at the moment.

Your feeling that Scotland is not as left wing as you expected is based on what?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 19, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Your feeling that Scotland is not as left wing as you expected is based on what?



I didn't say that. Give Yorkshire or Lancashire or the Midlands or the West Country or Wales, or quite possibly London, an assembly with the same powers as Scotland's parliament and you would see them abolishing tuition fees and doing other more left-wing things, too. With those examples to be envious of, even the Home Counties would see demands for such things. The policies enacted by Westminster do not reflect the wishes of the majority. They reflect the failure of democracy in the UK.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'll be honest and say that I'm not bothered. I think of myself as Welsh and British, and the second of those is probably more important in terms of describing my cultural background, but then I do live in England. But it's not something that concerns me much. I more or less think of myself as a Londoner now.
> 
> I'm not trying to deny Scottish nationhood here. I was merely commenting on the narrow point about International Law. Most Catalans that I've met object to being called Spanish in the same way that many Scots object to being called British. But currently that carries no legal weight in Spain. To achieve international recognition as a nation is a complex business.
> 
> (btw I know editor disagrees on this, but culturally, I would say that South Wales and the West of England are far closer to each other than either is to many other parts of England. I don't see any great differences between the Welsh and the English.)


One difference between the Spanish situation and here being that Spain was called Spain prior to the anexation of Catalonia, whereas England was called England, Scotland was called Scotland, and together they formed the United Kingdom of Great Britain (and Ireland now Northern Ireland). England didn't attempt to rebrand Scotland as just another part of England.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 19, 2014)

We object to being called 'British' because we didn't have any part in deciding that we were going to be 'British'. Our ruling class did it for us.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why shocked? I'm not shocked in the slightest. There is a majority there that is pissed off with Westminster and being ruled by various colours of tories. As are a huge number of English and Welsh people - the one thing I don't buy at all is the idea that Scotland is somehow a more left-wing country than England/Wales.


I think the majority of English people are a lot more social democratic at least than is reflected in the politicians that get elected, as all 3 of our main political parties have been taken over by neoliberalists, and there is no real social democratic alternative.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> One difference between the Spanish situation and here being that Spain was called Spain prior to the anexation of Catalonia, whereas England was called England, Scotland was called Scotland, and together they formed the United Kingdom of Great Britain (and Ireland now Northern Ireland). England didn't attempt to rebrand Scotland as just another part of England.


True, but there is another term for Scotland/England/Wales - British. I suspect that the term 'British' is probably more popular among the Welsh than anyone else.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 19, 2014)

weepiper said:


> We object to being called 'British' because we didn't have any part in deciding that we were going to be 'British'. Our ruling class did it for us.


So, call yourself Scottish then, lots of Welsh call themselves Welsh and English call themselves English! Doesn't mean they can't co-exist in the United Kingdom.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 19, 2014)

weepiper said:


> We object to being called 'British' because we didn't have any part in deciding that we were going to be 'British'. Our ruling class did it for us.


Most countries have been formed through agreements among ruling classes, though. England itself was formed through foreign conquest, and the landed aristocracy can still trace roots back to that conquest. That's not to say Harold was any better than William. They were both after taking power for themselves, not in any sense heading movements representing ordinary people.

Ordinary English people also had no say in the matter. 'Common' people had no say in much at all at the time.

I think you're doomed to anachronism if you try to justify a political nationalism of today by things that happened hundreds of years ago.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 19, 2014)

I suppose if Scotland votes yes it will not fund nuclear weapons, a significant military or navy, perhaps those savings and keeping all North Sea oil revenues may cover a free university education for all.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 19, 2014)

There is no part of the UK that cannot easily fund free university education.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There is no part of the UK that cannot easily fund free university education.


How much would it cost then to fund free Uni education for England and Wales pa?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 19, 2014)

weltweit said:


> How much would it cost then to fund free Uni education for England and Wales pa?


Firstly, it is already funded - it's just that students are then given debts to repay.

But there are around 1.5 million students. Multiply that by 10k to get a ballpark figure, and you get 15 billion per year.

To give some context, that's less than the annual housing benefit bill. It's about a sixth of the total money paid in VAT per year. It's about a seventh of the total money borrowed by government currently each year.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 19, 2014)

Are you saying Scotland will have lower costs after independence then and possibly greater income per head?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 19, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Are you saying Scotland will have lower costs after independence then and possibly greater income per head?


No.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No.


But they won't have to fund a big army, navy and airforce, or nuclear weapons, and will keep all the oil taxes that used to go to Westminster. That might suggest they could be better off, compared to now.


----------



## Nylock (Apr 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I suspect that the term 'British' is probably more popular among the Welsh than anyone else.


Not meaning to be confrontation here but.... Prove it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 19, 2014)

Nylock said:


> Not meaning to be confrontation here but.... Prove it.


Can't be arsed. That's why I put 'I suspect' in there. I can't prove to you that I suspect something - you just have to take my word for it. The plural of anecdote is not data, but anecdote is all I have to go on.


----------



## Nylock (Apr 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Can't be arsed. That's why I put 'I suspect' in there. I can't prove to you that I suspect something - you just have to take my word for it. The plural of anecdote is not data, but anecdote is all I have to go on.


Fair enough 

But i suspect your suspicions on that one are not entirely correct though..


----------



## geminisnake (Apr 19, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Surely an even greater proportion of Scots speak English?



Are you on facebook at all? Cabrach radio seem to have un youtubed all their videos  so I can't put up an example.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 19, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> Are you on facebook at all? Cabrach radio seem to have un youtubed all their videos  so I can't put up an example.


Nope, not on facebook yet, now that it is no longer cool I might give it a go in the next couple of months!


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 19, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Surely an even greater proportion of Scots speak English?


Well, that's contested. All Scots understand English, but whether it's their first language is another question. The Scots Language is sufficiently similar to English to allow Scots speakers to understand English (although often English speakers complain they can't understand Scots). 

The Scots Language is not English spoken badly. But any attempt to find the demarcation between a language and a dialect is doomed to failure. A language is a dialect with a national flag. C/f the Scandinavian languages.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think you're doomed to anachronism if you try to justify a political nationalism of today by things that happened hundreds of years ago.


Absolutely.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 19, 2014)

proper glaswegian or edingboro certainly can sound like a foreign tongue if you aren't used to it- written vernacular style its even stranger. I'd say its closer to dialect than the really posh scottish accent which sounds like RP with slightly different vowel sounds. Almost indistinguishable from posh engish pronunciation.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Apr 19, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> Are you on facebook at all? Cabrach radio seem to have un youtubed all their videos  so I can't put up an example.



Sing along, back o' the bus!

Cabrach's lads are pretty broad doric, but I could point out plenty of other english dialects that are as inpenetrable.  Appalachian is meant to be about the worst, though a full blown redneck sounds like a martian to me.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 19, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> proper glaswegian or edingboro certainly can sound like a foreign tongue if you aren't used to it- written vernacular style its even stranger. I'd say its closer to dialect than the really posh scottish accent which sounds like RP with slightly different vowel sounds. Almost indistinguishable from posh engish pronunciation.


The landed gentry and associated class in Scotland don't speak Scots (any more); they speak English. 

Scots differs from English not just in pronunciation, but also in vocabulary, grammar and syntax. 

Of course the traditional dialect where I am now (the Potteries) does to some extent, too. But see my caveat above. 

Anthony Burgess is great on this stuff. See A Mouthful of Air.


----------



## andysays (Apr 19, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> The landed gentry and associated class in Scotland don't speak Scots (any more); they speak English.
> 
> Scots differs from English not just in pronunciation, but also in vocabulary, grammar and syntax.
> 
> ...



There are all sorts of regional dialects and other non-standard forms of English spoken in England and elsewhere. There are also different regional dialects spoken in different parts of Scotland.

Where do we draw the line between a dialect and a seperate language, I wonder? (this is a genuine question, not an attempt to dismiss out of hand the idea that there is such a thing as a Scots language)


----------



## weepiper (Apr 19, 2014)

andysays said:


> There are all sorts of regional dialects and other non-standard forms of English spoken in England and elsewhere. There are also different regional dialects spoken in different parts of Scotland.
> 
> Where do we draw the line between a dialect and a seperate language, I wonder? (this is a genuine question, not an attempt to dismiss out of hand the idea that there is such a thing as a Scots language)


Scots was the written and spoken language of the royslty and the lawmakers for hundreds of years which gives it a legitimacy above being 'just' another dialect of English.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 19, 2014)

on my phone and hungover btw so apologies for curtness


----------



## andysays (Apr 19, 2014)

weepiper said:


> Scots was the written and spoken language of the royslty and the lawmakers for hundreds of years which gives it a legitimacy above being 'just' another dialect of English.



