Scottish independence: Cameron and Salmond strike referendum deal

reply to post by SaltireWarrior

The fact of the matter is Scotland is vastly different to England.

There are many differences - there are more similarities.
We have more things in common than we have that divides us.

We have a much more socialist and open way of thinking than down south

Than parts of 'down south' - but I wouldn't say it's any more so than North East and North West England, or South Yorkshire.

and we would never, ever privatise the NHS or raise tuition fee's

And neither would lots of English, if not the vast majority.

Also to those posters mocking a Scottish army then read this:

Yeah, pretty foolish and damned ignorant and disrespectful.

Because an independent Scotland wouldn't be involved in illegal wars like Iraq.

Are you sure of that?

Do you think the Scottish elite, who will very quickly gain control of an independant Scotland's infrastructure and society, are any less amoral, corrupt and self-advancing than their English / British counter parts?

And you seem to forget that it was a Scotsman who lied to us and led us into an illegal war with Iraq!

In the end of the day my heart says independance,my head says i need to hear the arguments for and against plus try and look into it myself n get an idea who seems to be telling it like it is.

Because the numbers have to work,its got to be viable.

Funny enough so many Scots say their vote is useless cos no one in Scotland ever voted tory (exaggeration there i think cos maybe 3 or 4 folk might of.lol) yet we have Cameron as PM.

Well my local MP is Charles Kennedy who I voted for ask I think he's is in reality just what he protrays on tv butd never in a million years thought there'd be any libdems in government.Not that they are of much use in government anyway.

I'd trust Charles Kennedy whereas Alex Salmond I'm not so sure about.

It'll be an interesting 2 years thats for sure.

As an Englishman who would like an independant England the only way this can be achieved is for Scotland and eventually Northern Ireland and Wales to become fully independant nations. It is arguable but I believe that we subsidise the other 3 countries. However because England has 53m, Wales 3m, Northern Ireland 2m and £5m Scotland any economic gain would be small, perhaps between 5 to 8 percent.

There would be a defence agreement with a joint armed forces. The time zone would probably change as the English would like more daylight in the evening but the Scots are opposed.

And yes the political consequences would be a permanent Socialist Scotland and a Conservative England.

Current polls suggest that only 28% want independance so this is unlikely to happen. I am sure this will rise, can't see it getting to over 50% though.

Originally posted by Dishonored
As an American, I know nothing of what you speak of. I have never seen it nor heard it. So to post an opinion on the matter would be to do so blindly. From what I have read and seen though, the entire UK is all but being overrun with Muslims seeking asylum while people with honest roots are barred entry. If that's what you're speaking of (the Scottish issue aside), it's a problem with the immigration policy.

Erm, what are you going on about? You really need to get out more and check out some proper news sources as we're not being overrun by Muslims

Originally posted by Dishonored
Not one you created? Let's be honest here for a moment, England doesn't exactly have the best history when it comes to peaceful solutions.

Why the singling out of England? Find me a country on earth that doesn't have a bloody past! Jesus...

Originally posted by Dishonored
You can call the woman sitting on your throne a figurehead all you want, but the fact is, the royal family has been anything but a figurehead in times past. There is a brutal and bloody past that dates all the way back to the Roman Empire associated with the English monarch. Such things are not easily forgotten especially when the biggest crimes were committed against your own colonies.

Again, as with pretty much every other nation on the planet, monarchy or not. personally, I think you're turning out to be one of these poorly read Americans who has heard a very biased and twisted version of history, as I said before. Why single out England? I mean, it is flattering that everyone seems to think we're so bloody dangerous, but c'mon....

Originally posted by Dishonored
I wonder then what exactly England is getting out of this deal?

We paid off Scotland's debt and have pretty much kept them afloat ever since. It's only in recent years that the Oil has returned some sense of balance.

Originally posted by Dishonored
And the Scottish have lost their King. The only royalty remaining within the UK is the English Queen. That is why people outside of the UK see England as the head of the union. Now I can't speak for the Scots, but that in itself would be something that bothered me personally.

You clearly don't understand. There is no English Queen, hasn't been since Liz I. A Scottish King inherited the English throne and from that point, we were united, further cemented by the Act of Union while a descendent of that Scottish king sat on both thrones.

Originally posted by Dishonored
America never had a King. The only King we ever had tried to kill us.

