domroger
Really Dirty Old Man
- Joined
- May 2, 2009
- Posts
- 2,858
oggbashan
Dying Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 56,017
The last King of Scotland became King of England too. That didn't end too well.
As for which way the vote will go?
My guess, and it is only a guess, would be a narrow majority for 'No', followed by another referendum in five to ten years time.
If so called DevoMax - maximum devolution to Scotland within the United Kingdom - is properly done, the desire for independence might reduce over time.
There are good people, and passionately held views, on both sides of the debate. There are also a few assholes on both sides who cannot accept that people disagree with them.
I just hope that Scotland can come together again, whatever the result.
Sean
We'll see.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2005
- Posts
- 96,185
Jim Naughtie was up in Edinburgh last week for The Today Programme interviewing people about the whole debate. There seems to be a lot of bitterness brewing between the sides, miners strike level bitterness.
oggbashan
Dying Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 56,017
I think that bitterness is being fueled by the media, not just the broadcasters, but by social media.
Most of the major players on both sides have behaved in a civilised way, but they cannot control all those apparently supporting them.
Wales?
oggbashan
Dying Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 56,017
Lloyd George knew my father (and almost everyone's wife!).
So, if they want an independent monarchy and they want to go the Stuart/Jacobite way -- Franz of Bavaria or Michael of Albany? (The latter is a total, shameless fraud, but a cool guy.)
oggbashan
Dying Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 56,017
But Franz of Bavaria is a Catholic. That might be unacceptable to an independent Scotland.
U
unregistered
Guest
theAmateur
Virgin
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2014
- Posts
- 28
I just wish we could give Alex Salmond independence and keep the rest of Scotland!
TA
Prince Michael is part of a new "Celtic Christian" church -- one based on the premise that it is an underground survival, not a revival, of the pre-Synod-of-Whitby Celtic Church. I wonder if that would sell any better?
U
unregistered
Guest
NeverEndingMe
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2011
- Posts
- 15,925
Minalick
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2011
- Posts
- 4,987
Indepence is mostly about politicians trying to get the emotional vote because they have an idealistic view that, a) once the smoke clears they will have all the power and b) that all will be sunny and roses once they have what they want.
Not true. Just pisses people off and does nothing good for the economy.
I'm from Quebec, I know of what I speak.
It's hilarious that the pro-indepence people believe they will get to keep it all (currency, economic agreements, resoursces, etc..) from their once-fellow-countrymen.
Nay-nay daft twits.
Not true. Just pisses people off and does nothing good for the economy.
I'm from Quebec, I know of what I speak.
It's hilarious that the pro-indepence people believe they will get to keep it all (currency, economic agreements, resoursces, etc..) from their once-fellow-countrymen.
Nay-nay daft twits.
Scotsman69
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2008
- Posts
- 2,347
Scotland isn't Quebec.
I have a long-running thread on this subject which includes lengthy contributions from Scots, who are rather closer to this subject than most folk, and sheds rather more light on the matter than this one does.
But as to the Trident base: with a YES vote it will go. Everything is in Scotland, other than some weapons development (but not too much, it's far too near London) in Berkshire. And since though it's nominally the home to 'the UK's independent deterrent', all the technology is US-designed and the weaponry is US-designed. Sure, the hulls of the delivery subs were built at Barrow-in-Furness, but there UK content stops. The subs are full of US technology. No UK PM can press the fire button, without the say-so of the US President.
The most realistic way through this (remember Trident is now considered obsolete, and in need of replacement), is that the Scottish Government would negotiate directly with US officials re the run-down programme, nominally giving the RUK Government a place at the table, but the real guts have to be agreed between Scotland, the host nation to the stuff, and the USA, who own the technology.
That would mean a longer withdrawl programme than Scottish public opinion wants, but we're realists. We have good reason for wishing to keep the USA onside; and strangely enough, the USA's strategic interests, and the geographical location of Scotland, not to mention US interests in our offshore hydrocarbons, may well mean that the USA has good reason to be friends with tiny wee Scotland.