So if it's used by the ruling class it's a language, but if it's just spoken by the common people it's not?

I'm not trying to dismiss it as "just" another version of English. I also don't think it's particularly an important issue in relation to independence - you don't need your own language to justify your "nationhood" or right to independence


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 19, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> The landed gentry and associated class in Scotland don't speak Scots (any more); they speak English.
> 
> Scots differs from English not just in pronunciation, but also in vocabulary, grammar and syntax.
> 
> ...



I'm certainly prepared to accept Scots as a language, it seems to have almost as many dialects as English in England, and you can really hear the difference when Scots speakers speak English and seem to structure sentences quite differently, a bit like when Germans speak in English.

I'm tempted to start a thread in the Scottish forum actually...


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 19, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I'm certainly prepared to accept Scots as a language, it seems to have almost as many dialects as English in England, and you can really hear the difference when Scots speakers speak English and seem to structure sentences quite differently, a bit like when Germans speak in English.
> 
> I'm tempted to start a thread in the Scottish forum actually...


It's a topic that requires its own thread. Not just Scots, but language/dialect in general. And as ever, class is not irrelevant.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 19, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> The landed gentry and associated class in Scotland don't speak Scots (any more); they speak English.
> 
> Scots differs from English not just in pronunciation, but also in vocabulary, grammar and syntax.
> 
> ...


The old adage that a language is a dialect with an army. Certainly Scots and English are as dissimilar as, say, Flemish and Dutch, or Norwegian and Danish.

But then languages do merge at the edges of their ranges. Geordie is close to Scots. The West Country accent is very similar to the East Wales accent (think Tony Pulis, from Newport, and how west-country he sounds).


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 19, 2014)

andysays said:


> Where do we draw the line between a dialect and a seperate language, I wonder?


It's a question many ask, but usually before having looked into the matter in detail! And I did myself. But it soon becomes clear that it's not as useful a question as we first imagine. 

Remember, languages all evolve. Not just into something, but from something.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 19, 2014)

andysays said:


> Where do we draw the line between a dialect and a seperate language, I wonder?



Back to 'a language is a dialect with an army'. This sounds like a glib statement but there is a great deal of truth to it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 19, 2014)

I'll reccomend Steve Pinker 'Language Instinct' for a depth look at dialect/language/pidgin/creole/etc


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 19, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> It's a question many ask, but usually before having looked into the matter in detail! And I did myself. But it soon becomes clear that it's not as useful a question as we first imagine.
> 
> Remember, languages all evolve. Not just into something, but from something.



And they evolve very quickly. I have a Bulgarian friend who's been in Britain for 20 years, and when he goes back to Bulgaria now, he finds that he speaks old-fashioned Bulgarian. I notice when I go back to Gwent that the accent has become more Welsh and less West Country in the 25 years that I haven't lived there.

I remember when I went to Glasgow aged 18 and I had real trouble understanding people. It was rather embarrassing.


----------



## andysays (Apr 19, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> It's a question many ask, but usually before having looked into the matter in detail! And I did myself. But it soon becomes clear that it's not as useful a question as we first imagine.
> 
> Remember, languages all evolve. Not just into something, but from something.



I agree it's not a particularly useful question, but it is sometimes an interesting one. As I said above, it has no real relevance to the independence issue.

And I believe it was you who first brought up the language/dialect distinction in relation to the Potteries


----------



## andysays (Apr 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Back to 'a language is a dialect with an army'. This sounds like a glib statement but there is a great deal of truth to it.



An army suggests a nation, so we get the idea that a language depends on a nation, but there is also the idea that a common language determines a nation. This is a bit of a circular argument.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 19, 2014)

andysays said:


> An army suggests a nation, so we get the idea that a language depends on a nation, but there is also the idea that a common language determines a nation. This is a bit of a circular argument.


Not really. It is merely pointing out the political nature of defining a language. In Yugoslavia, a language called Serbo-Croat was spoken (and written in two different scripts, but still officially designated one language). Now there are two languages, Serbian and Croatian. The change in definition is wholly due to political processes. And nation-building itself is a _political_ process.

Many other aspects of a 'nation' also reinforce these processes - natioanal tv channels, newspapers, and other media, for instance. A newsreader needs to be intelligible to all their listeners. Schools will then teach certain 'standard' forms of language so that everyone has something in common. In Italy you see this with each region speaking mutually unintelligible dialects but with a 'standard' Italian that everyone also learns. The 'standard' dialect is generally chosen from the politically powerful region in the country. It achieves a certain prestige and connotations of being educated. See English and the way the 'double negative' is looked down on, yet the double negative is perfectly grammatically correct in many dialects of English.


----------



## andysays (Apr 19, 2014)

Certainly nation building is a political process, and language is one factor (among many) in that.

Just to give a counter example, did Welsh cease to be a language once Wales ceased to be an independent nation state? (I know there was suppression of the language, but that's another, seperate thing)

ETA: "your" formula has some truth, but doesn't really tell us anything much about how the process works


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 19, 2014)

andysays said:


> Certainly nation building is a political process, and language is one factor (among many) in that.
> 
> Just to give a counter example, did Welsh cease to be a language once Wales ceased to be an independent nation state? (I know there was suppression of the language, but that's another, seperate thing)
> 
> ETA: "your" formula has some truth, but doesn't really tell us anything much about how the process works


It doesn't capture the whole truth, no. However, it is useful in dispelling the notion that there is some sharp divide between accent/dialect/language. There isn't. In fact, the question 'is it a dialect or a language' often isn't a particularly interesting one: the answer often is 'it can be whichever you want it to be'.


----------



## andysays (Apr 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It doesn't capture the whole truth, no. However, it is useful in dispelling the notion that there is some sharp divide between accent/dialect/language. There isn't.



So you're saying that the reasons for making the distinction between a dialect and a language are often socio/political rather than linguistic?

I can agree with that


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 19, 2014)

have started a new thread in the Scottish forum for those interested

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...ssion-oan-th-scots-leid.322933/#post-13079067


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 19, 2014)

andysays said:


> I agree it's not a particularly useful question, but it is sometimes an interesting one. As I said above, it has no real relevance to the independence issue.
> 
> And I believe it was you who first brought up the language/dialect distinction in relation to the Potteries


I did say "see my caveat above", meaning the earlier post in which I said a language is a dialect with a national flag. 

It's too intricate a topic to do justice to in a glib bulletin board post, but I think an interesting and important one. It's an especially useful way to challenge nationalism; it demonstrates that national borders are bureaucratic boundaries; that culture and polity don't easily coincide; and that human cultural ways of being graduate rather than abruptly halt and change into another category just because a polity demarcation has been drawn.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 19, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> I did say "see my caveat above", meaning the earlier post in which I said a language is a dialect with a national flag.
> 
> It's too intricate a topic to do justice to in a glib bulletin board post, but I think an interesting and important one. It's an especially useful way to challenge nationalism; it demonstrates that national borders are bureaucratic boundaries; that culture and polity don't easily coincide; and that human cultural ways of being graduate rather than abruptly halt and change into another category just because a polity demarcation has been drawn.


I completely agree, but with one caveat. The erection of borders itself affects the processes of culture, and political projects of nation-building affect language.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I completely agree, but with one caveat. The erection of borders itself affects the processes of culture, and political projects of nation-building affect language.


Yes. Class comes into it, too. The language is the dialect the ruling class speaks. (Got to go now, might elaborate later).


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 19, 2014)




----------



## charliechalk (Apr 19, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


>


Reported for racism


----------



## Frankie Jack (Apr 19, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


>



Is this the type of thing we Indy supporters should be taking the higher ground over TheHoodedClaw


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Apr 19, 2014)

Frankie Jack said:


> Is this the type of thing we Indy supporters should be taking the higher ground over TheHoodedClaw



Well, yes?


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Apr 19, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


>



Absolutely pathetic.


----------



## Frankie Jack (Apr 19, 2014)

The words just incase there's anyone doesn't understand what he's saying. 

Alan Bissett


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 19, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


>


I will definitely now vote No because Korean haircut.


----------



## Frankie Jack (Apr 19, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> I will definitely now vote No because Korean haircut.


If it's going to be a compulsory haircut for all then I'll join you.


----------



## Belushi (Apr 19, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> I will definitely now vote No because Korean haircut.



