Scottish Independence

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
wear_yellow said:
But a modern passport only lasts for 10 years...
Click to expand...

Yes that is so, but it allows someone to renew for 9 years with 10 years for it then to run. Seems as if it will be a difficult operation to set something up that will be accepted worldwide.
 
Bolton's Boots said:
No - the sad part is that I don't understand what led you to make that erroneous observation. The Barnett formula is fairly straightforward, but the one one thing it certainly doesn't include is misinformed claims about Scotland being subsidised.
Click to expand...

The way the barnett formula has evolved over the years gives the Scots additional funds per head than the English receive. Therefore it is unfair and certainly subsidised by the rest of the union.

I expect no government has dared to redress this anomaly in case we upset the poor souls.
 
scullyonthewing said:
The way the barnett formula has evolved over the years gives the Scots additional funds per head than the English receive. Therefore it is unfair and certainly subsidised by the rest of the union.

I expect no government has dared to redress this anomaly in case we upset the poor souls.
Click to expand...

Not true.

The facts are out there you just need to check them.

Scotland susidises the rest of the UK and has done EVERY year for the last 33 years. Your media has misinformed you I'm afraid.

Here are the FACTS:

[video=youtube;1W8cKHcZn60]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=1W8cKHcZn60[/video]
 
Spurf - I am not disputing any of your economic figures. However, even if Scotland could support itself, even if Scotland were paying more into the UK than it is receiving - is this sufficient reason for independence. ? Because, by the same token, London or Bavaria could break away from their respective countries. It happens all over the World that one part of a country has the feeling of subsidizing other parts - now Bavaria is subsidizing the Ruhr, earlier it was the other way around but that's life. Is it sufficient 'reason' to end 300 years of mostly successfull history that nobody there likes the present government - the same could be said for many parts of England and Wales. There have to be more reasons than these two. Where are the historical reasons for ending a Union which was entered into voluntarily ? Are the Scots an ethnic entity like eg. the Cornish. Do they have their own language which is suppressed at all levels, like Breton was in France ? Why was there not a whisper of a call for independence before the 1980s ? Why was it necessary to wait until the UK was no longer the major force of yesteryear before expressing these wishes ?
 
Independence for Grampian yes. There's as much a case for separating highland from lowland as Edinburgh from London. It's all about power and the ego of a certain fat controller and his ugly sidekick. We subsidize the rest of Scotland with our Oil, Whisky, Fish and Meat.... why not have independence I'm sure we could all live better and our GDP would be higher than the Saudis!!!
 
With all the serious comments I thought we might all enjoy a moment of levity.

Prince Charles is visiting an Edinburgh hospital. He enters a ward full of patients with no obvious sign of injury or illness and greets the first one.
The patient replies: "Fair fa your honest sonsie face, Great Chieftain o the pudding race, Aboon them a ye take yer place, Painch, tripe or thairm, As lang's ma airm."
HRH is confused, so he smiles and moves on to the next patient, who responds:
"Some have meat an canna eat, And some wad eat that want it, But we have meat and we can eat, So let the Lord be thankit."
Even more confused, the Prince moves on to the next patient, who immediately begins to chant: "Wee sleekit, cowerin timrous beasty, O the panic in thy breasty, Thou needna start awa sae hastie, Wi bickerin brattle..."
Now seriously troubled, Charles turns to the accompanying doctor and asks, "Is this a psychiatric ward?"
"No,"replies the doctor, "This is the serious Burns unit."
 
Nationalism???

Along with religion ...has been the reason for more murder rape and pillage than anything else......

Look at Ukraine, Libya, Syria, Iraq, China(Tibet) etc etc currently....

Lets' face it for most people on a day to day basis this will make very little difference...

The rich will still get richer etc etc....

