Britain, Scotland Sign Deal For Independence Referendum

[jpinx]

The electoral commission is an English-based UK agency.

I have no idea where their head office is; but they are an independent body set up by the UK Parliament to cover the whole of the UK. (About Us)

...

Their head office is in London. They have four regional offices in England, and offices in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

According to their web site.

SC

So what ? Westminster had the chance to insist on the EC being used -- but they didn't......

[Trembly]

Will it be enough to tempt you to live there?

SC

The only reason I don't live there now is because of the gross misrule of the

counry by the English for the last 300 years. Scots Wha Hae!! No true Scot

would ever think twice about breaking away from the chains of the English

thieves. We have failed as enslaved Scots too long I and all Scotsmen deserve

the right to sink or swim under our own steam as free independant Scots.

When you have broken free from the plantegenate empire can you please come and help us south of the border to break free from them too? After all, we English were the first to be colonized by the 'British'.

I respect the political point that the some Scots are trying to make and I wish them the best of luck either way.

[rgs2001uk]

The electoral commission is an English-based UK agency.

I have no idea where their head office is; but they are an independent body set up by the UK Parliament to cover the whole of the UK. (About Us)

So, jp, why are the SNP afraid of making it clear they are asking the Scottish people if they want to leave the UK?

BTW, Westminster is not the English Parliament, there is no such thing as an English Parliament.

Westminster is the UK Parliament!

The UK Parliamnet agreed to Scotland holding a referendum, as I have already posted, and that the referendum would be run by the Scottish government as it is a Scottish matter.

I am sure you and others would be complaining mightily were Westminster running it!

No idea what the SNP are doing, but I can tell you it is 100% clear in the minds of every villager where my family live.

I did put "english" in inverted commas to make the distinction.

yes - Westminster agreed to Scotland running it's own referendum - end of story. If England was trying the same thing - they would not be too happy if the scottish parliament had a finger in it

tbh - the party politics are not interesting - the interesting thing is the democratic process, and the possibility that there is actually a huge game being played in the background which might actually change the whole make up of Europe......

No idea what the SNP are doing, but I can tell you it is 100% clear in the minds of every villager where my family live.

I was out with a couple of friends from Edinburgh (Leith to be precise) the other night, neither they nor anyone they know is voting yes.

This may be another Johnny Howard moment, where the Ozzies woke up one morning and said to themselves <deleted> happened there.

[StreetCowboy]

The electoral commission is an English-based UK agency.

I have no idea where their head office is; but they are an independent body set up by the UK Parliament to cover the whole of the UK. (About Us)

...

Their head office is in London. They have four regional offices in England, and offices in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

According to their web site.

SC

So what ? Westminster had the chance to insist on the EC being used -- but they didn't......

The EC are being used. The election has been entrusted to the Scottish parliament, and the EC will observe. The EC does not have powers to prevent the government from lying, cheating and defrauding its citizens. Its only role is to point out when this is being done. It is then up to the people to resolve this with their government.

SC

[jpinx]

The electoral commission is an English-based UK agency.

I have no idea where their head office is; but they are an independent body set up by the UK Parliament to cover the whole of the UK. (About Us)

So, jp, why are the SNP afraid of making it clear they are asking the Scottish people if they want to leave the UK?

BTW, Westminster is not the English Parliament, there is no such thing as an English Parliament.

Westminster is the UK Parliament!

The UK Parliamnet agreed to Scotland holding a referendum, as I have already posted, and that the referendum would be run by the Scottish government as it is a Scottish matter.

I am sure you and others would be complaining mightily were Westminster running it!

No idea what the SNP are doing, but I can tell you it is 100% clear in the minds of every villager where my family live.

I did put "english" in inverted commas to make the distinction.

yes - Westminster agreed to Scotland running it's own referendum - end of story. If England was trying the same thing - they would not be too happy if the scottish parliament had a finger in it

tbh - the party politics are not interesting - the interesting thing is the democratic process, and the possibility that there is actually a huge game being played in the background which might actually change the whole make up of Europe......

No idea what the SNP are doing, but I can tell you it is 100% clear in the minds of every villager where my family live.

