HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Scotland to hold independ...

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 03:21 PM

Scotland to hold independence poll in 2014

Scotland plans to hold an independence referendum in the autumn of 2014, First Minister Alex Salmond has said.

He said this date would allow the Scottish people to make a "considered" decision on Scotland's future within the United Kingdom.

The news came as the UK government said a referendum would be unconstitutional without its authority.

It has said it wanted to work with the SNP-led administration amid a row over the timing and conditions for a poll.



Story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-16478121

98 replies, 17447 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 98 replies Author Time Post
Reply Scotland to hold independence poll in 2014 (Original post)
steaa Jan 2012 OP
dipsydoodle Jan 2012 #1
T_i_B Jan 2012 #2
Fool Count Jan 2012 #22
T_i_B Jan 2012 #42
Fool Count Jan 2012 #70
T_i_B Jan 2012 #93
Fool Count Jan 2012 #95
Charlemagne Jan 2012 #3
MattBaggins Jan 2012 #4
whathehell Jan 2012 #10
Maine-ah Jan 2012 #21
whathehell Jan 2012 #41
riderinthestorm Jan 2012 #26
whathehell Jan 2012 #35
Boudica the Lyoness Jan 2012 #32
whathehell Jan 2012 #36
zipplewrath Jan 2012 #47
whathehell Jan 2012 #49
zipplewrath Jan 2012 #50
whathehell Jan 2012 #52
zipplewrath Jan 2012 #54
whathehell Jan 2012 #58
zipplewrath Jan 2012 #61
whathehell Jan 2012 #72
zipplewrath Jan 2012 #77
whathehell Jan 2012 #78
arely staircase Jan 2012 #86
zipplewrath Jan 2012 #96
LanternWaste Jan 2012 #63
whathehell Jan 2012 #74
LeftishBrit Jan 2012 #80
whathehell Jan 2012 #83
KamaAina Jan 2012 #67
muriel_volestrangler Jan 2012 #68
harmonicon Jan 2012 #57
whathehell Jan 2012 #59
harmonicon Jan 2012 #60
whathehell Jan 2012 #73
arely staircase Jan 2012 #87
Agent William Jan 2012 #89
harmonicon Jan 2012 #90
dmallind Jan 2012 #5
Charlemagne Jan 2012 #7
Glorfindel Jan 2012 #9
whathehell Jan 2012 #12
muriel_volestrangler Jan 2012 #14
whathehell Jan 2012 #15
muriel_volestrangler Jan 2012 #20
whathehell Jan 2012 #34
muriel_volestrangler Jan 2012 #45
whathehell Jan 2012 #46
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #30
whathehell Jan 2012 #39
whathehell Jan 2012 #51
dmallind Jan 2012 #18
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #29
whathehell Jan 2012 #37
whathehell Jan 2012 #38
MattBaggins Jan 2012 #24
Fokker Trip Jan 2012 #65
Fool Count Jan 2012 #23
whathehell Jan 2012 #48
bemildred Jan 2012 #6
Voltaire Jan 2012 #8
MicaelS Jan 2012 #56
jwirr Jan 2012 #11
JaneQPublic Jan 2012 #13
MADem Jan 2012 #17
Boudica the Lyoness Jan 2012 #33
whathehell Jan 2012 #43
Charlemagne Jan 2012 #53
MADem Jan 2012 #55
dmallind Jan 2012 #19
MADem Jan 2012 #16
dipsydoodle Jan 2012 #25
T_i_B Jan 2012 #44
ikri Jan 2012 #62
T_i_B Jan 2012 #75
dipsydoodle Jan 2012 #27
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #31
craigmatic Jan 2012 #28
T_i_B Jan 2012 #40
Guy Whitey Corngood Jan 2012 #64
Hugabear Jan 2012 #66
muriel_volestrangler Jan 2012 #71
Charlemagne Jan 2012 #69
MichaelMcGuire Jan 2012 #76
whathehell Jan 2012 #79
MicaelS Jan 2012 #82
T_i_B Jan 2012 #91
DavidDvorkin Jan 2012 #81
MicaelS Jan 2012 #84
DavidDvorkin Jan 2012 #85
T_i_B Jan 2012 #92
DavidDvorkin Jan 2012 #94
ozone_man Jan 2012 #88
muriel_volestrangler Jan 2012 #97
tabasco Jan 2012 #98

Response to steaa (Original post)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 03:23 PM

1. Scotland cannot legally hold such a poll of its own volition

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 03:32 PM

2. Exactly

The Scotland act does not devolve constitutional matter to Holyrood and as such it is for Westminster to decide if and when.

The SNP are being incredibly dishonest over this proposal. They know that they won't win right now and they want to tie the referndendum in with the anniversary of the battle of Bannockburn in an orgy of anti-English jingoism.