Sorry but I am rather cynical about the whole exercise ... and the vote seems split... is this the basis for radical change..... and I wonder what will happen when everyone is fed up with Salmond
 
colognehornet said:
Spurf - I am not disputing any of your economic figures. However, even if Scotland could support itself, even if Scotland were paying more into the UK than it is receiving - is this sufficient reason for independence. ? Because, by the same token, London or Bavaria could break away from their respective countries. It happens all over the World that one part of a country has the feeling of subsidizing other parts - now Bavaria is subsidizing the Ruhr, earlier it was the other way around but that's life. Is it sufficient 'reason' to end 300 years of mostly successfull history that nobody there likes the present government - the same could be said for many parts of England and Wales. There have to be more reasons than these two. Where are the historical reasons for ending a Union which was entered into voluntarily ? Are the Scots an ethnic entity like eg. the Cornish. Do they have their own language which is suppressed at all levels, like Breton was in France ? Why was there not a whisper of a call for independence before the 1980s ? Why was it necessary to wait until the UK was no longer the major force of yesteryear before expressing these wishes ?
Click to expand...

First this was not a voluntary Union, it was a deal with Aristocrats who had lost money in the Darien scheme, where they were bailed out on agreeing to sign over Scotland. There was rioting n the streets of Scotland for months after, the people were not given an option.
Yes the Scots have their own language and yes it was suppressed right into the 20th century. In fact 3 languages, Scots, Doric and Gailic. There has always been a call for Independence in Scotland since the Union was formed and of course throughout History, check out the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320. Kier Hardie founded the Labour party with the declared intention of seeking Scottish Independence.

THis is not something that has just sprung up in the 1980's.

Of course there are shared experiences and values within the countries of the British Isles but why should there be a need to explain why a country wants to govern itself, surely that is self evident. The British Isles will still exist, the friendship and close bonds will still exist, all that will change is that Scotland will make it's own decisions in line with it's own needs.

I am surprised you ask this question tbh surely it is quite clear that Ireland, Scotland, England, & Wales are distinct countries each with their own culture and language, they just share geography and much history.

EDIT: It is interesting to note that Scotland is in fact several hundred years older, as a country, than England.
 
zen guerrilla said:
With all the serious comments I thought we might all enjoy a moment of levity.

Prince Charles is visiting an Edinburgh hospital. He enters a ward full of patients with no obvious sign of injury or illness and greets the first one.
The patient replies: "Fair fa your honest sonsie face, Great Chieftain o the pudding race, Aboon them a ye take yer place, Painch, tripe or thairm, As lang's ma airm."
HRH is confused, so he smiles and moves on to the next patient, who responds:
"Some have meat an canna eat, And some wad eat that want it, But we have meat and we can eat, So let the Lord be thankit."
Even more confused, the Prince moves on to the next patient, who immediately begins to chant: "Wee sleekit, cowerin timrous beasty, O the panic in thy breasty, Thou needna start awa sae hastie, Wi bickerin brattle..."
Now seriously troubled, Charles turns to the accompanying doctor and asks, "Is this a psychiatric ward?"
"No,"replies the doctor, "This is the serious Burns unit."
Click to expand...

<laugh> <ok>.
 
Spurf said:
First this was not a voluntary Union, it was a deal with Aristocrats who had lost money in the Darien scheme, where they were bailed out on agreeing to sign over Scotland. There was rioting n the streets of Scotland for months after, the people were not given an option.
Yes the Scots have their own language and yes it was suppressed right into the 20th century. In fact 3 languages, Scots, Doric and Gailic. There has always been a call for Independence in Scotland since the Union was formed and of course throughout History, check out the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320. Kier Hardie founded the Labour party with the declared intention of seeking Scottish Independence.

THis is not something that has just sprung up in the 1980's.

Of course there are shared experiences and values within the countries of the British Isles but why should there be a need to explain why a country wants to govern itself, surely that is self evident. The British Isles will still exist, the friendship and close bonds will still exist, all that will change is that Scotland will make it's own decisions in line with it's owns need.

I am surprised you ask this question tbh surely it is quite clear that Ireland, Scotland, England, & Wales are distinct countries each with their own culture and language, they just share geography and much history.

EDIT: It is interesting to note that Scotland is in fact several hundred years older, as a country, than England.
Click to expand...

The Gaelic language is spoken by only 1.1% of the population Spurf. Even before the Union in 1707 it was only spoken by about 20%. At the time of Union Scotland was separated by the highland line with the 80% majority in the South being of Saxon/Danish/Norman origins and speaking Scots English. You would find it very hard to claim that the Scots are a genetically distinct people with a unifying 'National' culture like eg. Brittany. If it were not necessary for a region to explain 'why' they want to be independent for it to happen then any area, anywhere, could declare independence at the drop of a hat for the most mercenary of reasons.
 