Yet more twisted history. I think you'll find the War of Independence was started by Rich landowners in the US objecting to paying taxes to the British (not English) Government.

Originally posted by Dishonored
With that said, is it really such a surprise that a Scottish King ascended to the throne? Since Billy the Bastard on you've had nothing but either Norman or German royalty. Say what you want about the Scots, and I'll be blunt, at least they have stayed true to their roots.

Again, displaying an astounding level of ignorance on the matter. The Scottish monarchy was Norman descendent as well!!

Originally posted by Dishonored
Does it really matter who the PM is? I mean, honestly, does it really matter? You still have your German Queen sitting on the throne. If I were English (which I technically am considering I have English blood), I'd much rather have a Scot on the throne than a German. Then again, she's only a figurehead right? ...yet she means so much.

She isn't German any more than you are English. You might have English ancestors, but that doesn't make you English, or even Scottish. You know nothing about the culture, history, the people..anything. You cannot claim to be either.

Originally posted by Dishonored
So what is the point of the union then? I still don't understand what England gets out of this deal aside from, well, control and stability.

Security. Prior to the Union, Scotland (majority Catholics back in the day) had a habit of ganging up with the continent (Catholics) against England (Protestant)

Originally posted by Dishonored
The English get the bad name for it because English royalty has a bad reputation. At the end of the day, one has to realize what has been done in the name of your monarch.

Again, look at any other nation in the world. Look what is being done in your name by the US Government. Doesn't mean I am going to tar all Americans with the same brush though, nor hold a grudge for things done centuries ago. And once again, much of the Empire was done under the British flag, with Scots happily going along with it.

Originally posted by fastbob72
In the end of the day my heart says independance,my head says i need to hear the arguments for and against plus try and look into it myself n get an idea who seems to be telling it like it is.

Because the numbers have to work,its got to be viable.

Funny enough so many Scots say their vote is useless cos no one in Scotland ever voted tory (exaggeration there i think cos maybe 3 or 4 folk might of.lol) yet we have Cameron as PM.

Well my local MP is Charles Kennedy who I voted for ask I think he's is in reality just what he protrays on tv butd never in a million years thought there'd be any libdems in government.Not that they are of much use in government anyway.

I'd trust Charles Kennedy whereas Alex Salmond I'm not so sure about.

It'll be an interesting 2 years thats for sure.

I lived in Aberdeen for 10 years, at a time when Charles Kennedy was starting his political career. Even then I remember thinking "there stands a future PM", I even voted for the first time because of him. I would be interested to know what his stance is on Scotlands independence....do you happen to know please?

As a Welsh woman with Scottish ancestry on the other half, I am what you could call a true Celt. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Scotland can make their independence work. Scotland has its own unique energy, as do all other countries I hear you cry. Yes, I agree BUT Scotlands energy can be quite formidable, and until the Scotts themselves can recognise and unite under this energy, its Independence if achieved will fail. It's the nature of the Celt, if they are not fighting somebody else, they fight amongst themselves.....such a shame.

Rainbows
Jane

Originally posted by stumason
Erm, what are you going on about? You really need to get out more and check out some proper news sources as we're not being overrun by Muslims

This is arguing just to argue. Your own immigration policy says different.

Why the singling out of England? Find me a country on earth that doesn't have a bloody past! Jesus...

Because this thread is about the UK...

Again, as with pretty much every other nation on the planet, monarchy or not. personally, I think you're turning out to be one of these poorly read Americans who has heard a very biased and twisted version of history, as I said before. Why single out England? I mean, it is flattering that everyone seems to think we're so bloody dangerous, but c'mon....

Biased and twisted history is it? I've read through a bit of your posts, as well as the other well meaning "Englishmen" posting in this thread. Trust me when I say, the words biased and twisted history know no bounds.

We paid off Scotland's debt and have pretty much kept them afloat ever since. It's only in recent years that the Oil has returned some sense of balance.

And that makes them your lapdogs for the rest of eternity?

You clearly don't understand. There is no English Queen, hasn't been since Liz I. A Scottish King inherited the English throne and from that point, we were united, further cemented by the Act of Union while a descendent of that Scottish king sat on both thrones.

Call her whatever you want. The rest of the world see's her as the Queen of England. Actually, most Brits that I have talked to refer to her as just that.

Yet more twisted history. I think you'll find the War of Independence was started by Rich landowners in the US objecting to paying taxes to the British (not English) Government.