I was out with a couple of friends from Edinburgh (Leith to be precise) the other night, neither they nor anyone they know is voting yes.

This may be another Johnny Howard moment, where the Ozzies woke up one morning and said to themselves <deleted> happened there.

Quite possibly - but at least your friends are aware that a referendum is coming up...

[folium]

tbh - the party politics are not interesting - the interesting thing is the democratic process, and the possibility that there is actually a huge game being played in the background which might actually change the whole make up of Europe......

Quite agree and that is why the prospect of Scottish secession is so unpopular across Europe.

Much as the African nations have accepted that while their externally imposed borders are a major headache, unpicking them would release a literal Pandora's box of issues. Since the 1950's only Eritrea has been recreated( and thus not a real redrawing of boundaries) and this year's secession of South Sudan was a first and very worrying precedent.

Similarly in Europe secession is far more than just a case of Scottish aspirations. With cases such as the Basque territory, the ex Yugoslav republics, or indeed N.Ireland, secession has involved large amounts of bloodshed and represent a spectre that haunts many governments. Therefore Scotland cannot be surprised if Europe does little to facilitate its secession as another potentially dangerous precedent would be established, and for what?

Luckily on last year's Scottish Election results there is little prospect of a yes vote succeeding however much some posters might want it to happen. That's the joy of democracy and most Scottish voters are more than smart enough to see through the noise and realise that this is an exercise with few tangible, long term benefits.

[jpinx]

.........

The EC are being used. The election has been entrusted to the Scottish parliament, and the EC will observe. The EC does not have powers to prevent the government from lying, cheating and defrauding its citizens. Its only role is to point out when this is being done. It is then up to the people to resolve this with their government.

SC

"Used" in the sense that they can look and point. Doesn't the EC have powers in a UK general election?

[7by7]

Yes, see the 'About Us' link I posted earlier.

[jpinx]

Quite agree and that is why the prospect of Scottish secession is so unpopular across Europe.

Much as the African nations have accepted that while their externally imposed borders are a major headache, unpicking them would release a literal Pandora's box of issues. Since the 1950's only Eritrea has been recreated( and thus not a real redrawing of boundaries) and this year's secession of South Sudan was a first and very worrying precedent.

Similarly in Europe secession is far more than just a case of Scottish aspirations. With cases such as the Basque territory, the ex Yugoslav republics, or indeed N.Ireland, secession has involved large amounts of bloodshed and represent a spectre that haunts many governments. Therefore Scotland cannot be surprised if Europe does little to facilitate its secession as another potentially dangerous precedent would be established, and for what?

Luckily on last year's Scottish Election results there is little prospect of a yes vote succeeding however much some posters might want it to happen. That's the joy of democracy and most Scottish voters are more than smart enough to see through the noise and realise that this is an exercise with few tangible, long term benefits.

Some interesting points here.

Africa is a poor example of anything to do with democracy. It's difficult to find anything remotely like a democratic government there. Within Europe, the situation has been that the *only* way to get independence was to shed blood. Scotland is paving the way to a bloodless secession to independence which will demonstrate to EU countries that not only is it possible, but it actually will give people a better chance to identify themselves within their own boundaries, rather then boundaries imposed by some prior conqueror.

[jpinx]

Yes, see the 'About Us' link I posted earlier.

I guessed it - I am too lazy to read the minutae

[7by7]

JP,

The people in your village may be absolutely clear on exactly what the question means; the job of the EC is to make sure that everyone has the same understanding. They are currently working to see if that is so (see earlier link).

As I said before, to my mind, changing the question to "Do you agree that Scotland should leave the United Kingdom and so become an independent country?” would do this.

Whether the EC will think similarly remains to be seen.

If they do, whether Salmond will agree to their suggested question or not also remains to be seen. But the SNP have already made it clear that if they don't like the EC's advice, they will ignore it.

So I ask, again, all supporters of the SNP and/or Scottish independence: why are the SNP afraid of making it clear to the Scottish people that a Yes vote means leaving the UK?

[jpinx]

JP,

The people in your village may be absolutely clear on exactly what the question means; the job of the EC is to make sure that everyone has the same understanding. They are currently working to see if that is so (see earlier link).