Plus the SNP can always indulge in some anti-Tory dogwhistle politics due to the mess the Tories made of Scottish issues when they were last in power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 06:36 PM

22. Yeah, what a rotten dishonesty. Politicians want to win a referendum

 

on a question which is only the basic tenet of their whole program. How dare they.
They should pick the worst time and lose - that would be "honest". Though I take no
position on the principal issue here, Cameron has to face reality - there is no practical
way to force Scottish government to hold the referendum sooner or to hold it without
their cooperation. They will do it on their own terms regardless and any awkward attempts
to undermine the legitimacy of the process via some half-baked "clarity law", like was
done in Canada, will only play into the separatists' hands. Cameron better focus on
getting the economy back on track and winning that referendum in 2014. It's not like
he won't have his PR machine backed up by a set of solid arguments in favor of unity
and receptive to those arguments Scottish public then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fool Count (Reply #22)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:17 AM

42. If the case for Independence is so strong.....

Then they should stop acting like a bunch of chickenshits and be prepared for a referendum at any time or place.

And again, Constitutional issues have NOT been devolved to the Scottish Parlaiment, so whether you like it or not it is for Westminster to decide. If the Scots hold a referendum without the consent of Westminster it will not be legally binding. Only a referendum sanctioned by the Houses of Parliament in London will.

May I suggest reading the Scotland Act 1998 before mouthing off in future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #42)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 05:00 PM

70. Act-shmact, the referendum will be held in 2014, because that's what the Scottish

 

government wants and that's the end of it. Cameron better get on with the program,
because dumb-ass legalistic obstructionism is the surest way to the loss after which
no one will give a toss what some irrelevant Westminster act says.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fool Count (Reply #70)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 08:21 AM

93. I wonder how you would like it....

...if the deep South decided to tear up the US constitution for thier own convenience, because that is what Alex Salmond is essentially trying to do here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #93)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 12:15 PM

95. I wouldn't give a toss. I am Canadian.

 

We went through much the same thing with the Quebec referendum. That's how I know
that it is utterly futile for the unionists to appeal to constitutional legality, adopt
"clarity laws" or use the central government's authority in any way to sabotage the
conduct of referendum. It only hardens the separatists and might annoy just enough
moderate sovereignists to sway the whole thing. Ultimately, it is the decision for the
people of Scotland, just as it was for the people of Quebec. The only way to keep them
in is to show that the central government respects their sovereign will and is not just
obsessed with its own survival. Then the majority may not mind continuing to accept
such authority as not entirely antagonistic to their national aspirations. There is a very
simple dialectics going on here really - the less badly you want to keep them in, the
less badly they want to leave. And vice versa. Just a friendly advice. You are not
the first in such circumstance. Canadian unity faced much direr odds, still it survived.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steaa (Original post)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 03:34 PM

3. Yes We Can

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlemagne (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 03:42 PM

4. About your sig line

In todays America at least; they would call you a communist either way, all while clutching a bible no less.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MattBaggins (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 05:41 PM

10. Not this American..

Being of Irish descent, I never fully understood why the Scots didn't kick out the Brits

the way the Irish did.

I believe in self-determination for all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 06:32 PM

21. they did try

just were never successful at it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maine-ah (Reply #21)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:13 AM

41. Yup, so they're trying again -- Good for them

and I don't understand how people who supposedly believe in "self-determination"

have a problem with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 08:40 PM

26. And the Irish still don't have them kicked ALL the way out! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #26)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 07:51 AM

35. I know, but they appear to be farther along than Scotland.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 02:09 AM

32. Wha the hell...

 

I ask, what the fuck?

I think the people of California should kick the Americans out.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Boudica the Lyoness (Reply #32)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 07:57 AM

36. Um, no.

the people of California ARE Americans, demographically and historically indistinguishable from

the rest of Americans -- You can't say that about Scotland vs. England

For reasons explained, Scotland vs. the UK is completely unlike

"California vs. the US". or "Northern USA vs. Southern USA".


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #36)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 09:20 AM

47. You'd be hard pressed to prove that assertion

The demographics of California have always been far more culturally diverse than Scotland has been compared to England in the last 200 years. Lately, it has been getting more so, not less.

Scotland is for Scotland to decide, and let them have at it. But I was sitting at a pub in Reath one evening with a Scot and an English guy who were "sucking the piss" (IIRC) out of each other over their supposed "differences". They jokingly asked me to "weigh in" and I told them that as far as I was concerned the cover on their passorts were the same color. Furthermore I asked them for 3 differences that an external observer could see between the two. Pints and interest may have been their primary obstacle, but they had a hard time coming up with one, much less 3.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #47)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 09:28 AM

49. Not really...The point is, the demographics of California

are not "culturally diverse" relative to the rest of the US, and that's what we're talking about,

not it's cultural diversity relative to Scotland.