Apparently you're all going to have to have one if you vote for independence.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 19, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Apparently you're all going to have to have one if you vote for independence.


I for one would welcome that much hair.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 19, 2014)

Lemon Eddy said:


> Absolutely pathetic.



He is, isn't he? Never mind, you can vote him out at the next election.


----------



## Frankie Jack (Apr 19, 2014)

I'll donate some of the 2' of hair from my head if you yote YES Danny. I'll even weave it into a bunnet.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 19, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> He is, isn't he? Never mind, you can vote him out at the next election.


Indeed; the first general election in the newly independent Scotland.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> He is, isn't he? Never mind, you can vote him out at the next election.


Are you suggesting that there will be no elections post-independence? You're a very silly man.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Are you suggesting that there will be no elections post-independence? You're a very silly man.


And only one haircut.


----------



## gosub (Apr 19, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> He is, isn't he? Never mind, you can vote him out at the next election.


If you are really anti Salmond vote Yes,  the current SNP vote would dissipate post a yes vote.  A no vote and SNP is the strongest game in town and would still have a raison detre


----------



## weltweit (Apr 19, 2014)

If better together wins the vote, how long till the next referendum do you think?


----------



## weltweit (Apr 19, 2014)

Also, who decided it was going to be yes or no and not yes more devolution or no...


----------



## geminisnake (Apr 19, 2014)

Lemon Eddy said:


> Sing along, back o' the bus!
> 
> Cabrach's lads are pretty broad doric.




Fit like loon? Do you understand Sandy Dukkit? I can understand most of it but not always and I'm married to an Aberdonian  I'm getting me a T shirt when they have smaller ones back in stock


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Apr 19, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> He is, isn't he? Never mind, you can vote him out at the next election.


From the perspective of an undecided voter you make a great advert for the yes camp.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Apr 19, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> Fit like loon? Do you understand Sandy Dukkit? I can understand most of it but not always and I'm married to an Aberdonian  I'm getting me a T shirt when they have smaller ones back in stock


Chavin awa quinie, foos ya doos yasel.

Sandy Duguid's not too broad, but I spent my formative years in a well teuch place between Insch and Huntly, where most of the farmers had really broad accents.  You can imagine the hilarity of a 12 year old Aussie kid with a strine accent trying to get to grips with Tough, Finzean, Bennachie and other interesting pronunciations.



weepiper said:


> Scots was the written and spoken language of the royslty and the lawmakers for hundreds of years which gives it a legitimacy above being 'just' another dialect of English.



The problem with basing the legitimacy of Scots as a separate language on it's history is that you then have to acknowledge it's derived from Northumbrian Old English, which is definitely a dialect.  Worse than that, it was lowlands only, with the highlands using an unarguably separate language.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Apr 19, 2014)

Erm, can I just say I'm really sorry if I've totally misremembered your posts geminisnake and you're not female.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 19, 2014)

Lemon Eddy said:


> Erm, can I just say I'm really sorry if I've totally misremembered your posts geminisnake and you're not female.



she's a burly roughneck from Aberdeen


----------



## geminisnake (Apr 19, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> she's a burly roughneck from Aberdeen



Lemon Eddy you're awright, I'm definetly a quine


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 20, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


>


How many cars has he keyed?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 20, 2014)

gosub said:


> If you are really anti Salmond vote Yes,  the current SNP vote would dissipate post a yes vote.  A no vote and SNP is the strongest game in town and would still have a raison detre


I'm not sure about that, I would imagine they would win the first post independence election on a wave of triumph. 

It will be their first full government where they fail to balance the aspirations of their entire coalition of support that brings them down and I suspect leads them to move to the right as a sort of liberal Conservative party while space opens to their left not just for Labour but also whatever post RIC formations emerge plus the Greens

What role for the Conservatives and Libdems in post independence Scotland? I think he Tories free of associations with England could easily reinvent themselves while the Libdems would be squeezed by the SNP, Labour, and Tories...


----------



## gosub (Apr 20, 2014)

Would depend on who was more honest about what will happen in the event of a yes vote. Which will be more knowable by the May 2016 election


----------



## gosub (Apr 20, 2014)

If he can deliver a quick easy transition with EU membership and currency union and all nay sayers are wrong then  he can do what he likes.  If not the EU position will be obvious and he might need the public vote to shore up negotiations with rUK-Scotland really  does want the pound.   Against that you have mutterings of Misselling.  .... 
Don't think personally that negotiations would advance that much BEFORE the holyrood elections.  London would take from September til May 2015 deciding who in Westminster will get a say on the settlement. After which you get the realignment of better together campaigners and some Mps trying to get places on the Holyrood lists.  All takes time.  That SNP claim it can be done quickly to me indicates blaming the English for stalling will be part of their expectation management


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 20, 2014)

Lemon Eddy said:


> The problem with basing the legitimacy of Scots as a separate language on it's history is that you then have to acknowledge it's derived from Northumbrian Old English,


Why is that a problem?


----------



## geminisnake (Apr 20, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> she's a burly roughneck from Aberdeen



I'm sure I replied wrong to this last night but it's not there so wrong


----------



## weepiper (Apr 20, 2014)

Lemon Eddy said:


> The problem with basing the legitimacy of Scots as a separate language on it's history is that you then have to acknowledge it's derived from Northumbrian Old English, which is definitely a dialect.  Worse than that, it was lowlands only, with the highlands using an unarguably separate language.



I don't see why that's a problem. Northumbrian Old English was a dialect of the ancestor of English. Scots began to diverge from it in the 11th century or so. There were heavy modifying influences from French, Dutch, Norse. And its being lowlands only isn't a reason not to call it a language any more than Gaelic being highlands only (although it wasn't) is a reason not to call that a language rather than a dialect of Irish.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 20, 2014)

geminisnake said:


> I'm sure I replied wrong to this last night but it's not there so wrong


You're right that you did say it last night I remember but it seems to have vanished so I have my doubts it's true


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 20, 2014)

Well this thread's been coming on very actively . 

Would like to apologise to danny la rouge (and also to steeplejack, who been posting loads of sensible stuff too) for not having the time to get back to addressing their excellent responses many pages ago to my posts .... 

The only thing I still have a problem with about Scottish Independence  is (correctly?) irrelevant to Scots I suppose .... the risk of permanent Tory rule South of the Border once Independence happens.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 20, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> The only thing I still have a problem with about Scottish Independence  is (correctly?) irrelevant to Scots I suppose .... the risk of permanent Tory rule South of the Border once Independence happens.


That's not really my main concern.

I think it'd cause complete chaos for anyone to do work / business on the other side of the border to where they live.

We've done a fair amount of work around Inverness in the last few years, after independence I'd expect that we'd have to register for VAT in Scotland for that work, and somehow work out how to account for that separately to the English and Welsh work while the money earned at the same time would need to be accounted for for rUK corporation tax / income tax. Same goes for any good bought from Scotland that we'd have to account for differently.

Tbh I suspect we'd just not bother doing any business with Scotland as it'd cost too much in accountancy fees and admin time, and I doubt I'd be alone on that.

This guardian article goes into this in more detail. It might eventually sort itself out, but initially it'd be complete chaos, and I really don't see that either side of the border is in good enough economic shape to absorb that level of additional administrative chaos without it having a significant impact on the economy of both sides of the border.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 20, 2014)

Is that really such a problem? You'd have to do two VAT returns each month rather than one. A pain, but not so terrible. I suspect that the Scottish would come to some arrangement to allow you to do just one, tbh. Another example of the limited nature of any 'independence'.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 21, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Is that really such a problem? You'd have to do two VAT returns each month rather than one. A pain, but not so terrible. I suspect that the Scottish would come to some arrangement to allow you to do just one, tbh. Another example of the limited nature of any 'independence'.


I take it you don't have to fill in significant VAT returns?

It takes 1 person 2 days solidly to do our monthly vat return. Fuck doing it twice / trying to reconcile 2 sets of vat returns with our bank account etc.

Why do you think they'd make different arrangements to those that apply with Ireland or the rest of the EU? That makes no sense, and would only complicate things further if there was suddenly yet another set of rules to learn on top of the basic UK rules, and the UK to EU rules.

For SME businesses, if the admin involved is too complex / more hassle than it's worth, then they'll simple not get involved in the trade at all. Or they'll bend / ignore the rules until they get caught and fined or something. Either way it's a significant extra admin burden to place on any business, but especially those who have to directly buy in the expertise needed to cope with such adminstrative complexities.