Right... the Brits wanted to go around and wage war with every country on the planet and used the American colonies to fund it. That and of course those British soldiers walking around beating people over the head... couldn't have had anything to do with it right?

She isn't German any more than you are English. You might have English ancestors, but that doesn't make you English, or even Scottish. You know nothing about the culture, history, the people..anything. You cannot claim to be either.

No I just haven't been brainwashed since birth to worship that old inbred hag and defend every crime the crown has ever committed through rose colored glasses. Let's be honest, that woman can do no wrong in your eyes can she? GLORIOUS ENGLAND! The nation with no fault.

Again, look at any other nation in the world. Look what is being done in your name by the US Government. Doesn't mean I am going to tar all Americans with the same brush though, nor hold a grudge for things done centuries ago. And once again, much of the Empire was done under the British flag, with Scots happily going along with it.

Fair enough, but there is no grudge being held. And as I've said, we're in a thread talking about Scottish independence. Of course we're going to talk about British history. It just seems to me, the British are the only people that have a problem with talking about British history. You honestly have the nerve to come in here and tell me that I'm twisting history while you sit there and defend a known tyrant? That I'm somehow the biased one?

reply to post by angelchemuel


I'm would like to hear what his personal belief is on the subject as opposed to the official party line,though it may be exactly the same.

I think theres going to be a lot of talking and campaigning over the next couple of years with both sides making a convincing case either way.

The oil is a finite resource though whoever ends up benefitting from it so I would hope to see a sustainable future that isnt dependant on it because its been one of the main argueing points of independance for years now.

Originally posted by Just Chris
Who actually cares about Scotland anyway, we in England don't?

Do Americans give a two hoots about what Mexico wants? Same thing.

Another ignorant, red pill swallowing narrow minded F***...... go back to sleep frodo before someone comes looking for your ring !!

Originally posted by sapien82
where are these subsidies going , I still pay taxes like everyone else and have bills coming out my eyeballs and havent had a pay rise tied in with inflation in three years due to a pay cut from the public sector as I work for the man !

What exactly are England subsidising ?
lets just remember we all subsidised the banks that put us in this position of financial recession, because of the government thats currently in power in both of our countries
do you not think thats more important and requires more immediate attention than whether or not we should have our own independence ?

Westminster / London , the UK parliament , doesnt give a flying monkeys testicles about anyone other than themselves and possibly the banking industry , they dont care about the londoners or the northener's they are their own little power elite enclave , so why I dont know are so many of those from London still happy with them saying they are keeping us afloat , they arent , they are butt raping us all ! You guys maybe just got the common courtesy of a reach around to keep you happy !

This is the problem why dont people see, are you choosing to ignore this simple truthful fact ?

They are raping us all

The Scots do realise that the last two prime ministers were Scottish? They been running the country for years.

Anyway, I hate the fact the youth have been given the right to vote. They will blindly vote when there are so many things to consider.

- Oil what portion do they get. Also bare in mind how in was funded by the London based BP
- Currency (remain in the sterling or join the EU!)
- Losing the AAA credit rating of the UK
- joining NATO
- joining EU
- How will Scotland defend itself
- If it doesn't join NATO like Ireland, the UK, US will have alarm bells ringing and the ability to join the EU maybe in question also.
- Bailouts for the royal bank of Scotland and Halifax Scotland now owned by Lloyds TSB.
- What percentage of the nations debt will be taken on.
- How will Scotland pay for national debts.
- oil and gas production crashing - 17% last year alone.
- Military, how many current serving military would want to join a SNP military, they joined for a certain lifestyle & benefits
- how will the BBC be divided

Massive topics that could go on all day and these are just the ones I can think off. I don't think it should be left to a referendum where the majority will not have a clue.

Originally posted by Freeborn
Of course matters like free education and prescriptions are important but I suspect they are more a result and a reflection of the nature of the society that provides them.

If I was voting on independance I would be asking myself what offers the best chance for real reform.
Will independance help bring about a government system that offers the people a real say in government or will it simply be replacing one set of corrupt and amoral elite politicians for another set with essentially little change for the vast majority?

Fair point, treading carefully here is a must to avoid the same corrupt powers from gaining control. Even if a fair freedom loving government is established how long would it be before the tentacles of the bildebergs and masonic establishments infiltrate again ?

Knowing this i still believe it is our best and only chance at reform, so with no prejudice harsh or unjust feelings towards our neighbours i really prey for this independence.