In any case, I agree that "Scotland is for Scotland" to decide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #49)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 09:34 AM

50. Spend a week in NYC, Iowa, and LA

Then come back and make that claim. You'll have a hard time in chunks of LA even using english to communicate. When I throw in Miami and Billings, Montana, it will only get worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #50)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 09:44 AM

52. Please...I've already done that!

As for LA, and use of English, that's mainly an issue of immigration, most of it illegal...Seems they

are having similar problems in the UK and other parts of western Europe.

Point: There are geographic and cultural differences in the US, but

historically, we have always been one nation, with no particular demographic

differences. Apart from a couple of states in the Southwest,

which saw wars with the Spanish colonizers, every state entered

into the union freely...That's apparently not the case of

England and Scotland, but btw, I'd be happy to let certain parts

of the US (like the South) go, if we could agree to certain things,

like a common defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #52)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 10:55 AM

54. For various values of "always"

Not sure how one describes "always" in the US considering the westward expansion. We've only been 50 states since post WWII. The US was in a constant state of expansion since its founding. And virtually all of that was at the point of a gun in one way or another. The Indian Wars. The Spanish American War. The Mexican American War. The Texas Rebellion. Not to mention innumerable skirmishes including the hunt for Poncho Via among others. Heck, when Lewis and Clark go exploring, they meet the Indians out west and the first thing they want is guns, which he wouldn't arrange for them. He did ask for their "loyalty" to the President.

Westward expansion was enabled greatly by the proliferation of "forts" in the west maitained by the army (a legacy they live with to this day). Albeit many of them appeared to be more locations of commerce than defense (or offense for that matter). By the time the states are being admitted into the union "freely" they had already been "conquered" by the US federal government, and the only folks basically allowed to "vote" were white men of european descent.

And the quite diverse population of California is such that there is no "majority". And the VAST majority of them aren't "illegals", especially the asians. And you'll find the same language issues in China town that you'll find in areas of LA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #54)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 12:51 PM

58. Limitations on "always" are not limited to the United States or anywhere else, as a matter of fact.

So if you want to start talking about the indigenous peoples of the US,

you'll have to start talking about Australia and the Aboriginals and the fine way they were treated

by emmigrants from the UK.

If you'd like to go further back, we'll have to start speaking of Angles, Saxons and Jutes,

and of course we can't leave out the celts of Wales, Ireland, and of course, Scotland.

"We've only been 50 states since post WWII"

Yes, before that we were a mere 48.

I think the larger point is that California, unlike Scotland, isn't interested in seceeding.

As for China Town, you might be interested in my personal story here: As a non-asian who

once worked in a Chinese restaurant for a couple, born and raised in "Chinatown", I can tell you that they

both spoke English well, thank you, as did their American-born kids.

As a third generation American whose grandparents spoke no English when they arrived,

but learned shortly after, I think I can attest to the fact that it's a rare American

who goes his or her whole life here without learning English.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #58)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 01:21 PM

61. I agree

The myth of the current anti-immigrant crowd is "these people never learn english". Quite the opposite, they follow the same progression as virtually every other immigrant group. The first generation, usually already well into adulthood, maintains weak, if any, english skills. The next generation, even if they weren't born here, usually learns both languages, and are truly bilingual. The subsequent generations slowly lose the original language. What is slightly different right now is that there has been a fairly consistent, long term immigration of latin based languages into the US, covering several generations. The result is that we "hear" an almost constant community of nonenglish speakers. And there is some (not as much as claimed) retention among the 3rd generation of the original language (probably closer to "spanglish" actually).

The original point however had to do with the similarities, culturally and economically speaking, between the California situation, and Scotland. In both cases there isn't much to compare. California is much more significantly "different" from the entire country east of the Mississippi (save significant chunks of Florida) than Scotland is from England. (Quite honestly, N.I. is "more different" than Scotland is). Economically, California is a "legitimate" economy in its own right, and would be a significant loss to the US, and a major player on the world stage (probably qualifying for G20 status). Scotland, not so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #61)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 07:50 PM

72. ........

"The original point however had to do with the similarities, culturally and economically speaking, between the California situation, and Scotland. In both cases there isn't much to compare. California is much more significantly "different" from the entire country east of the Mississippi (save significant chunks of Florida) than Scotland is from England. (Quite honestly, N.I. is "more different" than Scotland is). Economically, California is a "legitimate" economy in its own right, and would be a significant loss to the US, and a major player on the world stage (probably qualifying for G20 status). Scotland, not so much".

The original point was the "difference" between California and the rest of America versus the difference between Scotland and England.