Here are the current VAT rules for working on buildings or land in a different EU country


> If you are in the UK and the *place of supply of your service is in another EU country*, the supply is outside the scope of UK VAT. However, for some supplies, you may need to register and account for local VAT in the country of supply. You will need to check with the tax authority in that country to find out how to treat the services you are supplying.
> 
> 
> *Land and property services*
> ...



So it's not even consistent about what work or services need VAT applying in which country, but work on property would need paying in the country the property is located in, which would include our work installing renewable energy systems.


----------



## Celyn (Apr 21, 2014)

Deleted because reading on a bit showed that my point had already been made.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 21, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I'm certainly prepared to accept Scots as a language,...



Sort of like they made American Black English into its own language: Ebonics.

Scottish can be the Ebonics of the UK.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 21, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> The only thing I still have a problem with about Scottish Independence  is (correctly?) irrelevant to Scots I suppose .... *the risk of permanent Tory rule South of the Border once Independence happens.*



Smithson attempts to put the numbers to this meme of permatoryism....



> The House of Commons based on the 2010 boundaries would be *reduced from 650 MPs to 591* while LAB would see its contingent cut by 41, the LDs by 11, SNP by 6, and the Tories by one. The overall reduction of seats would reduce the threshold required for an overall majority from 326 to 296. (To form the next majority administration)...
> 
> 
> *With Scottish MPs in place Labour needs to make 68 gains in May next year to secure a majority. Without Scotland that would be increased to 80.*
> That is still a big challenge but the total required is *fewer than the 100 gains that the Tories made at GE2010.*



Seen in the context of a lower total threshold, independence therefore means that Lab would need to win *12 more seats* than they would with the status quo. And all of this is based upon the assumption that independence would not change psephological dynamics in E&W. I'm pretty sure that the loss of the Scots Labour block might produce a more determined anti-tory vote in E&W.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 21, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Well this thread's been coming on very actively .



its like someones parents came home, turned the gabba off and replaced it with radio 4 at a murmer level and set the partiers to cleaning the shit off the walls


----------



## gosub (Apr 21, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> its like someones parents came home, turned the gabba off and replaced it with radio 4 at a murmer level and set the partiers to cleaning the shit off the walls



Up here, most of the R4 frequencies are taken up with BBC Scotland, an act not quite as philistine as the pirate stations round London but annoying enough, all the R3 frequencies are intact despite the smaller audience.   And a lot of the audio channels on the telly are eaten by BBC ALba.


it was a good thread title by a muppet, would have a big impact on these Isles, the complacency and leaving it to the bigots is where the 20 point lead has gone.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 21, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I take it you don't have to fill in significant VAT returns?
> 
> It takes 1 person 2 days solidly to do our monthly vat return. Fuck doing it twice / trying to reconcile 2 sets of vat returns with our bank account etc.
> 
> ...



Fair enough. The above is an illustration of one of the reasons I don't like borders much. It's also the kind of thing that I would be pushing hard if I were part of the 'no' campaign. They don't seem to have concentrated on these kinds of details at all.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 21, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Fair enough. The above is an illustration of one of the reasons I don't like borders much. It's also the kind of thing that I would be pushing hard if I were part of the 'no' campaign. They don't seem to have concentrated on these kinds of details at all.


Because they make it harder for international finance?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 21, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Because they make it harder for international finance?


That's right. Free spirit is a well-known international financier. 

My national martial arts association might have some problems with this, too. It certainly won't make things easier, and Scotland is too small to be able to effectively run its own separate association, not that they should want to, tbh.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 21, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Because they make it harder for international finance?


they don't really as long as there are free trade agreements in place, they make it easier for international finance to exploit the loopholes, pay and tax differentials to evade tax and increase profits.

They make it a right pain in the arse for legit small businesses to trade across though.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 21, 2014)

well, the scandy EFTA countries are currently so poor they are eating the dead and burning wood they nicked from valhalla. Or midgard. Either way! Woe! Woe betide he who refuses the Eumbrace


----------



## Celyn (Apr 21, 2014)

gosub said:


> Up here, most of the R4 frequencies are taken up with BBC Scotland, an act not quite as philistine as the pirate stations round London but annoying enough, all the R3 frequencies are intact despite the smaller audience...




Swap homes with me, then.   Here is Glasgow, it's very easy to get a good reception on Radio 4, but requires a bit more fiddling around to get Radio Scotland.	  But I don't think I will be casting my vote based upon matters of radio reception.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 21, 2014)

free spirit : I was going to post that link myself to the cross border hassle stuff from Sat's Guardian -- I thought it was a pretty objective analysis (articles in the *financial* bits of the mainstream press can often be surprisingly worth reading like that).


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 21, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Smithson attempts to put the numbers to this meme of permatoryism....
> 
> 
> 
> Seen in the context of a lower total threshold, independence therefore means that Lab would need to win *12 more seats* than they would with the status quo. And all of this is based upon the assumption that independence would not change psephological dynamics in E&W. I'm pretty sure that the loss of the Scots Labour block might produce a more determined anti-tory vote in E&W.



Interesting stuff, thanks.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 21, 2014)

This should prove to be a bit of a boost for the 'Yes' campaign....



> *Gordon Brown is to highlight Scotland's age "timebomb" on Tuesday as he makes his first public foray into the struggling Better Together campaign* with a speech designed to persuade the country's pensioners that they will be better off staying part of the UK


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 21, 2014)

good grief. Have No lined up Mrs Thatcher to make a pro-Union speech via a ouija board session, too?


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 21, 2014)

Jesus it's neck and neck between the "Better Together" and "Yes to AV" campaigns for which was/is the most effective at moving people to the other camp.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 21, 2014)

steeplejack said:


> good grief. Have No lined up Mrs Thatcher to make a pro-Union speech via a ouija board session, too?



From "_The Downing Street years" _(1993)....



> If [the Tory Party] sometimes seems English to some Scots that is because the Union is inevitably dominated by England by reason of its greater population. The Scots, being an historic nation with a proud past, will inevitably resent some expressions of this fact from time to time. *As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure. *What the Scots (not indeed the English) cannot do, however, is to insist upon their own terms for remaining in the Union, regardless of the views of the others.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 22, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> free spirit : I was going to post that link myself to the cross border hassle stuff from Sat's Guardian -- I thought it was a pretty objective analysis (articles in the *financial* bits of the mainstream press can often be surprisingly worth reading like that).


Hi Will.  Weird. You appear to have tagged me in to that post, according to my alerts.  Did you edit?

Anyway, I'm not sure what you wanted my input on.  I _can_ tell you that people currently do business across borders, and also work across borders.  I know several people who have worked abroad in a variety of scenarios.  Also, Mrs la rouge used to work on cruise ships, and was regarded as working outside the UK.

Regarding pensions, I have a neighbour who is Irish.  He spent his working life in Ireland, but retired to Scotland (to be near grandchildren), and picks up his Irish pension here just fine.

Regarding businesses, there was a recent controversy about an email sent out by Barrhead Travel director Bill Munro to its employees warning of dire consequences of cross border trade, as the company has branches in England.  It turns out the company also currently has offices in Ireland, across a border, and that hasn't had dire consequences. (You can read  discussion of the email on the Scotland forum thread from here).

Will there need to be some ironing out?  Undoubtedly.  Does that outweigh the case for Yes? No, I don't think it does. This is very much the Better Together case, though: "It's too hard.  We shouldn't bother.  We'll not be allowed".  However, while some overlap is inevitable, I'm going to try to keep this thread for implications for rUK, and the other thread for the implications for Scotland. I'm therefore not going to enumerate again my reasons for voting Yes.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 22, 2014)

On the topic of pensions, here's an interesting contrast between two editions of the same paper today.  In the English edition, millions face a pensions shock (in the current constitutional arrangements); pensions are unsafe. In the Scottish edition, pensions will be unsafe if we vote Yes, but safer if we vote no.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 22, 2014)

pensions cure cancer/cause cancer


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 22, 2014)

'The World's Greatest Newspaper'


----------



## brogdale (Apr 22, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> pensions cure cancer/cause cancer


 House prices safer within the UK?

Can't be long before they tell the jocks they'll no longer have the 'Queen of our hearts' if they vote wrong.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 22, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 'The World's Greatest Newspaper'




5p cheaper than the daily mail. Theres something incredibly sad about that boast- first the idea that being lower rent than the mail is worth crowing about, then the idea that being all of five penny sweets cheaper is somehow delivering excellent bargains


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 22, 2014)

brogdale said:


> House prices safer within the UK?
> 
> Can't be long before they tell the jocks they'll no longer have the 'Queen of our hearts' if they vote wrong.