Even if we fall flat on our face its our own doing, but to me that road looks a dam sight more appealing than the road we are being led down at the moment. I will stay on topic so i will refrain from ranting about the EU agenda, financial collapse bla bla bla.

The only distaste i have at the moment is for some of the ignorant comments from the english members who have clearly been buying into the smear campaigns and watch too many bbc news reports.

Its a wonder why you think the Scots dont like the English when ignorant fools are plentyfull and rarely hesitate to think before engaging their mouths before their brains.

I genuinely have no ill feelings to our English brothers and sisters but when met with such blind ignorance from regurgitating sheep its hard to stay positive and not let the divisions occur.

Peace.

Originally posted by Dishonored
Fair enough, but there is no grudge being held. And as I've said, we're in a thread talking about Scottish independence. Of course we're going to talk about British history. It just seems to me, the British are the only people that have a problem with talking about British history. You honestly have the nerve to come in here and tell me that I'm twisting history while you sit there and defend a known tyrant? That I'm somehow the biased one?

You realise this was the general practice of colonial rule in Europe. If anything Britain was less harsh then the rest. You only have to look at the Spanish conquistadores. Remember Britain copied the Dutch method of power through trade.

Not sure what that has to do with Scotland and the UK. Scotland have been along side us for centuries.

reply to post by tdk84

The Scots do realise that the last two prime ministers were Scottish? They been running the country for years.

Many Scots conveniently ignore that fact.

Anyway, I hate the fact the youth have been given the right to vote.
They will blindly vote when there are so many things to consider.

It is a SNP policy - which to my mind shouldn't have been introduced until such time the SNP were elected as the government of an independant Scotland.
The opposing arguement is that the SNP have already been elected as leaders of The Scottish Assembly.

As it is a Scottish referendum and it doesn't directly affect the whole of the UK it's entirely their choice, as it should be.

I know many 'adults' who will vote with their heart rather than their head - again, their choice.

- Oil what portion do they get. Also bare in mind how in was funded by the London based BP

BP is a British registered multi-national, it can invest and fund whatever it wishes - it has nothing to do with the UK government etc.
Some of the oil fields are in 'English' territorial waters - whilst an independant Scotland would get most of 'the oil' I very much doubt it will be all of it - that would be some intense negotiating.

- Currency (remain in the sterling or join the EU!)

Sterling is the UK currency, I don't see how an independant Scotland can justify using it - and why would they?

- joining NATO

I guess that will depend who is elected to govern an independant Scotland.

- joining EU

It seems only the SNP are under the misguided illusion that an independant Scotland will receive automatic membership.
Hopefully the Scottish people would get the right to vote on membership and then they would have to apply like any other nation.

- How will Scotland defend itself

Let's be realistic - if Scotland was ever under direct threat we would help them best we could.

What makes me laugh is when people say that Scotland would never need to defend itself as they wouldn't get involved in illegal wars - then conveniently forget that it was a Scotsman would deliberately lied to the UK and led us into an illegal war with Iraq.

- What percentage of the nations debt will be taken on.

A proportionate amount I would assume.

- Military, how many current serving military would want to join a SNP military,

They wouldn't be joining a 'SNP military' they'd be joining a Scottish military.
An independant Scotland wouldn't necessarily be governed by the SNP - elections would take place and if voting history is anything to go by I'd suggest a leftist leaning party somewhat similar to Labour would be elected - but who knows?

- how will the BBC be divided

It wouldn't be - I suppose the BBC's premises etc in Scotland would be sold off and it's employee's made redundant.
Maybe the new government of an independant Scotland would fund a state owned Scottish Broadcasting Company or it will be left to private companies.

Massive topics that could go on all day and these are just the ones I can think off.

The number of issues that would arise are immense - most can not be truly answered until the result of the referendum is known - but in the meantime the discussions will be very interesting.

I don't think it should be left to a referendum where the majority will not have a clue.

What alternative would you propose?
Surely a referendum is the only way Scotland can express it's Right to Self-Determination - or would you prefer a 'knowledgeable' elite to decide?

Originally posted by Dishonored
This is arguing just to argue. Your own immigration policy says different.

You brought it up fella...

Originally posted by Dishonored
Because this thread is about the UK...

Exactly, not England. It's a point we try to get across to some people (usually from the US) who cannot tell the difference, yet you continue to use the two interchangeably while at the same time treating Scotland like an independent entity.