California -- actually the Pacific Northwest, overall, is "different" than much of the rest of the country, but then the "heartland" states of Nebraska, Iowa, and the Dakotas are also "different" in their own rights, so it's hard to point to "California" as being
uniquely "different".

More importantly, the Scots, or at least a significant number of them, seem to disagree on this "we're all one" notion,

and I'd say it's their opinion, more than yours or mine at least, which is at issue here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #72)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 10:24 AM

77. I said at the outset

I said originally that this was for the UK/Scotland to decide. I was merely commenting upon the hypothetical comparison to California and the relative diversity and variation in culture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #77)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 11:38 AM

78. Whatever, Zip. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #61)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 08:59 PM

86. do you have a source for the generational progressions of language aquisition?

i'm sure it's right and i've heard it before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #86)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 12:27 PM

96. Nah

I could probably find one somewhere if I looked long enough. Some of this came out about 10 years or so ago when they were having trouble finding people in Miami who were bilingual in spanish. Seems odd right? Problem was, the 3rd generation kids spoke something, but it wasn't really any specific spanish language. "Spanglish" would be the best discription. That's fine if you're going to be working with a specific population of immigrants. But if you are an international firm looking for people to communicate with native speakers in another coutnry, you actually need to be able to read, write, and speak the language "correctly".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #49)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 03:12 PM

63. Hence the lack of any substantial cultural difference between the Northern states and the Southern s

 

Hence the lack of any substantial cultural difference between the Northern states and the Southern states in 1861?

(Might I suggest 'Up From Slavery' by BT Washington, and 'Confederates in the Attic' by Tony Horwitz if you do indeed believe that to be the case?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #63)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:10 PM

74. It depends on your view of "substantial"

The major ones concern the differences between a primarily agrarian versus a more Industrial society

and of course, the existence and legality of slavery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #36)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 12:18 PM

80. Note that our former Prime Minister Brown is Scottish

and both our other recent Prime Ministers, Blair and Cameron, have Scottish names so are of partly Scottish descent. (As I am.)

The Scots have a right to independence if a majority wants it -I doubt that they will, to be honest; but that doesn't make England and Scotland more diverse than say California and Mississippi.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftishBrit (Reply #80)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 06:18 PM

83. I never said there was some huge "discrimination" being foisted on the Scots.

I simply said that that I believe in self-determination.

Having said that, England vs. Scotland and California vs. Mississippi

is a poor analogy for historic, political and cultural reasons.

For a better, more knowledgeable discussion on Scottish independence,

you might want to talk to the only self-defined Scotsman on this thread, Mr. McGuire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Boudica the Lyoness (Reply #32)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 03:49 PM

67. A better analogy would be Hawai'i

 

exchange 1898 for 1745.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #67)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 04:08 PM

68. No; that's a really bad analogy

First, 1745 was the date of the final section of a civil war - the (Catholic) House of Stuart wanting to get back the throne they'd been chucked off, in favour of the (Protestant) House of Hanover (note that the line of succession of the House of Hanover came from James VI of Scotland, who had become James I of England too). 'Bonnie Prince Charlie' wanted to rule all of Britain (and Ireland too), not just Scotland. He had strong support in the Scottish Highlands, but not all over Scotland - it's a cliche to note that, in the final battle at Culloden, there were more Scots on the Hanoverian side than the Jacobite.

The monarchies of England and Scotland were united, in James VI/I, in 1603. The countries were united in 1707 (still under the House of Stuart - the Protestant branch of it, which dies out shortly after). As I've said below, this did involve bribery of Scottish politicians; it was basically a financial transaction - the Scottish upper classes were paid off, and it meant England never had to worry about a land border again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 12:32 PM

57. The Scots are the Brits.

Britain is England, Scotland, and Wales. England and Scotland were united in a partnership - one didn't take over the other, so there isn't anyone to kick out. Wales and Ireland, on the other hand, were conquered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #57)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 12:52 PM

59. Apparently, they don't agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #59)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 01:20 PM

60. Huh? No, I'm pretty sure all parties involved understand historical fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #60)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:03 PM

73. Perhaps, but they seem to interpret them differently

Hence the existence of Scottish Nationalism and the desire on the part of many to secede.

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AvXoMzkE_gk3ZfTQjdFz8A6mN3wV?p=sources+of+scottish+nationalism&fr=att-portal-s&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #57)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 09:07 PM

87. and whether they will remain so after 2014 is precisely what the referendum will decide

if that referendum fails another will pass sooner or later. scottish independence will happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #87)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 10:09 PM

89. I wouldn't count on it. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #87)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 11:30 PM

90. That has nothing to do with what I was posting about.

Someone asked about them kicking out "the brits". There wouldn't be any "brits" if England and Scotland weren't united.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steaa (Original post)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 03:44 PM

5. Not sure why this is a threat to London

Even if you apportion North Sea oil revenue geographically rather than per capita (IOW Scotland gets almost all of it, regardless of origin of capital invested) Scottish tax revenue compared to expenditure in Scotland is a net loss - it costs the UK about $40MM a year to have Scotland be a part of it.