As I said before, to my mind, changing the question to "Do you agree that Scotland should leave the United Kingdom and so become an independent country?” would do this.

Whether the EC will think similarly remains to be seen.

If they do, whether Salmond will agree to their suggested question or not also remains to be seen. But the SNP have already made it clear that if they don't like the EC's advice, they will ignore it.

So I ask, again, all supporters of the SNP and/or Scottish independence: why are the SNP afraid of making it clear to the Scottish people that a Yes vote means leaving the UK?

Please don't make me gothrough the Scottish press everyday and email you links to the references to Independence = out of UK. What you're not grasping is that independence was sold to the Scottish people as "getting out of UK" right from the beginning - many years ago......

[7by7]

So why are the SNP afraid of including that in the question?

[jpinx]

So why are the SNP afraid of including that in the question?

Are they?

Edited to add.....

Where's your proof?

Are there links to references that back up your claim?

We need verification of any statement purporting to be fact !

and by the way -- HAPPY CHRISTMAS !!!!!!!

Edited December 24, 2012 by jpinx

[folium]

Quite agree and that is why the prospect of Scottish secession is so unpopular across Europe.

Much as the African nations have accepted that while their externally imposed borders are a major headache, unpicking them would release a literal Pandora's box of issues. Since the 1950's only Eritrea has been recreated( and thus not a real redrawing of boundaries) and this year's secession of South Sudan was a first and very worrying precedent.

Similarly in Europe secession is far more than just a case of Scottish aspirations. With cases such as the Basque territory, the ex Yugoslav republics, or indeed N.Ireland, secession has involved large amounts of bloodshed and represent a spectre that haunts many governments. Therefore Scotland cannot be surprised if Europe does little to facilitate its secession as another potentially dangerous precedent would be established, and for what?

Luckily on last year's Scottish Election results there is little prospect of a yes vote succeeding however much some posters might want it to happen. That's the joy of democracy and most Scottish voters are more than smart enough to see through the noise and realise that this is an exercise with few tangible, long term benefits.

Some interesting points here.

Africa is a poor example of anything to do with democracy. It's difficult to find anything remotely like a democratic government there. Within Europe, the situation has been that the *only* way to get independence was to shed blood. Scotland is paving the way to a bloodless secession to independence which will demonstrate to EU countries that not only is it possible, but it actually will give people a better chance to identify themselves within their own boundaries, rather then boundaries imposed by some prior conqueror.

The reference to Africa has nothing to do with the role or otherwise of democracy, more an unwritten understanding that unravelling boundaries can led to all sorts of unintended consequences and is therefore to be avoided ( hence the disapproval in some quarters of S. Sudan 's secession).

Similarly in Europe the unravelling of nation states could set off a chain reaction with major implications. Belgium imploding in a bloodless secession would not be that disastrous but Spain losing Catalonia and the Basque Country! Germany sees Bavaria and Baden- Wurtemburg go their own way, and Italy sees the northern provinces do likewise would create a whole series of economically fragile rump states to be supported by....?

Furthermore you would then see a second round of secession once the concept sets in, and for Scotland this could be little short of disastrous if the Shetlands and Orkneys decide to go their way, perhaps in association with the Faeroe Islands to become a chilly version of Abu Dhabi and torpedoing Scotland's entire budgetary projections. Getting the western islands to join this offshore confederation would snaffle most of Scotland's oil potential.

Be careful what you wish for.....

Perhaps the Kingdom of Northumbria is reborn taking in much of the Borders up to Edinburgh. This might well appeal to the Merchiston/Morningside/Melrose folk. Might even vote for that myself....!

In the meantime a very Happy Christmas and I will even raise a glass to absent members (which could be taken several ways!).

Edited December 24, 2012 by folium

[Richard W]

Scotland is paving the way to a bloodless secession to independence which will demonstrate to EU countries that not only is it possible, but it actually will give people a better chance to identify themselves within their own boundaries, rather then boundaries imposed by some prior conqueror.

Perhaps the Kingdom of Northumbria is reborn taking in much of the Borders up to Edinburgh. This might well appeal to the Merchiston/Morningside/Melrose folk. Might even vote for that myself....!