Originally posted by Dishonored
Biased and twisted history is it? I've read through a bit of your posts, as well as the other well meaning "Englishmen" posting in this thread. Trust me when I say, the words biased and twisted history know no bounds.

Do me a favour an point out my "biased and twisted" history, when you see it.

Originally posted by Dishonored
And that makes them your lapdogs for the rest of eternity?

Who says they are our lapdogs? No one, aside from you! They are and have been anything but, like we keep pointing out, they are full and participating members in the Union. You have a very distorted view (likely fuelled by a combination of ignorance and a misty-eyed view of your Scottish roots)

Originally posted by Dishonored
Call her whatever you want. The rest of the world see's her as the Queen of England. Actually, most Brits that I have talked to refer to her as just that.

The rest of the world do, do they? Or is this you desperately trying to justify your position? Anyone in a Commonwealth nation would disagree with you on that point and if anyone else does believe that, it is out of their own ignorance.

Originally posted by Dishonored
Right... the Brits wanted to go around and wage war with every country on the planet and used the American colonies to fund it. That and of course those British soldiers walking around beating people over the head... couldn't have had anything to do with it right?

Actually, at the start of the War of Independence, we had no wars going on and hadn't had one for a few years. Only towards the end of the War with you guys did we have kick off against Holland, which was related to the ongoing War in America anyway.

As for the link you provided, not sure what that has to do with anything... You clearly have a rose-tinted view of the War though, which is to be expected with the particular slant being fed American School children and the highly inaccurate Mel Gibson film about the same. Fact remains, a fair amount of the colonists fought for the British and support for the rebels was not in a majority either. Those that stayed loyal later moved to either Canada or the Caribbean, but I doubt you were even aware of the existence of loyalists

Originally posted by Dishonored
No I just haven't been brainwashed since birth to worship that old inbred hag and defend every crime the crown has ever committed through rose colored glasses. Let's be honest, that woman can do no wrong in your eyes can she? GLORIOUS ENGLAND! The nation with no fault.

Brainwashed? How so? And what crimes am I defending, exactly? I don't believe I have ever denied anything, but I certainly make sure everyone has both sides of the story, unlike your twisted, one sided versions.

Originally posted by Dishonored
Fair enough, but there is no grudge being held. And as I've said, we're in a thread talking about Scottish independence. Of course we're going to talk about British history. It just seems to me, the British are the only people that have a problem with talking about British history. You honestly have the nerve to come in here and tell me that I'm twisting history while you sit there and defend a known tyrant? That I'm somehow the biased one?

Again, this comes back to the fact you use Britain and England interchangeably, while banging on about our "crimes", but in the same breath talk about Scotland like it is another entity entirely and had nothing to do with what Britain did. Yes we did do bad things, but we were the best of a bad bunch, first to stop slavery and actually invested heavily in the local Government, infrastructure and education of the colonies. Why do you think they all have systems in place that mirror the UK? It's the good part of the legacy of Empire, which you choose to ignore.

All I am asking for, if your going to cast aspersions about how evil we are, is you include the Scots as well. Either refer to England specifically and then remain accurate with your accusations (ie; don't blame England for what the UK did), or if you talk about Britain/UK then you must include Scotland in with England when assigning "blame".

reply to post by stumason


I do not wish to continue to go back and forth on this, but I will admit that Scotland is no innocent faction in this if that's what you're looking for. The problem is, we keep moving from different points in history where Scotland and England weren't allies to where they are, and that's why I'd rather mention the nation individually rather than lump them within the UK. But I'm not sure how I can be considered so ignorant for bringing up multiple historical facts. Of course I know that the MAJORITY of the people within the American colonies supported the crown. The point is, you're up here actively defending a known tyrant as if King George did absolutely nothing wrong! That is my problem right now with this conversation.

But as I said, we've strayed far from the original subject and I'd like to wrap this up.

Originally posted by tdk84
The Scots do realise that the last two prime ministers were Scottish? They been running the country for years.

Anyway, I hate the fact the youth have been given the right to vote. They will blindly vote when there are so many things to consider.