Plus they aint finding out what _did_ happen to maddy either.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 22, 2014)

brogdale said:


> House prices safer within the UK?
> 
> Can't be long before they tell the jocks they'll no longer have the 'Queen of our hearts' if they vote wrong.




Scotland will be forever barred from Maddie related news if they go indy

great minds...


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 22, 2014)

danny la rouge : I did tag you briefly last night, but by mistake, so I swiftly edited it to tag the correct tagee instead


----------



## geminisnake (Apr 22, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> Scotland will be forever barred from Maddie related news if they go indy



Another reason to vote yes afaic


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 22, 2014)

i would gladly campaign for a yes vote if the duke of edinburgh was to be guillotined in princes street.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 23, 2014)

I presume that this is being used by the 'Yes' campaign in Scotland?


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 23, 2014)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That would be ace and an unexpected bonus but whilst its true it would tarnish his legacy forever amongst his sort I don't think even that is enough for him to fall on sword.  He'll just blame it all on labour as they are the major pro-union party in Scotland and its a labour guy running the campaign (apparently but I've not seen much sign of him).


----------



## brogdale (Apr 23, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> That would be ace and an unexpected bonus but whilst its true it would tarnish his legacy forever amongst his sort I don't think even that is enough for him to fall on sword.  He'll just blame it all on labour as they are the major pro-union party in Scotland and its a labour guy running the campaign (apparently but I've not seen much sign of him).


 No, I don't think it an immediate, likely outcome of a 'yes' victory...but quite a persuasive incentive to get the vote out on the day.


----------



## gosub (Apr 23, 2014)

Thing in the paper yesterday about yes voters being motivated by the thought of another tory government.  So would be tory having to resign cos the labour leader isn't credible.   Almost as paradoxical as it not being the United Kingdom when the head of state in both will be the same monarch, unUK maybe a closer name


----------



## brogdale (Apr 23, 2014)

gosub said:


> Thing in the paper yesterday about yes voters being motivated by the thought of another tory government.  So would be tory having to resign cos the labour leader isn't credible.   Almost as paradoxical as it not being the United Kingdom when the head of state in both will be the same monarch, unUK maybe a closer name



That 'thing in the paper' is, potentially, very significant. A number of serious psephologists have predicted a positive correlation between an improvement in tory UK polling and the % in favour of Scotland's independence. Bit of a dilemma for the tory scum, really...the Westminster electoral cycle demands that the economic numbers are manipulated to improve to close the polling, and yet that very process increases the chance of 'yes' winning. Fascinating stuff.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 23, 2014)

Does anyone know how much total tax UK government has taken from North Sea Oil?
It must be in the hundred(s) of billions I would imagine.


> in 2012-13 the industry paid £6.5 billion in taxes to the UK government.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26326117


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Does anyone know how much total tax UK government has taken from North Sea Oil?
> It must be in the hundred(s) of billions I would imagine.


Ask it the other way round.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 23, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> That would be ace and an unexpected bonus but whilst its true it would tarnish his legacy...



What legacy does he currently have that could be tarnished?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 23, 2014)

Quartz said:


> What legacy does he currently have that could be tarnished?



The complete destruction of the LDs.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Ask it the other way round.


I am not sure what you mean?


----------



## weltweit (Apr 23, 2014)

I have heard yes supporters claim an independent Scotland can save the Scottish NHS from the creeping privatisation happening in England. It is an interesting line, I am not aware if it is part of the yes campaign, but some yes voters seem to rate it as an argument.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I am not sure what you mean?


Ask how much money has been taken out of the UK by these companies rather than how much the UK has given to these companies.

It's not that hard a thing to turn around.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 23, 2014)

Darling does not seem popular in Scotland. (anecdotally)
Well he is hardly popular in England for that matter.
Wonder if he will be replaced.
It would need to be soon, the clock is ticking.


----------



## D'wards (Apr 24, 2014)

Just reading an article by Billy Bragg which raises a good point ?(which may have been raised already on theis thread, but i'm buggered if i'm going to read all 997 messages to find out).

If the Scots gain independence, will we ever be able to prise the Tories out of office? I can't see it happening in the near future, that would swing the majority to Conservative's favour hugely - what a scary thought


----------



## gosub (Apr 24, 2014)

D'wards said:


> Just reading an article by Billy Bragg which raises a good point ?(which may have been raised already on theis thread, but i'm buggered if i'm going to read all 997 messages to find out).
> 
> If the Scots gain independence, will we ever be able to prise the Tories out of office? I can't see it happening in the near future, that would swing the majority to Conservative's favour hugely - what a scary thought


its about every third page (exaggerating a bit) brogdale came with this.  is some debate but the headline on the piece is about right: Rarely since the war would the Scots vote have changed anything -its part of yes' arguement


----------



## steeplejack (Apr 24, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Darling does not seem popular in Scotland. (anecdotally)
> Well he is hardly popular in England for that matter.
> Wonder if he will be replaced.
> It would need to be soon, the clock is ticking.



too late really. replace him, make the campaign look like its in trouble. Don't replace him, continue to haemorrhage support and credibility.

If I were in charge of Bitter Together I woulodn't replace Darling but I'd give him as little as possible to do from now on. Preferably, lock him in an electricity cupboard with a box set of Veep and an X box until the second half of September.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 24, 2014)

steeplejack said:


> If I were in charge of Bitter Together I woulodn't replace Darling but I'd give him as little as possible to do from now on.


This is in effect what Team Labour, the Big Hitting Peers, was about. Except it went badly wrong when Lord Robertson opened his mouth.


----------



## barney_pig (Apr 24, 2014)

will there be some sort of border guard, dressed in black? perhaps based around a barrier or wall? will a son of a british tv political commentator join this watch? will he whilst on a ill fate patrol north of the wall fall in love with a rebellious highland lassie?
 who knows?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 24, 2014)

barney_pig said:


> who knows?


Everyone.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 24, 2014)

Something interesting is that Scotland will host the Commonwealth games in Glasgow in the summer. Celebrities like Usain Bolt will be present. It could have an effect on the mood which could go in one of two ways.

One way is that Scottish people may take confidence in their ability to put on a world class event and this may reflect in people thinking - yea Scotland it great, it could be independent, cue floaters opting for a yes vote. Or, it could inspire people to think, being part of something greater is a good thing, being part of the commonwealth, being part of Britain, these are good things, it could bolster support for the Union. I really have no idea what effect it could have - but I do think it could have an effect.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 25, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Something interesting is that Scotland will host the Commonwealth games in Glasgow in the summer. Celebrities like Usain Bolt will be present. It could have an effect on the mood which could go in one of two ways.
> 
> One way is that Scottish people may take confidence in their ability to put on a world class event and this may reflect in people thinking - yea Scotland it great, it could be independent, cue floaters opting for a yes vote. Or, it could inspire people to think, being part of something greater is a good thing, being part of the commonwealth, being part of Britain, these are good things, it could bolster support for the Union. I really have no idea what effect it could have - but I do think it could have an effect.


 Very little, I'd imagine. Who the fuck takes any notice of the empire games?


----------



## weepiper (Apr 25, 2014)

The overall feeling about the Commonwealth Games is one of irritation at being booted out of our football stadiums so they can use them tbh. That and annoyance at the amount of money that's being poured into a one-off event that's being held in a poor area and that those who actually live there won't be able to afford to go and see.


----------



## Belushi (Apr 25, 2014)

At least they've backed away from the idea that blowing up social housing would be a fun part of the opening ceremony.


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 25, 2014)

weepiper said:


> The overall feeling about the Commonwealth Games is one of irritation at being booted out of our football stadiums so they can use them tbh. That and annoyance at the amount of money that's being poured into a one-off event that's being held in a poor area and that those who actually live there won't be able to afford to go and see.



To be fair that was the general feeling in London before the 2012 games.  Once things get going attitudes may change, or they may not.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 25, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> To be fair that was the general feeling in London before the 2012 games.  Once things get going attitudes may change, or they may not.


Yep. I was about to post exactly the same thing. I was one of the grumblers about the Olympics, but it was great once it got going. I surprised myself by enjoying it, as did loads of people.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 25, 2014)

Who are the Cornish athletes competing for?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 25, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep. I was about to post exactly the same thing. I was one of the grumblers about the Olympics, but it was great once it got going. I surprised myself by enjoying it, as did loads of people.