Full disclosure - England born, Scotland educated. No problem with either, but this a "the South should secede" situation by US analog - when the area gets far more $$ from the nation as a whole than they send to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 03:52 PM

7. +1

 

well stated

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 05:15 PM

9. You are exactly right about the American south...

I'm a native Georgian living and working in Mississippi, and despite the wails and protestations of many (if not most) Mississippians, the state wouldn't last 20 minutes without the support of the US Federal Government. The same is true for most of the rest of the south. I'll never be able to figure out why (for example) New Yorkers are willing to pay tolls for bridges, tunnels, highways, etc., while subsidizing the very same services for free in the south. I have both English and Scots ancestry, so I wish them all very well indeed and hope they can come to an amicable agreement, whatever form it takes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glorfindel (Reply #9)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 05:50 PM

12. But I'm not sure "the American South" vs. the American North" is really analagous

to the situation here.

If I'm not mistaken, Scotland was an independent country with it's own culture BEFORE England colonized them.

The American South, like the rest of the country after the American Revolution, was always part of America. It was never "independent"

and it is not comprised of people of different ethnic ancestry and culture (whatever they might tell you about the the latter)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #12)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 06:00 PM

14. There was no 'colonization'

The Scottish king succeeded to the English throne in 1603, thus uniting the crowns; in 1707, after a Scottish financial disaster caused by failing to colonise Panama, England suggested united the Parliaments and the countries unite - which, with some bribery of the Scottish politicians, they agreed to. The ethnic difference of Scotland from England is cloudy; the lowlands, where the majority of Scots live, were speaking a branch of English long before any attempt by England to make them part of one country, and before what is now Scotland was unified. Scotland had significant Anglo-Saxon heritage a thousand years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #14)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 06:10 PM

15. Okay, but the bribery of the Scottish politicians

and the stories of William Wallace, etc., tell me that, overall, the Scots weren't exactly happy with the unification.

I wonder if the "highlanders, lowlanders" thing is in any way like the "Plantation of Ulster" in Irish history.

After the War of Independence, the Brits held onto the the north, and said that NI wanted to remain with the UK, but England

gerrymandered the traditional Irish province of Ulster to ensure that it would have a protestant majority, largely descended from those

"plantation" folk, who would agree to the union.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #15)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 06:30 PM

20. No, not like the plantation of Ulster

There were significant numbers of incomers to what is now Scotland from about 500AD onwards from Ireland (the Scots), from what is now the Danish-German border (Anglo-Saxons), and, a little later, the Vikings from Denmark and Norway. The Britons and Picts who were already there got rather swamped. By about 1000, a kingdom approaching the modern borders of Scotland was emerging, with the Scots and Anglo-Saxons having had the most influence - the Scots in the highlands, the Anglo-Saxons in the lowlands. England itself only emerged after 900AD from individual earlier kingdoms, and the Scottish kingdom was strong enough to stop any further attempts at unification (unlike, say, Cornwall).

The powerful lowland nobles had extensive lands and relations in England (eg the family of Robert the Bruce, winner of Bannockburn). But there has never been any period of a policy of moving people from England to Scotland to change the demographics.

The people of Scotland may or may not have been happy about the Union - but it wasn't a democracy (just as England wasn't). Think of it as bribing the board of one company to agree to a takeover by another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #20)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 07:49 AM

34. Okay, great

but if they now want to separate, what's the problem?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #34)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:41 AM

45. No problem if they do want independence

But whether the majority of Scots do want full independence is highly questionable - so there's a lot of politicking about exactly what question will be asked (simple 'yes' or 'no', or a 3rd option of 'Devo Max' - maximum devolution, but not complete independence - in the referendum too), when it will be asked (the SNP favours a later date, possibly because there isn't yet a majority in favour of independence), and who will be asked (the SNP has proposed that 16 and 17 year olds should get to vote too).

Most recent poll:

Some 54 per cent of people in Scotland questioned by Ipsos Mori for the thinktank British Future said they wanted to stay in the Union, against just 29 per cent who backed independence.

The poll, released as the government set out its position on the terms of any referendum on independence, also showed similar majorities in both England and Wales in favour of Scotland staying in the UK.

According to the survey, voters north of the border are slightly more enthusiastic about preserving the Union than people in England or Wales.