- Oil what portion do they get. Also bare in mind how in was funded by the London based BP
- Currency (remain in the sterling or join the EU!)
- Losing the AAA credit rating of the UK
- joining NATO
- joining EU
- How will Scotland defend itself
- If it doesn't join NATO like Ireland, the UK, US will have alarm bells ringing and the ability to join the EU maybe in question also.
- Bailouts for the royal bank of Scotland and Halifax Scotland now owned by Lloyds TSB.
- What percentage of the nations debt will be taken on.
- How will Scotland pay for national debts.
- oil and gas production crashing - 17% last year alone.
- Military, how many current serving military would want to join a SNP military, they joined for a certain lifestyle & benefits
- how will the BBC be divided

Massive topics that could go on all day and these are just the ones I can think off. I don't think it should be left to a referendum where the majority will not have a clue.

Well...a bit left field...but wouldn't this be a prime and unique opportunity for a country as inventive as the scotts are to throw that ^^^^^ 'old rule book' oot tae window, at the very edge of a very high cliff, and start anew and lead the world in some pretty forward and radical thinking and ideas and new inventions?

I did say left field and a bit out there, so please don't bite me

Rainbows
Jane

Originally posted by Freeborn
It is a SNP policy - which to my mind shouldn't have been introduced until such time the SNP were elected as the government of an independant Scotland.
The opposing arguement is that the SNP have already been elected as leaders of The Scottish Assembly.

As it is a Scottish referendum and it doesn't directly affect the whole of the UK it's entirely their choice, as it should be.

I know many 'adults' who will vote with their heart rather than their head - again, their choice.

Your right there, I knew many when it came to the last vote. Voted against labour just because, most now regret, but I digress...

BP is a British registered multi-national, it can invest and fund whatever it wishes - it has nothing to do with the UK government etc.
Some of the oil fields are in 'English' territorial waters - whilst an independent Scotland would get most of 'the oil' I very much doubt it will be all of it - that would be some intense negotiating.

Is that entirely correct? Remember BP wasn't entirely privatised till 1987 and they first struck oil in 1965. If things like national debt are going to be proportionally divided then shouldn't state funded investments?

Lets also not forget how Scotland seems to be putting a lot of emphasis on the black stuff which as I mentioned has dropped production by 17% in the last year alone. This resource is going to be stretched pretty far and that's if its divided the way they in vision, which I doubt.

Sterling is the UK currency, I don't see how an independent Scotland can justify using it - and why would they?

What alternative do they have? No one wants to join the EU as the moment, especially with all the comparable nations with within it that have had major issues like Ireland and Spain (the ticking time bomb). Even if they did join the single currency it ain't happening over night.

Besides were missing the glaring fact that the SNP has said that Scotland would keep sterling if its people voted for independence. Their would be a later referendum for the Euro.

I guess that will depend who is elected to govern an independant Scotland.

True, I think their would be big issues if they didn't... their aren't many countries part of the EU that aren't in Nato, I can only think of Ireland. But the point is Scotland currently have massive contributions, the UK, NATO, Europe and the US are not going to want to see that walk away. Not great for relations of a new country.

It seems only the SNP are under the misguided illusion that an independant Scotland will receive automatic membership.
Hopefully the Scottish people would get the right to vote on membership and then they would have to apply like any other nation.

I doubt it will be that easy, the NATO reason alone is powerful stuff.

Let's be realistic - if Scotland was ever under direct threat we would help them best we could.

What makes me laugh is when people say that Scotland would never need to defend itself as they wouldn't get involved in illegal wars - then conveniently forget that it was a Scotsman would deliberately lied to the UK and led us into an illegal war with Iraq.

And that's what worries me a country that's contributed so much to just pick up and leave. I doubt they would be able to fund to the same levels which would potentially mean piggy backing off us. They will be a big loss. I envision the Scottish being allowed in the British army though.

A proportionate amount I would assume.

I don't see how they will be able to afford such a debt.

They wouldn't be joining a 'SNP military' they'd be joining a Scottish military.
An independant Scotland wouldn't necessarily be governed by the SNP - elections would take place and if voting history is anything to go by I'd suggest a leftist leaning party somewhat similar to Labour would be elected - but who knows?

Yes I was just mocking, 'Scottish military'.

It wouldn't be - I suppose the BBC's premises etc in Scotland would be sold off and it's employee's made redundant.
Maybe the new government of an independant Scotland would fund a state owned Scottish Broadcasting Company or it will be left to private companies.

Do you think? Its one of those great British institutions, Lord Reith?