But others of us did manage to remain 'grumbly' throughout the corporate-military wank-fest.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 25, 2014)

brogdale said:


> But others of us did manage to remain 'grumbly' throughout at the corporate-military wank-fest.


I salute your indefatigability, sir.


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 25, 2014)

brogdale said:


> But others of us did manage to remain 'grumbly' throughout at the corporate-military wank-fest.



Solid work comrade.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 25, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I salute your indefatigability, sir.


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 25, 2014)

Actually that raises a point, do we have to keep Galloway if the Scots leave?


----------



## geminisnake (Apr 25, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> Actually that raises a point, do we have to keep Galloway if the Scots leave?



Yes, he is an MP for an English constituency and we sure as hell don't want him back, sorry 

As for the Games, couldn't give a monkeys. Didn't give a monkeys about the London ones either.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 25, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> Actually that raises a point, do we have to keep Galloway if the Scots leave?


Why is that a even worth asking? He lives in England and is an MP for an English constituency. Did you think he'd be deported along with anyone else born in Scotland? Why?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 25, 2014)

brogdale said:


> But others of us did manage to remain 'grumbly' throughout the corporate-military wank-fest.


I managed not to see any of it, or read anything about it. I hope to repeat the experience with the Empire Games.


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 25, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Why is that a even worth asking? He lives in England and is an MP for an English constituency. Did you think he'd be deported along with anyone else born in Scotland? Why?



Well it was meant as a joke, albeit a poor one.  You know a bit of satire based around the absurdity of some of points that have been raised such as Doctor Who etc. Sorry I inadvertently antagonised, I promise not to do it again.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 25, 2014)

Belushi said:


> At least they've backed away from the idea that blowing up social housing would be a fun part of the opening ceremony.



safety risks. Chinny recon, I think someone with half a brain put a stop to that madness on a 'shit pr' ground.

also, if the big pull out of scottish orgs from the CBI had not become a story, the beeb would never have suspended its membership. Nuetrality my arse.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 25, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> Well it was meant as a joke, albeit a poor one.  You know a bit of satire based around the absurdity of some of points that have been raised such as Doctor Who etc. Sorry I inadvertently antagonised, I promise not to do it again.


Fair enough. Trouble is that the reality is weirder than any of the parodies.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 25, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Very little, I'd imagine. Who the fuck takes any notice of the empire games?


Who takes any notice? Some of the Scottish people I was speaking to last week.
They think the games could influence voting, perhaps it depends if one of the campaigns can capitalise on it or not.

Another motivation for independence that was mentioned to me was the defence of the Scottish NHS against the sort of creeping privatisation that is happening in England. That was from someone who was definitely voting yes.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 25, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Who takes any notice? Some of the Scottish people I was speaking to last week.
> They think the games could influence voting, perhaps it depends if one of the campaigns can capitalise on it or not.
> 
> Another motivation for independence that was mentioned to me was the defence of the Scottish NHS against the sort of creeping privatisation that is happening in England. That was from someone who was definitely voting yes.


You're right about the latter.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Apr 25, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Another motivation for independence that was mentioned to me was the defence of the Scottish NHS against the sort of creeping privatisation that is happening in England. That was from someone who was definitely voting yes.



Health is already a devolved matter, so the defence against any creeping privatisation is really kind of immaterial in the yes/no poll.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 25, 2014)

Cameron apparently said last week that if Scotland votes No, they will be able to have greater devolution.

But since then he has been pushed on the specifics and not coughed ... people are thinking it was perhaps cynical..


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Apr 25, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Cameron apparently said last week that if Scotland votes No, they will be able to have greater devolution.



Well, yes, the already passed Scotland Act will come into force if it's a No vote, giving some more powers to Holyrood. Not a _huge_ amount, but some.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 25, 2014)

Bearing in mind the addition of younger voters for this referendum, some I believe Aberdeen schools held mock referendums a couple of weeks ago. Their result, 53% no, 47% yes. Quite close, with some time to go.


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Apr 25, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I have heard yes supporters claim an independent Scotland can save the Scottish NHS from the creeping privatisation happening in England. It is an interesting line, I am not aware if it is part of the yes campaign, but some yes voters seem to rate it as an argument.



Once the private contractors are set up in rUK, they can challenge the NHS in Scotland under EU competition rules, if Scotland is still part of UK.  Cannot do so if Scotland is independent.


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 25, 2014)

Imagine NEVER being ruled by the Tories ever again. That's what the no vote is up against.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 25, 2014)

Clowns...



> The CBI has petitioned the Electoral Commission to cancel its registration as an official supporter of the no campaign in the Scottish independence referendum.
> 
> The sudden switch in policy came after more than a dozen organisations, including major universities such as Edinburgh, Glasgow and Dundee, government agencies in Scotland and the broadcasters STV and BBC, resigned from the CBI to protect their neutrality in the independence debate.





> John Cridland, CBI director general, said the controversy over registration had raised damaging questions about whether the CBI was changing its role to become a political organisation.
> 
> Its new legal advice had established that the decision breached the CBI's own rules and had not been signed off properly internally. "The CBI is politically independent and impartial," he said. "Registration has raised a question as to whether we have changed the CBI's role – we have not."



'yes' must be pissing themselves.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 25, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Imagine NEVER being ruled by the Tories ever again. That's what the no vote is up against.




I know, but that 'never' is FAR from true down in these South of Scotland parts ...


----------



## Belushi (Apr 25, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> I know, but that 'never' is FAR from true down in these South of Scotland parts ...



Vote Plaid


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 25, 2014)

Did that at the last GE, he lost his deposit and Sian James got in with a 10,000 plus majority ... she's not at all bad as it goes, as proved by her imminent retirement from Parliament


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 25, 2014)

To be honest, the only way the BT campaigne could further shit thier own bed would to be exhuming the bones of hadrian and running them up and down the wall while shouting 'DEATH TO THE PICT!'


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 25, 2014)

Surely there must be talk in Scotland of all sorts of splits and disagreements within that campaign, plots to bring in a half way competent strategy, etc.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 25, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Surely there must be talk in Scotland of all sorts of splits and disagreements within that campaign, plots to bring in a half way competent strategy, etc.




perhaps there was, perhaps there is. The votes at the end of the year. Its been left too late for reasonable campaigning, left too long out of complacent arrogance. Hence now we see the turn to some questionable tactics.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 25, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> To be honest, the only way the BT campaigne could further shit thier own bed would to be exhuming the bones of hadrian and running them up and down the wall while shouting 'DEATH TO THE PICT!'


Don't knock Hadrian's wall, if the scots do vote yes we will need to rebuild it, with the guard towers as passport stations!!


----------



## weltweit (Apr 25, 2014)

I gather Gordon Brown is to take an interest in the no campaign. That is what that campaign really needs, alongside Darling, a known election winner (not), yet another the same!


----------



## JTG (Apr 25, 2014)

You know that most of Northumbria is north of Hadrian's Wall, right?


----------



## weltweit (Apr 25, 2014)

JTG said:


> You know that most of Northumbria is north of Hadrian's Wall, right?


Collateral damage !!


----------



## Delroy Booth (Apr 26, 2014)

Scotland is shit


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 26, 2014)

Delroy Booth said:


> Scotland is shit


Cut it out. You're a decent poster but you're going to be booted if you continue this rubbish.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Apr 26, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> Cut it out. You're a decent poster but you're going to be booted if you continue this rubbish.


----------



## editor (Apr 26, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> Cut it out. You're a decent poster but you're going to be booted if you continue this rubbish.


He's gone for two weeks, minimum. Have you see the amount of 'shit' posts he made?


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Apr 26, 2014)

editor said:


> He's gone for two weeks, minimum. Have you see the amount of 'shit' posts he made?


I couldn't keep up...must have been scores of them.


----------



## emanymton (Apr 26, 2014)

farmerbarleymow said:


> I couldn't keep up...must have been scores of them.


You manage to get the last post in an impressive number of them though.


----------



## teqniq (Apr 26, 2014)

Car crash type stuff happening with the CBI

Scottish independence: CBI does U-turn on supporting no campaign



> British business lobby the CBI has petitioned the Electoral Commission to cancel its registration as an official supporter of the no campaign in the Scottish independence referendum.
> 
> The sudden switch in policy came after more than a dozen organisations, including major universities such as Edinburgh, Glasgow and Dundee, government agencies in Scotland and the broadcasters STV and BBC, resigned from the CBI to protect their neutrality in the independence debate.
> 
> ...