Some 48 per cent of those questioned in England backed the Union, against 27 per cent who supported independence for Scotland. In Wales, 41 per cent wanted Scotland to stay in the UK, while 29 per cet said it should become independent.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/01/10/scottish-independence-poll-scots-want-to-stay-in-britain_n_1196464.html


Poll details: http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/2901/British-Future-State-of-the-Nation-Poll.aspx

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #45)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:56 AM

46. Well, it's an interesting situation.

Last edited Wed Jan 11, 2012, 12:59 PM - Edit history (2)

About three years ago, I was in Europe and part of a group which

contained two Englishmen talking about English-Scots relations.

I don't have the time to go into all the details now,

but from what I heard, (and not only from these two)

there does seem to be some bad blood between the two

One Englishman, an older man who worked

for the European Union complained to the other: "You know,

I like Scotland, I have cousins in Scotland, but every time I

go over there, I get nothing but abuse"!

They then went on to discuss the question of Scots Independence

concluded that if they were, in their words "acting like children"

they should be treated like children"....They did seem quite patronizing,

concluding also, that "They don't want to work",

a traditional, seemingly universal accusation one hears

all over the world from people putting down others, whom they don't like

for various reasons, lol.

It was all quite interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #15)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 01:41 AM

30. The Mel Gibson movie was a highly fictionalized version of an old conflict, not the present.

 

There's been so much intermarriage between the Scots and the Brits that the animosity that existed in William Wallace's time (as described by Mel Gibson) no longer exists.

If a person is a Harland, for example, are they Irish? Scot-Irish? Scottish? English? Who can honestly tell?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #30)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:08 AM

39. Really?.....Apparently the Scots related to it...I understand when it premiered

in Scotland, some titled Englishman was jeered out of the theatre.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #14)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 09:35 AM

51. More like "conquest and co-optation", then.

My understanding is that the Scottish nobles were "bought off", so to speak,

with land in England given to them.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #12)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 06:25 PM

18. Union came before Plymouth Rock did - and the Scottish king took over England, not vice versa

Colonization is not true either - just a change in where the taxes went and where the spending came from. Movement between Scotland and Ebgland has been free for many centuries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #18)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 01:32 AM

29. Absolutely. And the royal lineage after Elizabeth I to the present is from Mary, a Scot.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #29)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:00 AM

37. Yeah, with more than a bit of German in there as well, I understand, but the point is

they now want to consider separation, so what's the problem?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #18)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:05 AM

38. Well aware of that, but what does "Plymouth Rock" have to do with the UK at this point?

and it seems the Scots, at least those who support the SNP, think the situation to be

more than a question of "just a change in where the taxes went and where the spending came from".

So what's the problem?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glorfindel (Reply #9)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 06:51 PM

24. As a NYer I am about at my wits end

I play online games and we talk to each other with headsets online. One of our Aussie guild members was asking about work issues here in the states and of course one of the Red Staters had to puff out his chest and say "we don't put up with that union bullshit in our state". I almost broke my teeth from grinding them so hard as not to pounce on that bullshit.

The "right to work" states can get away with their crap because they rob us blue staters blind all the while wagging their fingers at us. We subsidize their cheap labor and they throw it in our faces.

Really it's the finger wagging that makes me want to grab their throats and throttle them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MattBaggins (Reply #24)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 03:32 PM

65. Yeah online games can be crazy in the differing politics mashed together.

 

I was completely shocked to hear the near constant use of the N***** word while playing a modern COD game online. It was unbelievable. They sounded exceedingly white, in their late teens and early twenties and were completely full of a casual kind of (seemingly to them) acceptable hate. I'm Canadian and we have racial issues as well, but I've never heard that word spoken in person by a white person, never.

I stopped playing that game immediately and went to another and that was great (left 4 dead 2, maybe because its coop?)

Politics is another issue that can get very heated very fast, its such a mashup of people globally. That makes it really fun but also can make it hard to take.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 06:48 PM

23. The Scotts may have other considerations beside the net revenue flow,

 

which in their mind may be exactly the result of London's mismanagement. In any case,
they may think it is a small price to pay for not being ruled by the Tory clowns. For
instance, they may aspire to build a compact social democratic welfare state after
example of their Scandinavian neighbors, which is impossible within the UK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 09:24 AM

48. Just one thing, in reference

to your US analog "The South should secede"...Right, in the sense, that the south of the US does

get more from the nation than they send into it.

I, for one, would be HAPPY to see the South secede from the union, as long as we

could agree on certain basics, like providing for a common defense.

Generally speaking, the South, IMO, is insular, backward, overly religious

and conservative....I would not be alone in gladly waving buh bye.

Unfortunately, such a split would violate the U.S. Costitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steaa (Original post)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 03:49 PM

6. Good. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steaa (Original post)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 04:41 PM

8. Welcome news

I had the good fortune to be stationed in Scotland twice while I was in the Navy and did my Masters thesis on the issue of Scots Independence. So I watch this with great interest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voltaire (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 11:11 AM

56. Precisely WHY do the Scots want Independence?

And what do they hope to get out of it?