What alternative would you propose?
Surely a referendum is the only way Scotland can express it's Right to Self-Determination - or would you prefer a 'knowledgeable' elite to decide?

I'm one of those foolish people who thinks they decisions should be left to the wiser 'we' vote in. Quite the contradiction given my views on a % of people voting.

The main point is though, I don't want to see Scotland leave, its a stupid notion, they will be missed. I'm hoping when its comes down to the nitty gritty they will see the negative factors of leaving. We are much stronger united.

reply to post by tdk84

Is that entirely correct? Remember BP wasn't entirely privatised till 1987 and they first struck oil in 1965. If things like national debt are going to be proportionally divided then shouldn't state funded investments?

But to be fair, some of that 'state funded investment' came from Scottish tax payers - the bigger issue will be the division of the oil fields themselves - I really can't see the rest of the UK simply handing over all of them, certainly not those in English territorial waters - I suspect any negotions would be heated and interesting.

What alternative do they have? No one wants to join the EU as the moment.....

Tough.
Don't see how they can claim total independance yet maintain the London centric and controlled Sterling as their currency - that's not independance as far as I can tell.
That's being reliant on someone else - what would Scotland do if Bank Of England policies or the UK governments fiscal and economic policies were contrary to Scotland's - do they really want 'us' controlling 'their' currency?

Besides which, it's looking at it arse about face - it's not really would an independant Scotland want to retain Sterling but rather does the UK want a foreign nation to use it's currency?
What happens if Scotland's economy goes tits up, like it quite easily could, do we want that to be able to effect Sterling?

Even if they did join the single currency it ain't happening over night.

Obviously there will be a transitional period - and what sort of detrimental effect could that have on the Scottish economy?
Already it is reported that investors are reluctant to invest their money in Scotland due to the uncertainty over it's future.

Besides were missing the glaring fact that the SNP has said that Scotland would keep sterling if its people voted for independence.

It's not up to the SNP.

Their would be a later referendum for the Euro.

Well, they'll have to do it pretty damned fast as they won't be part of the UK and will have to apply for membership of the EU.
The SNP are deluding themselves and misleading the Scottish public - it has clearly been stated that an independant Scotland will have to apply for membership just like any other non-member nation and certain, strict criteria must be met.

Regardless of NATO membership the UK would always help protect Scotland - blood is thicker than water.

.....They will be a big loss. I envision the Scottish being allowed in the British army though.

An independant Scotland will be a great loss to The Union - serving military personnel I assume will have a choice to stay or leave.
There is an Irish Regiment and all Commonwealth citizens are able to serve in the UK Armed Services so I don't see any problems if any Scots wish to do so.

I don't see how they will be able to afford such a debt.

Tough - divorce doesn't come cheap.

Do you think? Its one of those great British institutions, Lord Reith?

How can an independant Scotland be part of the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation?

Or is this a case of the SNP cherry picking what parts of being British they want to keep.
Sorry, but independance is independance in my book - all or nothing - and if they have to lose some things they want to keep - tough - we are all adults, we all know you can't have thing's both way's.

I'm one of those foolish people who thinks they decisions should be left to the wiser 'we' vote in. Quite the contradiction given my views on a % of people voting.

Well, i'm a passionate advocate of Direct Democracy and devolved powers within a Federal Union - but that's another discussion altogether.

The main point is though, I don't want to see Scotland leave, its a stupid notion,

Exactly.
I firmly believe that we have strong cultural ties and it will be easier, but not easy, to effect real change if we stand together.
Better Together.

I'm hoping when its comes down to the nitty gritty they will see the negative factors of leaviing

Unfortunately I can see the debate focussing on the few things that divide us rather than the many things that unite us.

But at the end of the day Scotland will do as Scotland see's fit - and that's as it should be - I just wish we ALL had the same opportunity.

A thoughts just occurred to me... I hope this doesn't cause some sort of 'Republic of Scotland' leaving behind a majority who wish to stay in the UK?

I think as it stand the majority want to remain in the Union with greater powers. A little independent state for the minority?

reply to post by tdk84


Who knows.

As I have stated previously, The Shetland and Orkney Islands have already intimated that if they vote against independance but the majority of Scotland votes for independance then they will give serious consideration to requesting to remain within The Union.

How would the UK respond to that - especially considering our stance over The Falklands?

Would any other parts of Scotland follow suit?

How would the rest of Scotland respond?

It would be interesting to say the least.