Doesn't the south-eastern border of Scotland represent the final limit of the attempts of Scottish kings to incorporate Northumbria? I gather the paperwork never got raised for the expulsion of the Scots from Doncaster. The royal claim here is to the earldom (or ealdormanry) of Northumberland, though I have come across the (now redundant) personal claim expressed as a national claim.

So far I've only come across a few urgings that the North of England go for independence. I've not encountered any urgings for the kingdoms of Galloway, Moray or Fife to regain their independence, though I have come across mutterings about the baleful axis of Glasgow and Edinburgh.

[Richard W]

Also children of Scots who were naturalised British citizens.

And what of those who naturalised in Scotland and then left? This group will include formerly foreign wives of Scots.

Phew, looks like the EU courts will be busier than ever sorting out who's entitled to what in the UK if independence ever happens.

Have to join the queue behind assorted muslims, Africans, Romanians, eastern Europeans and the rest first though.

I believe it is the responsibility of the Queen in Parliament of the UK of GB & NI to sort this out - and I'd be inclined to more particularly place it on Parliament, rather than on the use of the Royal Prerogative. I have come to the sad conclusion that assigning the initial set of Scottish citizens according to the SNP's suggested constitution of 2002 is both morally wrong, because of the omissions above, and incompatible with membership of a Common Travel Area ('social union' if you will) because it is wide open to abuse at independence.

The best fit I can come up with for Scottish citizenship is:

1) Divide British citizens up into Scottish citizens and rUK citizens on the basis of whether happenings giving rise to a claim to British citizenship happened in Scotland or rUK. The happenings I have in mind are birth, adoption, naturalisation and completions of periods of residence. If in Scotland, then Scottish. If in rUK, then both. If in both, then dual. If there are no such happenings, rethink the criteria. (rUK includes British Islands and overseas territories.)

You don't get naturalised in Scotland. You get naturalised in the Home Office in London. It's a function of government, not location.

The location of naturalisation in the above allocation would normally be based on place of residence at the time.

2) People born in Scotland are Scottish citizens. (This should also apply to foundlings as appropriate.)

3) People with parents born in Scotland are Scottish citizens. (This should apply to children of foundlings as appropriate.)

4) Persons resident in Scotland for 5 years may register as Scottish citizens, excluding any period prior to a renunciation of British citizenship.

5) Registration under (4) shall also apply to children under 18 on the date of independence. (This needs some tweaking to handle those who reach 18 between independence and parental registration).

Rules (2) and (3) are in the 2002 proposed constitution. It's possible that may have to be modified; the Republic of Ireland changed its constitution to place conditions on parentage, much as Britain does, to prevent abuse of this rule via EU rules.

The 2002 proposed constitution defines the initial citizen body as those resident in Scotland (and their minor children) when it comes into force plus categories (2) and (3). It does not explicitly preclude others from also being citizens. However, the only reason for starting with the 2016 residents rather than the 1950 residents is that to start with the latter, one would have to define provisions for adding immigrants. Therefore adding people under categories (4) and (5) does not seem contrary to the principles of the 2002 proposal; Scottish citizenship is only to be lost by voluntary renunciation.

Rule (1) adds people not envisaged in the 2002 proposal. I do not believe the numbers involved are excessive. Let the Scottish Government try to strip them of Scottish nationality; I do not believe the British Government is obliged to deprive them of what they are entitled to.

Making everyone resident in Scotland at independence a Scottish citizen seems to be open to such abuse that it would be incompatible with the Common Travel Area, and open to challenge at the ECJ if Scotland naturalised them after independence. The problem would be the naturalisation of people not connected with Scotland whom Britain would not naturalise, at least, not yet. That's why I suggest Rule (4).

An alternative to this might be to have a special electoral franchise for the May 2016 election that reflects the intention of the 2002 proposal, and then let Scotland sort out the discrepancies. However, Rule (1) (or something like it) would be necessary to stop people connected only with Scotland being derived of meaningful citizenship. A registration option akin to Rule (4) would be necessary for immigrants from other parts of the UK of GB & NI to effectively naturalise - the rUK version would only be open to British citizens.

[nontabury]

Quite agree and that is why the prospect of Scottish secession is so unpopular across Europe.