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 26, 2014)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Health is already a devolved matter, so the defence against any creeping privatisation is really kind of immaterial in the yes/no poll.


Not so. The Barnett formula calculates the Holyrood grant as a percentage of Westminster spending. If public spending on NHS in England goes down, that can affect the NHS in Scotland, despite it being devolved.


----------



## gosub (Apr 26, 2014)

teqniq said:


> Car crash type stuff happening with the CBI
> 
> Scottish independence: CBI does U-turn on supporting no campaign




The Telegraph piece is more in depth, the CBI accidentally joined NO because somebody junior took a decision they weren't authorised to.   Actually think the CBI may be holed below the water line a voice of industry stuffed full of quangos and broadcasters that must worry about their impartiality.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 26, 2014)

gosub said:


> The Telegraph piece is more in depth, the CBI accidentally joined NO because somebody junior took a decision they weren't authorised to.   Actually think the CBI may be holed below the water line a voice of industry stuffed full of quangos and broadcasters that must worry about their impartiality.





> John Cridland, director-general of the business body, said its application to the Electoral Commission had been made *without the knowledge of senior executives by a "relatively junior" member of staff*.



Lying or incompetent; either seems appropriate for the capitalists' lobbyists.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 26, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Lying or incompetent; either seems appropriate for the capitalists' lobbyists.



They're either lying now, or have been lying for over a week, because they've been telling us since the 17th that they had consulted the Scottish membership on the move to register.  Maybe the office junior carried out that consultation accidentally, too.

They're a laughing stock.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 26, 2014)

tbf the bufoonery and lurching of the CBI is one of the more enjoyable things about this whole independence election run up. Check out these keen business minds, masters of dick-swinging profiteering reduced to a mess by a simple political question


----------



## gosub (Apr 26, 2014)

Thanks 





brogdale said:


> Lying or incompetent; either seems appropriate for the capitalists' lobbyists.


The idea that someone high in the organisation has the 'authority'  to speak for British Industry... Surely they are all minions doing the biding of their members... Apparently not.   Backing down raises more questions than it answers.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 26, 2014)

gosub said:


> Thanks
> The idea that someone high in the organisation has the 'authority'  to speak for British Industry... Surely they are all minions doing the biding of their members... Apparently not.   Backing down raises more questions than it answers.


 Yeah, as Dotty said...it's quite an enjoyable by-product of the establishment panic over the jocks to see the mask slip temporarily.


----------



## gosub (Apr 26, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Yeah, as Dotty said...it's quite an enjoyable by-product of the establishment panic over the jocks to see the mask slip temporarily.


It's an eye opener as to how closed a shop the establishment is and cynical.  Presumably we are all supposed to have forgotten this next time someone on the Beeb tells Farage the CBI is pro EU.  Is that industry, the regional development quangos and universities subsidised by the EU or even just the BBC itself. 

There only way to stay credible was to take the clear out on chin, but keeping the establishment amplifier was deemed more important.  They can't even do the sacking their explanation calls for, in case of an unfair dismissal lawsuit


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 27, 2014)

gosub said:


> The Telegraph piece is more in depth, the CBI accidentally joined NO because somebody junior took a decision they weren't authorised to.


Of course. Jesus can't they come up with a better lie than that.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 27, 2014)

....and the next big boost for "yes" comes from the people who brought you '_Austerity'..._



To paraphrase...."...don't trust Salmond's costings; trust ours.."

Should go down well.


----------



## gosub (Apr 27, 2014)

with relation to the thread title.  

Just got banged to rights on dropping a fag butt in the street, £80 pound fine blah blah....  After asking my name, and date of birth for the ticket, the very next question was place of birth.  EO told me when I questioned this, is so prosecutor fiscal can narrow down incase of duplicate names... then asked for my address and post code.  EO agreed with me when I pointed out that the address would stop duplicates but that had always been their procedure.  Seems highly suspect to me assessing my activity criminal or otherwise based on where I was born


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2014)

gosub said:


> The Telegraph piece is more in depth, the CBI accidentally joined NO because somebody junior took a decision they weren't authorised to.   Actually think the CBI may be holed below the water line a voice of industry stuffed full of quangos and broadcasters that must worry about their impartiality.


About whose impartiality? Surely you don't mean the CBI here? If you do, these other _impartial _groups joined precisely because of the their partiality. Which is one reason why this stuff was indicative of a split in the sort of partiality different elite groups now favour - rather than being meaningless as some insisted.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 27, 2014)

So this was the CBI's 'office junior' (their officially designated campaign officer)


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2014)

gosub said:


> It's an eye opener as to how closed a shop the establishment is and cynical.  Presumably we are all supposed to have forgotten this next time someone on the Beeb tells Farage the CBI is pro EU.  Is that industry, the regional development quangos and universities subsidised by the EU or even just the BBC itself.
> 
> There only way to stay credible was to take the clear out on chin, but keeping the establishment amplifier was deemed more important.  They can't even do the sacking their explanation calls for, in case of an unfair dismissal lawsuit


Eh?


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 27, 2014)

brogdale said:


> ....and the next big boost for "yes" comes from the people who brought you '_Austerity'..._
> 
> View attachment 52855
> 
> ...




I wouldn't trust either of them to run a bath


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 27, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> Of course. Jesus can't they come up with a better lie than that.




standard tactics ennit, throw a minion under the bus


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 27, 2014)

gosub said:


> with relation to the thread title.
> 
> Just got banged to rights on dropping a fag butt in the street, £80 pound fine blah blah....  After asking my name, and date of birth for the ticket, the very next question was place of birth.  EO told me when I questioned this, is so prosecutor fiscal can narrow down incase of duplicate names... then asked for my address and post code.  EO agreed with me when I pointed out that the address would stop duplicates but that had always been their procedure.  Seems highly suspect to me assessing my activity criminal or otherwise based on where I was born


Nothing to do with independence (we aren't yet) or even devolution. I can personally attest that the police have been asking people their place of birth since the 1980s. They don't discriminate by accent, either.


----------



## gosub (Apr 27, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Nothing to do with independence (we aren't yet) or even devolution. I can personally attest that the police have been asking people their place of birth since the 1980s. They don't discriminate by accent, either.



Never had it down south.   Find it disturbing as has no relevance to what they are doing so why take the infomation


----------



## gosub (Apr 27, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> David Cameron will resign if he loses Scotland.
> 
> It's our pleasure. No need to thank us.



Tory supporters testing the water to see if there is wriggle room link, link(paywall).  Don't see how there is any wriggleroom - apply the West Lothian question to any subsequent vote of no confidence....


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 27, 2014)

gosub said:


> Never had it down south.   Find it disturbing as has no relevance to what they are doing so why take the infomation


I've had it in each decade since and including the 80s. It isn't an ethnic element to litter infringements.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 27, 2014)

Mr Cridland said the CBI was "politically independent and impartial".

"Although the decision to register with the Electoral Commission was taken in good faith, in order to carry out normal activities during the referendum period, it has inadvertently given the impression that the CBI is a political entity - we are not and never will be."

BBC

Impartial, not political:
http://Mr Cridland said the CBI was...tical entity - we are not and never will be."


----------



## brogdale (Apr 27, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Mr Cridland said the CBI was "politically independent and impartial".
> 
> "Although the decision to register with the Electoral Commission was taken in good faith, in order to carry out normal activities during the referendum period, it has inadvertently given the impression that the CBI is a political entity - we are not and never will be."
> 
> ...



 To the extent that they don't directly stand candidates for elections, maybe...but by any other metric that's a very narrow definition of non-political.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Apr 27, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Not so. The Barnett formula calculates the Holyrood grant as a percentage of Westminster spending. If public spending on NHS in England goes down, that can affect the NHS in Scotland, despite it being devolved.



Doesn't really say anything about the public/private split though, does it? That's for Holyrood to decide.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 28, 2014)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Doesn't really say anything about the public/private split though, does it? That's for Holyrood to decide.