Are they going to have their own independent military? Are they going to join NATO?

What about the money, who are the real financial winners and losers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steaa (Original post)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 05:43 PM

11. It would be interesting to see the results. I love Scotland's history but don't want to see much of

it repeated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steaa (Original post)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 05:53 PM

13. Related Issue: Northern Ireland approaching Catholic majority

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0104/1224309780877.html

THE BRITISH and Irish governments and the people of Northern Ireland are facing the prospect – and sooner than most people might think – of how to manage a transformed constitutional situation where the majority in the North are likely to be from a Catholic background.

It’s going to raise serious questions for southerners too, who must also address complex constitutional problems that if not managed properly and creatively could land Northern Ireland – and the rest of the island – back in the mire.

It’s time for the beginning of a calm debate.

The figures are revealed in the statistics: there are now significantly more Catholics than Protestants in nursery, primary, second- and third-level education in Northern Ireland. If that trend continues, and it’s difficult to see a reason why it should not, then in another generation or so the majority population should be Catholic or from a Catholic background – people of voting age, most of whose immediate antecedents are nationalist in their political outlook.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneQPublic (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 06:16 PM

17. They need to give it back. They stole it, and they're being "fucked" out of

their stranglehold--and by fucked, I mean repopulated by the people whose land and heritage they stole in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #17)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 05:40 AM

33. that's because every sperm is sacred..lol

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #17)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:17 AM

43. Agreed. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #17)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 09:55 AM

53. I disagree with you analysis.

 

that is all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlemagne (Reply #53)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 10:58 AM

55. You are free to so do. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneQPublic (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 06:26 PM

19. ....and that would be even more beneficial financially.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steaa (Original post)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 06:13 PM

16. This could get interesting! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steaa (Original post)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 07:14 PM

25. Presumably if they say goodbye to the UK

they'll say goodbye to the NHS at the same time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #25)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:21 AM

44. One major question...

...is whether or not Scotland would join the Euro. I think the SNP may be the only people left who still think that joining the Euro is in any way a good idea.

One thing that is very bizarre about the SNP is they want to take power away from Westminster, which they consider distant and unaccountable, but they want to throw soverignity at the EU, which is even more distant and vastly more unaccountable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #44)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 02:47 PM

62. Not just the Euro but the EU too

There's some talk that countries such as Spain might not be too welcoming of a new devolved country entering the EU considering their own issues with the Basques and the Catalans. If Scotland devolved then there may be a push for devolved government and/or full independence from both regions.

Many of the SNP plans rely on the rest of the UK and other countries playing fair but there's no guarantees that England, Wales and Northern Ireland would allow Scotland to continue to use Sterling as their currency. There are a few UK military bases up in Scotland and there are no guarantees that they'd remain either. North Sea fishing and mineral rights may not simply start at Berwick and negotiations for both could go on for years.

Then throw in potential issues with areas in Scotland like the Shetland Isles who may want their own independence from an independent Scotland.

The SNP seems to have looked at all the good bits of an independent Scotland whilst ignoring the potential bad bits. It could become a real mess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ikri (Reply #62)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 03:42 AM

75. And then there's the nationalised Scottish banks

If Scotland becomes independent then it would be totally unreasonable for the Scottish govenment not to have to deal with the toxic assets of the Scottish banks. The Scots won't be able to simply offload all their problems on us Sassenachs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steaa (Original post)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 08:59 PM

27. England to ask nicely for independence from Scotland

In a direct challenge to Scottish leader Alex Salmond, rebel MPs in Westminster are to debate England’s independence from Scotland later today.

The oppression of the English through harsh accents, highly confrontational ‘man skirts’ and a string of Mel Gibson films has caused many people south of the border to give up hope of ever being recognised as a separate, stroppy tribe.

But all that could be about to change – if the Scottish allow it.

Some English have continued to lead secret lives in pockets of the UK, drinking tea and complaining about the weather behind closed doors.

http://newsthump.com/2012/01/09/england-to-ask-nicely-for-independence-from-scotland/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #27)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 01:46 AM

31. Thanks for the laugh.

 

“ 'It’s going to be a tough debate, that’s for sure', admitted Bradcroft, 'most English MPs are too embarrassed to ask for an interpreter.' "

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steaa (Original post)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 10:26 PM

28. If the Scots leave there's never going to be another Labour government.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to craigmatic (Reply #28)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:11 AM

40. The Tories are actually well aware of this...

...which is why many of them would be quite happy to kick the Scots out of the UK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steaa (Original post)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 03:24 PM

64. FRRREEEEEEEDOOOOM!!!!!! Sorry I had to say it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Guy Whitey Corngood (Reply #64)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 03:46 PM

66. You weren't the only one thinking that...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #66)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 05:43 PM

71. The irony is that 'Wallace' probably means his family were recent migrants to Scotland

Who was William Wallace?