Much as the African nations have accepted that while their externally imposed borders are a major headache, unpicking them would release a literal Pandora's box of issues. Since the 1950's only Eritrea has been recreated( and thus not a real redrawing of boundaries) and this year's secession of South Sudan was a first and very worrying precedent.

Similarly in Europe secession is far more than just a case of Scottish aspirations. With cases such as the Basque territory, the ex Yugoslav republics, or indeed N.Ireland, secession has involved large amounts of bloodshed and represent a spectre that haunts many governments. Therefore Scotland cannot be surprised if Europe does little to facilitate its secession as another potentially dangerous precedent would be established, and for what?

Luckily on last year's Scottish Election results there is little prospect of a yes vote succeeding however much some posters might want it to happen. That's the joy of democracy and most Scottish voters are more than smart enough to see through the noise and realise that this is an exercise with few tangible, long term benefits.

Some interesting points here.

Africa is a poor example of anything to do with democracy. It's difficult to find anything remotely like a democratic government there. Within Europe, the situation has been that the *only* way to get independence was to shed blood. Scotland is paving the way to a bloodless secession to independence which will demonstrate to EU countries that not only is it possible, but it actually will give people a better chance to identify themselves within their own boundaries, rather then boundaries imposed by some prior conqueror.

The reference to Africa has nothing to do with the role or otherwise of democracy, more an unwritten understanding that unravelling boundaries can led to all sorts of unintended consequences and is therefore to be avoided ( hence the disapproval in some quarters of S. Sudan 's secession).

Similarly in Europe the unravelling of nation states could set off a chain reaction with major implications. Belgium imploding in a bloodless secession would not be that disastrous but Spain losing Catalonia and the Basque Country! Germany sees Bavaria and Baden- Wurtemburg go their own way, and Italy sees the northern provinces do likewise would create a whole series of economically fragile rump states to be supported by....?

Furthermore you would then see a second round of secession once the concept sets in, and for Scotland this could be little short of disastrous if the Shetlands and Orkneys decide to go their way, perhaps in association with the Faeroe Islands to become a chilly version of Abu Dhabi and torpedoing Scotland's entire budgetary projections. Getting the western islands tojoin this offshore confederation would snaffle most of Scotland's oil potential.

Be careful what you wish for.....

Perhaps the Kingdom of Northumbria is reborn taking in much of the Borders up to Edinburgh. This might well appeal to the Merchiston/Morningside/Melrose folk. Might even vote for that myself....!

In the meantime a very Happy Christmas and I will even raise a glass to absent members (which could be taken several ways!).

There is already talk by the Viking islanders,that in the event of Scotland voting Yes,and the Shetlands and Orkneys voting No,that the islands will go their separate way. What will happen then to the budget of a separated Scotland?.

[nontabury]

Scotland is paving the way to a bloodless secession to independence which will demonstrate to EU countries that not only is it possible, but it actually will give people a better chance to identify themselves within their own boundaries, rather then boundaries imposed by some prior conqueror.

Perhaps the Kingdom of Northumbria is reborn taking in much of the Borders up to Edinburgh. This might well appeal to the Merchiston/Morningside/Melrose folk. Might even vote for that myself....!

Doesn't the south-eastern border of Scotland represent the final limit of the attempts of Scottish kings to incorporate Northumbria? I gather the paperwork never got raised for the expulsion of the Scots from Doncaster. The royal claim here is to the earldom (or ealdormanry) of Northumberland, though I have come across the (now redundant) personal claim expressed as a national claim.

So far I've only come across a few urgings that the North of England go for independence. I've not encountered any urgings for the kingdoms of Galloway, Moray or Fife to regain their independence, though I have come across mutterings about the baleful axis of Glasgow and Edinburgh.

As a Yorkshireman I can see the advantages of screaming for independence,the same as Scotland,in so doing the central governments seem compelled to throw money at you.In the 90's and early 2000 I would travel fairly frequently to Scotland,and one thing I always noticed is how prosperous this down trodden and oppressed area was, in comparison with Yorkshire and many parts of the north.

[theblether]

Vote Yes To Independence.

[jpinx]

Quite agree and that is why the prospect of Scottish secession is so unpopular across Europe.