It restricts the choice for Holyrood if the public fund is ever diminished.  The argument is that the only way to ensure that Westminster spending cuts do not restrict the choices for Holyrood (by the direct effect of cutting the bloc grant) is via independence.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 22, 2014)

ken macleod said:
			
		

> Present-day Scottish nationalism is very largely civic and political rather than nationalist in the traditional sense, and in its cultural aspect has been much more a matter of looking to the future with hope rather than to the past with grievance. You can get a vivid picture of how it developed over the past fifty years from James Robertson's 2010 novel _And the Land Lay Still_. And _Stone Voices_ by Neal Ascherson gives a good non-fiction account of the years between the two Scottish devolution referenda, of 1979 and 1997, drawing on his own influential and informed journalism of those decades. Ascherson brought to a wider audience Tom Nairn's argument that Scottish independence was necessary to dislodge the supposed archaic establishment at the core of the British state, and some version of this has become the received wisdom of a large part of Scotland's cultural intelligentsia and a section of the Scottish Left. The big problem with this is that it's not true. The British state is not some living fossil but highly modern, alert, flexible and fast-evolving. One might have many criticisms of Scottish and Welsh devolution and the Good Friday Agreement in Ireland, and I do, but they certainly don't demonstrate an incapacity for deep-going political reform, obviously in the interest of conserving what can be conserved of the British state.
> 
> So the problem then becomes that if the civic and democratic case is without merit, and the economic case is even less convincing, the only real basis for independence is nationalist sentiment, and you can see that heating up and you can see the pro-independence left increasingly falling into nationalist language. It takes a lot to shock me about the left but I admit I'm a little startled to hear professed international socialists say “we” on a public platform in a political context when they mean “Scots”. If Scotland were an oppressed nation that might be excusable. Scotland is not an oppressed nation. And for socialists to identify with the nation is not going to stand them in good stead in the future, particularly in the unlikely event of a Yes vote, when they'll be facing a Scottish government that has many authoritarian and centralizing reflexes and strong reasons to promote national unity over class division in the no doubt turbulent years ahead.
> 
> ...



I sort of get what he is saying here but isn't it basically ' if we fragment we war'?

esp with that 'sleeping england' stuff- wtf man

danny la rouge 

would be interested to hear your thoughts on what ken says


----------



## steeplejack (Jun 22, 2014)

it's navel gazing drivel. Putting 2 and 2 together and getting 134.586


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 23, 2014)

I'm on my phone atm, outside train station waiting for Youngster. But interim verdict: that's incoherent.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 23, 2014)

> Present-day Scottish nationalism is very largely civic and political rather than nationalist in the traditional sense, and in its cultural aspect has been much more a matter of looking to the future with hope rather than to the past with grievance. You can get a vivid picture of how it developed over the past fifty years from James Robertson's 2010 novel _And the Land Lay Still_. And _Stone Voices_ by Neal Ascherson gives a good non-fiction account of the years between the two Scottish devolution referenda, of 1979 and 1997, drawing on his own influential and informed journalism of those decades.



Yup, I’ve read them both.  They give similar accounts, from similarly left-civic nationalist viewpoints. Worth digging out if you want a flavour of left nationalism in Scotland.




> Ascherson brought to a wider audience Tom Nairn's argument that Scottish independence was necessary to dislodge the supposed archaic establishment at the core of the British state, and some version of this has become the received wisdom of a large part of Scotland's cultural intelligentsia and a section of the Scottish Left. The big problem with this is that it's not true. The British state is not some living fossil but highly modern, alert, flexible and fast-evolving.



This is where McLeod’s coherence starts to suffer.  It does not follow from the fact that the British state is alert and flexible that it is not archaic.  Nor does it follow that it is not necessary to dislodge the British establishment. (Although of course it is open to contest that Scottish independence could be a tool towards that).




> One might have many criticisms of Scottish and Welsh devolution and the Good Friday Agreement in Ireland, and I do, but they certainly don't demonstrate an incapacity for deep-going political reform, obviously in the interest of conserving what can be conserved of the British state.



Well, the devolution projects weren’t intended to provide real reform, but to stave off the demands for real reform.  They do demonstrate the desire of the state to respond and maintain itself, but that doesn’t mean the state and the establishment aren’t reactionary, archaic and needing dislodged. 




> So the problem then becomes that if the civic and democratic case is without merit,


He hasn’t established this, but merely drawn a conclusion from an assertion that was incorrect.



> and the economic case is even less convincing,



Bald assertion.  No attempt to provide evidence, argument or even context.



> the only real basis for independence is nationalist sentiment,



Similar bald assertion.



> and you can see that heating up and you can see the pro-independence left increasingly falling into nationalist language.



You really don’t.  In fact, you don’t even hear the mainstream Yes campaign doing that. You do hear the No camp doing it, though. (See the strapline: “*Better Together: The patriotic* all-party and non-party campaign for Scotland in the UK”; see the arguments: “a No vote is the *patriotic* choice in the referendum” http://www.bettertogether.net/blog/entry/a-vote-to-stay-in-the-uk-is-the-patriotic-scottish-choice).



> It takes a lot to shock me about the left but I admit I'm a little startled to hear professed international socialists say “we” on a public platform in a political context when they mean “Scots”.



Easily shocked, then.  That’s a pretty weak accusation.



> If Scotland were an oppressed nation that might be excusable. Scotland is not an oppressed nation.



I can only say “we” and mean “Scots” if Scotland were an oppressed nation? Why? (Furthermore, it is not the case of Yes that Scotland is oppressed, merely that the Union is no longer fit for purpose). Does that apply to everyone? Can English, Welsh, French, Italian socialists/leftists not say “we” unless their nations are oppressed?



> And for socialists to identify with the nation is not going to stand them in good stead in the future,



So, what, abstain?  Because voting No is by the same token “identifying” with the British “nation”. (And overtly; see Better Together website, leaflets etc).




> At the cultural level I see no excuse for nationalism, absolutely none.


Nor I.




> Scottish culture is flourishing, and it's flourishing inside the Union.


There’s no cultural case being made for a Yes vote, though.  None.



> And the national culture of Britain is incredibly assimilative.


You’re making a cultural case for the Union right there, though. A cultural nationalist case, which is dangerous territory indeed. “The national culture of Britain”. It’s OK to say that, to make that claim, but the imaginary cultural case for independence gets your disapprobation? Bizarre.




> As I said in an essay in the collection _Unstated: Writers on Scottish Independence_, I dread the prospect of an English national awakening. I like England perfectly well as it is, asleep.


I know; I read that book, too. Your contribution there made little sense, too.  



> But I have a lot of friends who disagree with me, including my late friend Iain Banks. And like his, their support for independence usually doesn't come from nationalism.



Finally!



> It comes from a belief that Scotland's non-Tory majority will always be stymied by Tory victories in England or by Labour only winning by taking the concerns of swing voters in so-called Middle England into account. There's a current slogan from the Yes side: 'No more Tory governments. Ever.' I can see the appeal.


You’re truncating a far more nuanced position, and presenting only the weakest element of it.



> There are strong points to be made against it, but it would take more space than there is on this page to make them.


Don’t see why. You spent a lot of it waffling, but the one argument that has merit is the one you avoid.  I have, on these boards, made the argument you neglect to make.  It only takes a few sentences.



> I have a joke that I should do a show on the Edinburgh Festival Fringe this summer billed as the last left-wing Unionist novelist in Scotland.


It’s not a very funny joke. So make sure it’s not a stand-up show.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 24, 2014)

harsh but fair- I've read none of the names he drops and the closest I've been to scotland is dreaming about Amy Pond. So it starts convincing

the 'fear of a woken england' was what really made me go 'hang on, this is bollocks isn't it?'


----------



## geminisnake (Jun 24, 2014)

And the national culture of Britain is incredibly assimilative.

What is this national culture of Britain?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 24, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> harsh but fair- I've read none of the names he drops and the closest I've been to scotland is dreaming about Amy Pond. So it starts convincing
> 
> the 'fear of a woken england' was what really made me go 'hang on, this is bollocks isn't it?'


"I'm not a nationalist, but I prefer England asleep"... Oh yeah? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




I'm sure he's a lovely bloke, mind.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 24, 2014)

oh yeah Kens a great author and from what I've read seems a good bloke and one of ours. Just wrong here 

he took the time to bait Proleterian Democracy with his own brand of posadism lol


----------



## The Pale King (Jun 24, 2014)

I finished the Engines of Light trilogy recently - it was bloody brilliant.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 24, 2014)

The Pale King said:


> I finished the Engines of Light trilogy recently - it was bloody brilliant.




my favourite bit is where the protagonist has to face a world where this neo-stalinist has fostered a revolution in a society that is totally unready for it and the main man goes 'you stupid stupid stalinist shit'

it literally had me in stitches.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jul 31, 2014)

Bit shabby, this:


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 31, 2014)

If they'd been on the plane I don't think consular support would have helped them much.


----------



## geminisnake (Jul 31, 2014)

Because Scotland isn't going to be able to have it's own consulate??


----------