The role of England and the RUK? It is unlikely that with Faslane and Coulport gone, and a bill of billions to create a completely new base in SW England, the RUK could afford the additional billions for succesor-to-Trident. Even if the chosen replacement location, somewhere near Falmouth, could be persuaded to host a huge blight to Cornwall's vital tourism, and the largest nuclear target in Europe, just over 200 miles from London, rather than the 400 + miles now. So the probability is that a YES vote in Scotland in less than a week, will one way or another spell the end of the UK's pretence to have 'an independent nuclear deterrent'. Frankly, I can see few English tears being shed over that, once they get over their hangovers in just over a week's time, (other than the extreme Tory right), and look seriously at the economics of the situation.
It will mean that the USA will no longer have a few extra nuclear subs, and a pile of warheads, which are effectively under US control, but for which the US taxpayer doesn't pay a penny. That will upset the US loony right OK, but more thoughtful minds will cope with it. What else can they do? Declare war on tiny wee Scotland? The USA would make enemies throughout the world if it tried that on. And lots of enemies at home amongst the substantial Scots diaspora in the USA.
But the world has changed substantially since the cold-war conception and birth of Trident, and many serious military strategists now believe its replacement would be a white elephant.
So I'm confident that tiny Scotland can negotiate a deal with the mighty US of A. It may take a long, long time, but it's the best option for everyone. Apart from the US loony right, and their strange English equivalents.
Does that at least start to answer your question?
I have a long-running thread on this subject which includes lengthy contributions from Scots, who are rather closer to this subject than most folk, and sheds rather more light on the matter than this one does.
But as to the Trident base: with a YES vote it will go. Everything is in Scotland, other than some weapons development (but not too much, it's far too near London) in Berkshire. And since though it's nominally the home to 'the UK's independent deterrent', all the technology is US-designed and the weaponry is US-designed. Sure, the hulls of the delivery subs were built at Barrow-in-Furness, but there UK content stops. The subs are full of US technology. No UK PM can press the fire button, without the say-so of the US President.
The most realistic way through this (remember Trident is now considered obsolete, and in need of replacement), is that the Scottish Government would negotiate directly with US officials re the run-down programme, nominally giving the RUK Government a place at the table, but the real guts have to be agreed between Scotland, the host nation to the stuff, and the USA, who own the technology.
That would mean a longer withdrawl programme than Scottish public opinion wants, but we're realists. We have good reason for wishing to keep the USA onside; and strangely enough, the USA's strategic interests, and the geographical location of Scotland, not to mention US interests in our offshore hydrocarbons, may well mean that the USA has good reason to be friends with tiny wee Scotland.
The role of England and the RUK? It is unlikely that with Faslane and Coulport gone, and a bill of billions to create a completely new base in SW England, the RUK could afford the additional billions for succesor-to-Trident. Even if the chosen replacement location, somewhere near Falmouth, could be persuaded to host a huge blight to Cornwall's vital tourism, and the largest nuclear target in Europe, just over 200 miles from London, rather than the 400 + miles now. So the probability is that a YES vote in Scotland in less than a week, will one way or another spell the end of the UK's pretence to have 'an independent nuclear deterrent'. Frankly, I can see few English tears being shed over that, once they get over their hangovers in just over a week's time, (other than the extreme Tory right), and look seriously at the economics of the situation.
It will mean that the USA will no longer have a few extra nuclear subs, and a pile of warheads, which are effectively under US control, but for which the US taxpayer doesn't pay a penny. That will upset the US loony right OK, but more thoughtful minds will cope with it. What else can they do? Declare war on tiny wee Scotland? The USA would make enemies throughout the world if it tried that on. And lots of enemies at home amongst the substantial Scots diaspora in the USA.
But the world has changed substantially since the cold-war conception and birth of Trident, and many serious military strategists now believe its replacement would be a white elephant.
So I'm confident that tiny Scotland can negotiate a deal with the mighty US of A. It may take a long, long time, but it's the best option for everyone. Apart from the US loony right, and their strange English equivalents.
Does that at least start to answer your question?
Last edited:
U
unregistered
Guest
Scotsman69
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2008
- Posts
- 2,347
Every historian agrees that the principal Scots motivation for supporting the Treaty of Union in 1707, was access by Scots merchants and traders to English colonies in the Americas. They are rather less clear about what drove the English to support the Union.
I totally fail to see what relevance that has today, over 300 years later.
The harsh economic reality for over thirty years has been that Westminster's total annual tax take from Scotland exceeds total public expenditure in Scotland. Scotland is currently a net contributor to the UK Exchequer, and is NOT in net receipt of subsidies. We subsidise the English.
We'll do fine on our own, thank you. Which is why a majority of Scots will almost certainly vote for independence in less than a week's time, despite a 'dirty tricks' campaign orchestrated from England . And why almost every English Party and politician is desperate to retain the Union, despite, in the case of the Tories, an avowed hatred of subsidising anyone. Whilst claiming, in the teeth of the facts, that England subsidises Scotland.
Do you really think Scots electors are stupid enough to buy that crap? We're not, which is why the yes polls have been climbing steadily.
One example of the 'Dirty tricks'. A week or so ago, the 'better together' alliance of mainly English MPs, with Scots Labour reps thrown in to take the hard knocks; published a claim that 'supermarket prices in Scotland would rise faster after independence'. EVERY MAJOR SUPERMARKET CHAIN with a significant presence in Scotland issued a denial of this, and said Scottish prices would vary with the state of markets, just as English ones will. There was, said ALL the supermarkets, no reason why prices in Scotland should rise faster than in England. Do you think the now-frantic NO campaigners, watching their votes slip with almost every poll, are prepared the facts get in the way of their slipping prospects of victory?
That was a week ago. Yet in a live TV debate tonight, the same proven lies were being quoted as facts, despite the statements of the supermarkets themselves. There is overwhelming media bias against Scottish independence. Only one quality Scottish Sunday paper, campaigns in a level-headed, non-sensational way, for independence. Every other paper campaigns ruthlessly against it, and some are not afraid of using bare-faced lies. Most TV and radio channels claim to be neutral, but for the most part, with some honourable exceptions, clearly are not neutral at all.
Yet in the face of near-universal political and media hostility, and sometimes downright lies, a 65/35 opinion poll majority against independence two years ago, has been gradually slipping to a near-tied vote in most polls in the past week, with one poll showing a 3% lead for independence.
Do you really think the Tories would want to keep Scotland, if they were subsidising us? Scotland returns precisely ONE Tory MP to Westminister. England without Scotland is almost guaranteed a Tory majority for years.
Do you understand now why it's increasingly likely that a majority of Scots are likely to vote next Thursday for independence?
Oh, and I'm a typical Scots traditional Labour supporter. Or was. I am NOT an SNP supporter, far less a member. Like most Scots who will vote YES.
I totally fail to see what relevance that has today, over 300 years later.
The harsh economic reality for over thirty years has been that Westminster's total annual tax take from Scotland exceeds total public expenditure in Scotland. Scotland is currently a net contributor to the UK Exchequer, and is NOT in net receipt of subsidies. We subsidise the English.
We'll do fine on our own, thank you. Which is why a majority of Scots will almost certainly vote for independence in less than a week's time, despite a 'dirty tricks' campaign orchestrated from England . And why almost every English Party and politician is desperate to retain the Union, despite, in the case of the Tories, an avowed hatred of subsidising anyone. Whilst claiming, in the teeth of the facts, that England subsidises Scotland.
Do you really think Scots electors are stupid enough to buy that crap? We're not, which is why the yes polls have been climbing steadily.
One example of the 'Dirty tricks'. A week or so ago, the 'better together' alliance of mainly English MPs, with Scots Labour reps thrown in to take the hard knocks; published a claim that 'supermarket prices in Scotland would rise faster after independence'. EVERY MAJOR SUPERMARKET CHAIN with a significant presence in Scotland issued a denial of this, and said Scottish prices would vary with the state of markets, just as English ones will. There was, said ALL the supermarkets, no reason why prices in Scotland should rise faster than in England. Do you think the now-frantic NO campaigners, watching their votes slip with almost every poll, are prepared the facts get in the way of their slipping prospects of victory?
That was a week ago. Yet in a live TV debate tonight, the same proven lies were being quoted as facts, despite the statements of the supermarkets themselves. There is overwhelming media bias against Scottish independence. Only one quality Scottish Sunday paper, campaigns in a level-headed, non-sensational way, for independence. Every other paper campaigns ruthlessly against it, and some are not afraid of using bare-faced lies. Most TV and radio channels claim to be neutral, but for the most part, with some honourable exceptions, clearly are not neutral at all.
Yet in the face of near-universal political and media hostility, and sometimes downright lies, a 65/35 opinion poll majority against independence two years ago, has been gradually slipping to a near-tied vote in most polls in the past week, with one poll showing a 3% lead for independence.
Do you really think the Tories would want to keep Scotland, if they were subsidising us? Scotland returns precisely ONE Tory MP to Westminister. England without Scotland is almost guaranteed a Tory majority for years.
Do you understand now why it's increasingly likely that a majority of Scots are likely to vote next Thursday for independence?
Oh, and I'm a typical Scots traditional Labour supporter. Or was. I am NOT an SNP supporter, far less a member. Like most Scots who will vote YES.
That's really no way for your mama to talk about you, Seanh.
What an embarrassingly ludicrous statement.
Scotsman69
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2008
- Posts
- 2,347
IMF members include Honduras, Iceland, Luxembourg, and Costa Rica, all much smaller in population than Scotland. (Though Iceland and Luxembourg have higher per capita GDP than we have.)
And Norway, Denmark, Lebanon and Israel, with about the same population as Scotland. Serious and dispassionate economists reckon that an independent Scotland will be about the 14th wealthiest country in the world by GDP per capita, the standard measure of comparative wealth. By contrast, the RUK (England, Wales, and Northern Ireland) will rank about 18th in the world.
Scotland is currently, as part of the UK, an enthusiastic EU member. The English Tories have promised a referendum on EU membership in 2017, and as things look now, with the meteoric rise of anti-EU UKIP eating away the English Tory vote, there is a strong probability that if Scotland remains in the UK, we will be dragged unwillingly out of the EU by 'little Englander' votes.
If we vote for independence, France, Spain and Italy may protract things, fearful of giving encouragement to live separatist movements in their own countries, and especially in Catalonia, which has a referendum on remaining part of Spain very soon. And the Catalan nationalist movement is very strong indeed. But the EU will accept us, though it may take time. Decisions in a multi-national EU always take time.
They will accept us not least because we have by far the lion's share of EU oil and gas reserves in Scottish waters, and Germany especially is currently heavily dependent on Russian oil and gas. Given the situation in Ukraine, through which most of the pipelines to Europe run, that now looks rather less dependable as an energy source than a year or so ago. There are many other reasons why Scotland will be accepted into the EU, but that is perhaps the most obvious.
Currency is an issue. Most Scots wish to stick with the pound: it's NOT England's, it's ours too. So far all three main English parties have said that they won't allow that. That's a con to try to frighten Scots voters to stay in the union. The reality is that Scotland exports a considerably larger part of its per capita GDP than England does, so the pound will be considerably weakened in the long term if Scotland is denied it as a joint currency. So the probability is that in the event of a YES vote, the English politicians will see sense, however grudgingly.
I for one would be very happy for Scotland to join the Euro, but I'm in a minority here on that.
Hope this help you understand a bit better? I have sought to be honest, and not fuzz over tricky issues like the pound, and EU membership.
And Norway, Denmark, Lebanon and Israel, with about the same population as Scotland. Serious and dispassionate economists reckon that an independent Scotland will be about the 14th wealthiest country in the world by GDP per capita, the standard measure of comparative wealth. By contrast, the RUK (England, Wales, and Northern Ireland) will rank about 18th in the world.
Scotland is currently, as part of the UK, an enthusiastic EU member. The English Tories have promised a referendum on EU membership in 2017, and as things look now, with the meteoric rise of anti-EU UKIP eating away the English Tory vote, there is a strong probability that if Scotland remains in the UK, we will be dragged unwillingly out of the EU by 'little Englander' votes.
If we vote for independence, France, Spain and Italy may protract things, fearful of giving encouragement to live separatist movements in their own countries, and especially in Catalonia, which has a referendum on remaining part of Spain very soon. And the Catalan nationalist movement is very strong indeed. But the EU will accept us, though it may take time. Decisions in a multi-national EU always take time.
They will accept us not least because we have by far the lion's share of EU oil and gas reserves in Scottish waters, and Germany especially is currently heavily dependent on Russian oil and gas. Given the situation in Ukraine, through which most of the pipelines to Europe run, that now looks rather less dependable as an energy source than a year or so ago. There are many other reasons why Scotland will be accepted into the EU, but that is perhaps the most obvious.
Currency is an issue. Most Scots wish to stick with the pound: it's NOT England's, it's ours too. So far all three main English parties have said that they won't allow that. That's a con to try to frighten Scots voters to stay in the union. The reality is that Scotland exports a considerably larger part of its per capita GDP than England does, so the pound will be considerably weakened in the long term if Scotland is denied it as a joint currency. So the probability is that in the event of a YES vote, the English politicians will see sense, however grudgingly.
I for one would be very happy for Scotland to join the Euro, but I'm in a minority here on that.
Hope this help you understand a bit better? I have sought to be honest, and not fuzz over tricky issues like the pound, and EU membership.
Last edited:
Scotsman69
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2008
- Posts
- 2,347
Not so, they do, with surprising, even rare, unanimity.
If my statement is so 'embarrassingly ludicrous' perhaps you can name three serious historians of C18 Britain who reach different conclusions?
If my statement is so 'embarrassingly ludicrous' perhaps you can name three serious historians of C18 Britain who reach different conclusions?
Scotsman69
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2008
- Posts
- 2,347
That's just crap Sean. I have friends and neighbours, and family members who intend to vote no. They will remain my friends, neighbours, and family members, whatever the vote.
The media likes to stir up conflict, it makes, they seem to think, more interesting reading/viewing/listening. Sells more papers, attracts more viewers/listeners. It's called market forces. I don't like em, but they're what current UK society lives by.
The reality is that there has been absolutely NO violence so far. A few eggs thrown, sure, that happens in every political campaign, and has happened in every UK general election I can remember. But absolutely NO violence. And none is expected. That's probably unique in any poll on independence anywhere in the world, the 'velvet divorce' between Slovakia and the Czech Republic excepted. We Scots are civilised folk Sean.
And I'll be surprised if the turnout is less than 75-80%. It will be the most busy poll anywhere in the UK, and in most of the western world for that matter (excepting places like Belgium and Australia, where voting is compulsory), for decades.
The media likes to stir up conflict, it makes, they seem to think, more interesting reading/viewing/listening. Sells more papers, attracts more viewers/listeners. It's called market forces. I don't like em, but they're what current UK society lives by.
The reality is that there has been absolutely NO violence so far. A few eggs thrown, sure, that happens in every political campaign, and has happened in every UK general election I can remember. But absolutely NO violence. And none is expected. That's probably unique in any poll on independence anywhere in the world, the 'velvet divorce' between Slovakia and the Czech Republic excepted. We Scots are civilised folk Sean.
And I'll be surprised if the turnout is less than 75-80%. It will be the most busy poll anywhere in the UK, and in most of the western world for that matter (excepting places like Belgium and Australia, where voting is compulsory), for decades.
U
unregistered
Guest
Doog_kuron
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- May 25, 2013
- Posts
- 673
No one I've spoken to gives even a moments interest in whether or not the Scots stay or go. Every scot I have spoken to are dead against it but that's hardly representative. If that's what they want more power to them, if they choose to stay same again. I feel the yes campaign has been better run but my feeling is the no will probably just take it.
Tell you this much, glad I'm not Scottish. It's been an incredibly bitter and nasty campaign.
Tell you this much, glad I'm not Scottish. It's been an incredibly bitter and nasty campaign.
Similar threads