Much as the African nations have accepted that while their externally imposed borders are a major headache, unpicking them would release a literal Pandora's box of issues. Since the 1950's only Eritrea has been recreated( and thus not a real redrawing of boundaries) and this year's secession of South Sudan was a first and very worrying precedent.

Similarly in Europe secession is far more than just a case of Scottish aspirations. With cases such as the Basque territory, the ex Yugoslav republics, or indeed N.Ireland, secession has involved large amounts of bloodshed and represent a spectre that haunts many governments. Therefore Scotland cannot be surprised if Europe does little to facilitate its secession as another potentially dangerous precedent would be established, and for what?

Luckily on last year's Scottish Election results there is little prospect of a yes vote succeeding however much some posters might want it to happen. That's the joy of democracy and most Scottish voters are more than smart enough to see through the noise and realise that this is an exercise with few tangible, long term benefits.

Some interesting points here.

Africa is a poor example of anything to do with democracy. It's difficult to find anything remotely like a democratic government there. Within Europe, the situation has been that the *only* way to get independence was to shed blood. Scotland is paving the way to a bloodless secession to independence which will demonstrate to EU countries that not only is it possible, but it actually will give people a better chance to identify themselves within their own boundaries, rather then boundaries imposed by some prior conqueror.

The reference to Africa has nothing to do with the role or otherwise of democracy, more an unwritten understanding that unravelling boundaries can led to all sorts of unintended consequences and is therefore to be avoided ( hence the disapproval in some quarters of S. Sudan 's secession).

Similarly in Europe the unravelling of nation states could set off a chain reaction with major implications. Belgium imploding in a bloodless secession would not be that disastrous but Spain losing Catalonia and the Basque Country! Germany sees Bavaria and Baden- Wurtemburg go their own way, and Italy sees the northern provinces do likewise would create a whole series of economically fragile rump states to be supported by....?

Furthermore you would then see a second round of secession once the concept sets in, and for Scotland this could be little short of disastrous if the Shetlands and Orkneys decide to go their way, perhaps in association with the Faeroe Islands to become a chilly version of Abu Dhabi and torpedoing Scotland's entire budgetary projections. Getting the western islands tojoin this offshore confederation would snaffle most of Scotland's oil potential.

Be careful what you wish for.....

Perhaps the Kingdom of Northumbria is reborn taking in much of the Borders up to Edinburgh. This might well appeal to the Merchiston/Morningside/Melrose folk. Might even vote for that myself....!

In the meantime a very Happy Christmas and I will even raise a glass to absent members (which could be taken several ways!).

There is already talk by the Viking islanders,that in the event of Scotland voting Yes,and the Shetlands and Orkneys voting No,that the islands will go their separate way. What will happen then to the budget of a separated Scotland?.

That would be the richest island group in the world probably !!! And why not? They have their own language, culture, even their laws are diferent.

By the way -- what about the Isle of Man and Channel Islands - how do they fit into the "new" UK - will they declare UDI as well ?

[Scott]

Baiting post and reply deleted.

[theblether]

There seems to be an inability on the part of some to realize that this is a democratic process, conducted with the agreement of the Westminster Government. The result, whether it be Yes or No, will be the Democratic Will of the people resident in Scotland.

Surely we are not at the point where we fear Democracy? While on the subject, having over two years notice that the election will be taking place should be enough time for people to ensure that they qualify to have the right to vote. Any complaint on that issue would only be valid if a snap election was called.

In the event that the vote is Yes, a period of negotiation will take place, and a settlement agreed. There's going to have to be agreement on both sides, with EU input, it's as simple as that.

[jpinx]

The reference to Africa has nothing to do with the role or otherwise of democracy, more an unwritten understanding that unravelling boundaries can led to all sorts of unintended consequences and is therefore to be avoided ( hence the disapproval in some quarters of S. Sudan 's secession).

Everyone knows that the warlike leadership of these places will create a bloodbath on their way to independence - that is why they are scared - not because of the new boundaries. Are you going to take up arms to prevent/cause independence? Of course not - we are doing this in a civilised manner.

Similarly in Europe the unravelling of nation states could set off a chain reaction with major implications. Belgium imploding in a bloodless secession would not be that disastrous but Spain losing Catalonia and the Basque Country! Germany sees Bavaria and Baden- Wurtemburg go their own way, and Italy sees the northern provinces do likewise would create a whole series of economically fragile rump states to be supported by....?

Glad you've been paying attention to the prior existing problems in Europe. Belgium is a bit of a mess indeed and there is some serious political fighting over it. Catalonia is correct to go it alone. They are not any more Spanish than the Scots are English South Germany also. Germany is generally regarded as a mess since re-unification, but they are determined people and the east had to be taken back. Now they could easily split again north/south. Italy is a red herring - they have no reason to split - that's just good od Italian political posturing. Imagine considering taking that obnoxious man back into politics!

Furthermore you would then see a second round of secession once the concept sets in, and for Scotland this could be little short of disastrous if the Shetlands and Orkneys decide to go their way, perhaps in association with the Faeroe Islands to become a chilly version of Abu Dhabi and torpedoing Scotland's entire budgetary projections. Getting the western islands to join this offshore confederation would snaffle most of Scotland's oil potential.

the realms of what is possible but totally unlikely. You need to travel around a bit and get a feel for what people want. You'd make a terrible politican - - but then there are many politicans just like you

Be careful what you wish for.....

Yea yea -- bring it on ....

Perhaps the Kingdom of Northumbria is reborn taking in much of the Borders up to Edinburgh. This might well appeal to the Merchiston/Morningside/Melrose folk. Might even vote for that myself....!

See? Now you're getting into the rhythm !

In the meantime a very Happy Christmas and I will even raise a glass to absent members (which could be taken several ways!).

And to you and all others in here - I really enjoy our little chats ( quote from Avatar )

[StreetCowboy]

The reference to Africa has nothing to do with the role or otherwise of democracy, more an unwritten understanding that unravelling boundaries can led to all sorts of unintended consequences and is therefore to be avoided ( hence the disapproval in some quarters of S. Sudan 's secession).

Everyone knows that the warlike leadership of these places will create a bloodbath on their way to independence - that is why they are scared - not because of the new boundaries. Are you going to take up arms to prevent/cause independence? Of course not - we are doing this in a civilised manner.

Similarly in Europe the unravelling of nation states could set off a chain reaction with major implications. Belgium imploding in a bloodless secession would not be that disastrous but Spain losing Catalonia and the Basque Country! Germany sees Bavaria and Baden- Wurtemburg go their own way, and Italy sees the northern provinces do likewise would create a whole series of economically fragile rump states to be supported by....?

Glad you've been paying attention to the prior existing problems in Europe. Belgium is a bit of a mess indeed and there is some serious political fighting over it. Catalonia is correct to go it alone. They are not any more Spanish than the Scots are English South Germany also. Germany is generally regarded as a mess since re-unification, but they are determined people and the east had to be taken back. Now they could easily split again north/south. Italy is a red herring - they have no reason to split - that's just good od Italian political posturing. Imagine considering taking that obnoxious man back into politics!

Furthermore you would then see a second round of secession once the concept sets in, and for Scotland this could be little short of disastrous if the Shetlands and Orkneys decide to go their way, perhaps in association with the Faeroe Islands to become a chilly version of Abu Dhabi and torpedoing Scotland's entire budgetary projections. Getting the western islands to join this offshore confederation would snaffle most of Scotland's oil potential.

the realms of what is possible but totally unlikely. You need to travel around a bit and get a feel for what people want. You'd make a terrible politican - - but then there are many politicans just like you

Be careful what you wish for.....

Yea yea -- bring it on ....

Perhaps the Kingdom of Northumbria is reborn taking in much of the Borders up to Edinburgh. This might well appeal to the Merchiston/Morningside/Melrose folk. Might even vote for that myself....!

See? Now you're getting into the rhythm !

In the meantime a very Happy Christmas and I will even raise a glass to absent members (which could be taken several ways!).

And to you and all others in here - I really enjoy our little chats ( quote from Avatar )

Balkanisation and eventual anarchy will take a long journey for us all, but it begins with a single step.

SC

There seems to be an inability on the part of some to realize that this is a democratic process, conducted with the agreement of the Westminster Government. The result, whether it be Yes or No, will be the Democratic Will of the people resident in Scotland.

Surely we are not at the point where we fear Democracy? While on the subject, having over two years notice that the election will be taking place should be enough time for people to ensure that they qualify to have the right to vote. Any complaint on that issue would only be valid if a snap election was called.

In the event that the vote is Yes, a period of negotiation will take place, and a settlement agreed. There's going to have to be agreement on both sides, with EU input, it's as simple as that.

Correct. We should decide whether it is something that we are willing to fight for, to give up our jobs and travel half way round the world, or whether we will let events unfold on the far side of the world as they will, and make what decisions we can, when the time comes.

SC

[jpinx]

The reference to Africa has nothing to do with the role or otherwise of democracy, more an unwritten understanding that unravelling boundaries can led to all sorts of unintended consequences and is therefore to be avoided ( hence the disapproval in some quarters of S. Sudan 's secession).

Everyone knows that the warlike leadership of these places will create a bloodbath on their way to independence - that is why they are scared - not because of the new boundaries. Are you going to take up arms to prevent/cause independence? Of course not - we are doing this in a civilised manner.

Similarly in Europe the unravelling of nation states could set off a chain reaction with major implications. Belgium imploding in a bloodless secession would not be that disastrous but Spain losing Catalonia and the Basque Country! Germany sees Bavaria and Baden- Wurtemburg go their own way, and Italy sees the northern provinces do likewise would create a whole series of economically fragile rump states to be supported by....?

Glad you've been paying attention to the prior existing problems in Europe. Belgium is a bit of a mess indeed and there is some serious political fighting over it. Catalonia is correct to go it alone. They are not any more Spanish than the Scots are English South Germany also. Germany is generally regarded as a mess since re-unification, but they are determined people and the east had to be taken back. Now they could easily split again north/south. Italy is a red herring - they have no reason to split - that's just good od Italian political posturing. Imagine considering taking that obnoxious man back into politics!

Furthermore you would then see a second round of secession once the concept sets in, and for Scotland this could be little short of disastrous if the Shetlands and Orkneys decide to go their way, perhaps in association with the Faeroe Islands to become a chilly version of Abu Dhabi and torpedoing Scotland's entire budgetary projections. Getting the western islands to join this offshore confederation would snaffle most of Scotland's oil potential.

the realms of what is possible but totally unlikely. You need to travel around a bit and get a feel for what people want. You'd make a terrible politican - - but then there are many politicans just like you

Be careful what you wish for.....

Yea yea -- bring it on ....

Perhaps the Kingdom of Northumbria is reborn taking in much of the Borders up to Edinburgh. This might well appeal to the Merchiston/Morningside/Melrose folk. Might even vote for that myself....!

See? Now you're getting into the rhythm !

In the meantime a very Happy Christmas and I will even raise a glass to absent members (which could be taken several ways!).

And to you and all others in here - I really enjoy our little chats ( quote from Avatar )

Balkanisation and eventual anarchy will take a long journey for us all, but it begins with a single step.

The balkans are now democratic and joining the EU -- hardly anarchy

[bigbamboo]

Unfortunately, the video referee has no power in this situation. The EC can advise, but the Scottish Government are not bound by that advice.

Essentialy, Salmond will not only be a key player on the pitch, but the referee as well!

A kind of latter day Billy Bremner.

[theblether]

Unfortunately, the video referee has no power in this situation. The EC can advise, but the Scottish Government are not bound by that advice.

Essentialy, Salmond will not only be a key player on the pitch, but the referee as well!

A kind of latter day Billy Bremner.

Would you prefer a Russian Linesman?..........again?

[jpinx]

Unfortunately, the video referee has no power in this situation. The EC can advise, but the Scottish Government are not bound by that advice.

Essentialy, Salmond will not only be a key player on the pitch, but the referee as well!

A kind of latter day Billy Bremner.

[StreetCowboy]

Unfortunately, the video referee has no power in this situation. The EC can advise, but the Scottish Government are not bound by that advice.

Essentialy, Salmond will not only be a key player on the pitch, but the referee as well!

A kind of latter day Billy Bremner.

That's a lot of balls