Spurf said:
.

I am surprised you ask this question tbh surely it is quite clear that Ireland, Scotland, England, & Wales are distinct countries each with their own culture and language, they just share geography and much history.

EDIT: It is interesting to note that Scotland is in fact several hundred years older, as a country, than England.
Click to expand...

This becoming a bit of a polemic as per the first past the post electoral systems that seem to inhabit our so called democratic free countries. Almost half of "those living currently in Scotland" will lose out as a result of this vote. My brother in law who is Scottish cant vote because he lives in England etc etc. We were discussing this yesterday. I would be interested to see the voting intentions of indigenous scots vs foreign born residents.

Most of the countries of the world are recently formed and are conglomerates or older fiefdoms, etc etc. Most Scottish islanders for example have little loyalty to Edinburgh....
 
colognehornet said:
The Gaelic language is spoken by only 1.1% of the population Spurf. Even before the Union in 1707 it was only spoken by about 20%. At the time of Union Scotland was separated by the highland line with the 80% majority in the South being of Saxon/Danish/Norman origins and speaking Scots English. You would find it very hard to claim that the Scots are a genetically distinct people with a unifying 'National' culture like eg. Brittany. If it were not necessary for a region to explain 'why' they want to be independent for it to happen then any area, anywhere, could declare independence at the drop of a hat for the most mercenary of reasons.
Click to expand...

I am sorry I don't see your point The English are certainly not distinct nor The USA, you seem to be going ot great lengths to find reasons for Scotland to be ruled from Westminster. If Brittany or any where else want's to be Independent and govern itself then why not. Or are you suggesting that the world is set in stone and nothing should change.
 
yorkshirehornet said:
This becoming a bit of a polemic as per the first past the post electoral systems that seem to inhabit our so called democratic free countries. Almost half of "those living currently in Scotland" will lose out as a result of this vote. My brother in law who is Scottish cant vote because he lives in England etc etc. We were discussing this yesterday. I would be interested to see the voting intentions of indigenous scots vs foreign born residents.

Most of the countries of the world are recently formed and are conglomerates or older fiefdoms, etc etc. Most Scottish islanders for example have little loyalty to Edinburgh....
Click to expand...

So only the half that wants to stay with the Union should NOT lose out? It is a bit of a nonsense statement anyway, lose out on what?


My view is that people (some people) just don't like change because it causes them to have to think, and they do not like to think. They prefer just to drink, eat and breed.
 
Spurf said:
I am sorry I don't see your point The English are certainly not distinct nor The USA, you seem to be going ot great lengths to find reasons for Scotland to be ruled from Westminster. If Brittany or any where else want's to be Independent and govern itself then why not. Or are you suggesting that the world is set in stone and nothing should change.
Click to expand...

I think that unity is strength.. the synergies of unity give greater potential for each party........

I actually further believe that apart from the pride of nationalism.. Scotland will have little to gain from independence..... our national debt is shared and directly linked to our resources and earning power. There is no way Scotland will be able to avoid it's part of this if they go down the independence route.

Some people have alluded to the Scandinavian models as an example as to how things could be.. but clearly high taxation is part of this... and this would mean those Scots who work having to pay more taxes etc etc. This is the view of a Scot who work as a national sales director in a big multi-national. He was at the house of commons last week making a presentation, so is not a lightweight.

If there is a yes vote Scotland will have to pay for it.... and lose any status as a world player...
 
Spurf said:
So only the half that wants to stay with the Union should NOT lose out? It is a bit of a nonsense statement anyway, lose out on what?


My view is that people (some people) just don't like change because it causes them to have to think, and they do not like to think. They prefer just to drink, eat and breed.
Click to expand...

The vote is divisive and driven by a coterie who wish others to follow them.

Yes. I agree most people prefer just to drink, eat and breed etc that is why they leave politics to those who generally seek power, and privelige over others.....

Some images inserted here of people suffering in the countries I have mentioned above puts all this into stark reality.

I am sorry but I have seen first hand what nationalism can lead to....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back