Wallace was the younger son of a Scottish knight and minor landowner. His name, Wallace or le Waleis, means the Welshman, and he was probably descended from Richard Wallace who had followed the Stewart family to Scotland in the 12th century.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/scottishhistory/independence/features_independence_wallace.shtml

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Guy Whitey Corngood (Reply #64)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 04:40 PM

69. a dancing ultra man?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steaa (Original post)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 06:42 AM

76. As a Scot, (may be the only one here) I feel the need to include my input

 

I like the time frame 2.5 years should let people hear all sides, then a vote in autumn of 2014 as in the SNP manifesto i.e. second half of their term. (Which isn't near the date of the battle of Bannockburn thats was in 24 June 1314) It was a Tory 'forgot the name' he was Maggies SoS said so.
The Scottish Government can hold a referendum its been given a mandate, this is important because sovereignty rests with the Scottish people. Unlike England where it rests with parliament. In other words we don't have parliamentary sovereignty in Scots Law. The problem with the Scotland 1998 act is that Westminster has somehow given itself something it has never had i.e. parliamentary sovereignty. In fact the act of union didn't give sovereignty away in fact it rehearses things it can and cannot do.

I don't trust Westminster and the condition's it would like to put on we've been down this road before....



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichaelMcGuire (Reply #76)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 11:41 AM

79. Thanks for your much needed input, Michael. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichaelMcGuire (Reply #76)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 01:33 PM

82. Precisely WHY do the Scots want Independence?

And what do you hope to get out of it?

Are you going to have your own independent military? Army, Navy, Air Force?

Are you going to join NATO? If not, why not?

What about the money, who are the real financial winners and losers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Reply #82)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 08:15 AM

91. Put simply, because many of them don't like the English

Plus Scotland has grown away from the rest of Britain politically since devolution, and Scotland has been treated very badly by the Tories in the past (remember the Poll Tax?) and as such don't always feel represented by the current government who were elected by the whole of the UK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steaa (Original post)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 12:30 PM

81. Assuming this passes and Scotland does become independent

I wonder if it will be the beginning of a wave of breakups of the other large European countries, all of which are cobbled-together unions.

Europe of the Regions may yet happen. One result of that, I'd think, would be a more powerful central government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavidDvorkin (Reply #81)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 07:42 PM

84. "A more powerful central government"?

But isn't that exactly what Scotland supposedly wants their independence to avoid?

Why would a more powerful central government in London be bad, but a more powerful central government in Belgium be acceptable?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Reply #84)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 08:37 PM

85. I'm not saying it's good or bad, only that I think it would be a result

If the EU survived, and if the units making it up became numerous and small due to the larger nations breaking up, then none of the unit would be strong enough to dominate the central government. I think power would increasingly flow to the center.

The old dream of a Europe of the Regions included this kind of setup, as I remember. I think the idea was that it would free up the old ethnic regions of Europe to reassert their old identities safely, protected by the strong overarching structure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavidDvorkin (Reply #85)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 08:19 AM

92. The EU is dominated by Germany and France

If they stay together then they will continue to dominate the central government. No matter what Alex Salmond may fantasise about, were an Independent Scotland to join the Eurozone they would be a small bit player of even less influence then the PIIGS countries and certainly no match for Germany and France.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to T_i_B (Reply #92)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 12:01 PM

94. Indeed, and that's why

a breakup of all the large countries could lead to a Europe of the Regions, but it won't happen if any large, dominant countries remain intact.

I'm just speculating that independence for Scotland might encourage more such breakways -- Bavaria, for example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steaa (Original post)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 09:38 PM

88. Scotland should have independence.

It's time to correct an injustice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steaa (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 01:45 PM

97. Scottish independence: Wales and Northern Ireland make unity plea

The potential consequences of Scottish independence were underlined when David Cameron was told that the UK parliament would need to be overhauled if Scotland broke away from the union.

The first minister of Wales warned that radical changes would have to be made to prevent England dominating a new United Kingdom.

Carywn Jones spoke out at a meeting of the British-Irish Council in Dublin after Salmond appeared to draw a parallel between London's treatment of Scotland and its historic behaviour towards Ireland. The first minister then softened his rhetoric to invite the prime minister and Nick Clegg to Scotland to discuss their plans to accelerate a referendum on Scottish independence.
...
Peter Robinson, the Democratic Unionist first minister of Northern Ireland, launched an impassioned plea for Scotland to remain in the UK.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/13/scottish-independence-wales-northern-ireland

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steaa (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 06:34 PM

98. You shall obey your English masters, knaves!!

 

Fucking Scots deserve slavery for helping the English against Ireland.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread