Scotland to become independent in March 2016 if referendum passes

[transam]

There is a misconception aout the UK - people look on it as a iced item - this has never been the case and as it was formed largely to conform with the interests of the English there is every reason to suspect that it is NOT a permanent Union. The disintegration of the union has already started with the departure of Ireland....and that is still a work in progress, so it is not unexpected to see Scotland follow at some point.

If Wales leaves then it'll be down to the UK and Northern Ireland at this point one has to hope that England leaves and the UK will be just Northern Ireland.......the only part of the Union that is fanatical about being a member.........

What a load of <deleted>, the UK had Scots Prime ministers for YEARS............Why didn't they take care of you ? You hard done bye folk...........

[wilcopops]

If the people of Scotland decide they want to leave the Union, then it is UP TO THEM.....I think at present there is almost a "dog-in-the-manger" attitude by some people - once they make that decision I would suggest that it countries such as England and Wales are morally obliged not just to accept this decision but to actively encourage and help Scotland into independence. Not only will it help Scotland, it will benefit the remainder of the UK. as well as the UK the rest of the EU should help too, it can only be in the interest of the EU to strengthen that Union wherever possible. This will of course apply to other regions in the EU that want greater self-determination. resisting this will only result in Ukraine type situations occurring again and again as countries look elsewhere for a chance of autonomy.

[wilcopops]

There is a misconception aout the UK - people look on it as a iced item - this has never been the case and as it was formed largely to conform with the interests of the English there is every reason to suspect that it is NOT a permanent Union. The disintegration of the union has already started with the departure of Ireland....and that is still a work in progress, so it is not unexpected to see Scotland follow at some point.

If Wales leaves then it'll be down to the UK and Northern Ireland at this point one has to hope that England leaves and the UK will be just Northern Ireland.......the only part of the Union that is fanatical about being a member.........

What a load of <deleted>, the UK had Scots Prime ministers for YEARS............Why didn't they take care of you ? You hard done bye folk...........

QED

[wigantojapan]

Yeh, I had Jehovah Witness folk at my door too.................

Transam - Watching the progression of your posts as they drift from the sublime to the ridiculous I'm getting the feeling that this conversation has largely gone over your head?

have to agree with you on that .

[transam]

If the people of Scotland decide they want to leave the Union, then it is UP TO THEM.....I think at present there is almost a "dog-in-the-manger" attitude by some people - once they make that decision I would suggest that it countries such as England and Wales are morally obliged not just to accept this decision but to actively encourage and help Scotland into independence. Not only will it help Scotland, it will benefit the remainder of the UK. as well as the UK the rest of the EU should help too, it can only be in the interest of the EU to strengthen that Union wherever possible. This will of course apply to other regions in the EU that want greater self-determination. resisting this will only result in Ukraine type situations occurring again and again as countries look elsewhere for a chance of autonomy.

You miss my points entirely..................

WE ALREADY HAVE A UNION. THE UK.....................

[wilcopops]

I think TA has been out drinking - Scotch maybe?

here's a wee poem to while away a few misconceptions...

What force or guile could not subdue,
Thro' many warlike ages,
Is wrought now by a coward few,
For hireling traitors' wages.
The English steel we could disdain,
Secure in valor's station;
But English gold has been our bane,
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!

O would, or I had seen the day
That treason thus could sell us,
My auld grey head had lien in clay,
Wi Bruce and loyal Wallace!
But pith and power, till my last hour,
I'll mak this declaration;
We're bought and sold for English gold,
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!

[wilcopops]

If the people of Scotland decide they want to leave the Union, then it is UP TO THEM.....I think at present there is almost a "dog-in-the-manger" attitude by some people - once they make that decision I would suggest that it countries such as England and Wales are morally obliged not just to accept this decision but to actively encourage and help Scotland into independence. Not only will it help Scotland, it will benefit the remainder of the UK. as well as the UK the rest of the EU should help too, it can only be in the interest of the EU to strengthen that Union wherever possible. This will of course apply to other regions in the EU that want greater self-determination. resisting this will only result in Ukraine type situations occurring again and again as countries look elsewhere for a chance of autonomy.

You miss my points entirely..................

WE ALREADY HAVE A UNION. THE UK.....................

TA - you're not making any points - read your posts when you've slept it off!

Edited April 15, 2014 by wilcopops

[transam]

I think TA has been out drinking - Scotch maybe?

here's a wee poem to while away a few misconceptions...

What force or guile could not subdue,

Thro' many warlike ages,

Is wrought now by a coward few,

For hireling traitors' wages.

The English steel we could disdain,

Secure in valor's station;

But English gold has been our bane,

Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!

O would, or I had seen the day

That treason thus could sell us,

My auld grey head had lien in clay,

Wi Bruce and loyal Wallace!

But pith and power, till my last hour,

I'll mak this declaration;

We're bought and sold for English gold,

Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!

Weeeeeeell, brain washed folk do dastardly deeds in our day and age. Not saying your posts are dastardly, but think you get my drift........

[wigantojapan]

Though i am all for the idea of democracy and everyone has the right to free speech,it is clear on this forum that the ones of non Scottish blood,added with the fact that they have never studied the Scots in any shape or form ,mentally .spiritually ,culturally are a vast world apart on how and what a Scot thinks and feels.

Its complicated enough with all the variety of Scots( and how our family up bringing, social interaction regional diversity,education,modern day tribal associations,,political backgrounds/influences .Scottish Unionists .folklore,music traditions etc,,etc etc )

[wigantojapan]

Their tinsel show, an' a' that;
The honest man, tho' e'er sae poor,
Is king o' men for a' that. something i learnt on my grandpas knee and hold to this day

[7by7]

Politically however, Westminster would be obliged by the results of a referendum on Scottish independence, and that's the point. If Scotland votes in favour of independence in a ballot conducted according to internationally established norms, Westminster would be bound by it. That's why they're desperate to wrest control of the referendum from the Scottish Parliament, because they want to give us another of the referendums they've given us in the past, like the 1979 referendum where the votes of the dead counted as a no. The reason they're complaining so loudly that Holyrood would rig the referendum is because that's precisely what they'd do themselves. It's called psychological projection.

The conduct of the referendum, the actual question being asked and who is eligible to vote were all decided by the Scottish parliament.

So how is Westminster wresting control of the referendum?

the above posting which is only a part of the posting was in reply to Basil i believe who asked the question who could enforce the referendum result

The answer is Westminster would be bound by it

In reply to your question So how is Westminster wresting control of the referendum?

They are not,

Then why do you, or rather wherever you got your cut and paste job from, say "That's why they're (Westminster) desperate to wrest control of the referendum from the Scottish Parliament?"

Westminster isn't and has never shown any desire to do so. In fact, right from the start the government and UK Parliament have made it clear that this is for Scots and Scots alone to run and decide.

We all know that Westminster would be bound by the result, that's the whole point in having the referendum in the first place. To give the Scottish people the opportunity to decide where their future lies!

Edited to fix quote

Edited April 15, 2014 by 7by7

[7by7]

A question for the Yes supporters.

The Yes people say that if they lose then they expect another referendum in a generation.

What if they win?

Would the next generation of Scots, having discovered and lived with the massive mistake made by the previous generation, be able to have another referendum on whether to remain independent or rejoin the union?

Assuming the union would have them, of course.

[nontabury]

If any attempt were made to block Scottish membership to the EU, a referendum would be demanded in Ireland with a likelihood that Ireland would leave the EU. Whether Scotland wishes to remain in the Union or not is up to them, we wish them all the best whichever way they go. But we would not be on the wrong side of Scotland in their efforts. The EU will not risk having two of their most Westerly countries going outside of the EU.

I can't see any reason why the UK would desire to block an independent Scotland's membership of the EU.

But, despite what Salmond says, that membership would not be automatic; this has been stressed many times by EU leaders.

An Independent Scotland would need to apply for membership and abide by the conditions of membership; one of which has been for all new members since 2006 adoption of the Euro.

And equally as many if not more EU leaders have said that, by EU's own laws, an independent Scotland

could not be denied entry into the EU.

It only needs one existing members to veto a new member,and there are a few existing members who will not accept Scotland's membership. Personally I hope the will accept Scotland's application to be governed by the Brussels eurocrates.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[7by7]

In 1968, senior civil servant John Jappy found himself in a position to take a close look at the Treasury books. Until then he had espoused the common belief that Scotland was a poor country, subsidised by England. [/size]What he discovered came as a big surprise to him – even before the oil boom, Scotland [/size]“contributed far more to the UK economy than the other partners”

.[/size]What he discovered This ranks up there with one of highestt forms of CONcalment/ deception Westminster Governments have undertaken

The last time you posted this it was pointed out to you that if evidence exists to support this claim then one person who has it is Alex Salmond, obtained by him in an FoI request..

I asked you then why Salmond has not produced this evidence if it is, as claimed, so damaging to the No campaign.

You didn't answer then; will you do so now?

[transam]

If the people of Scotland decide they want to leave the Union, then it is UP TO THEM.....I think at present there is almost a "dog-in-the-manger" attitude by some people - once they make that decision I would suggest that it countries such as England and Wales are morally obliged not just to accept this decision but to actively encourage and help Scotland into independence. Not only will it help Scotland, it will benefit the remainder of the UK. as well as the UK the rest of the EU should help too, it can only be in the interest of the EU to strengthen that Union wherever possible. This will of course apply to other regions in the EU that want greater self-determination. resisting this will only result in Ukraine type situations occurring again and again as countries look elsewhere for a chance of autonomy.

You miss my points entirely..................

WE ALREADY HAVE A UNION. THE UK.....................

TA - you're not making any points - read your posts when you've slept it off!

That is a reply that I expect from nooooooooooooooo answers. You carry on.

Can I remind you, does Mr & Mrs Scotland get taxed in their everyday life different from the rest of the UK ?

Do they have access to the same NHS as England ?

Are the postal services the same cost as England ?

Are pensions the same as England ?

Does the union together take care of all it's citizens ?

Will Scotland rely on England's Nuclear deterrent ?

Will Scotland tell England to get the UK submarine fleet out of Scotland BUT please take care of us ?

My list can go on but........

[StreetCowboy]

Though i am all for the idea of democracy and everyone has the right to free speech,it is clear on this forum that the ones of non Scottish blood,added with the fact that they have never studied the Scots in any shape or form ,mentally .spiritually ,culturally are a vast world apart on how and what a Scot thinks and feels.

Its complicated enough with all the variety of Scots( and how our family up bringing, social interaction regional diversity,education,modern day tribal associations,,political backgrounds/influences .Scottish Unionists .folklore,music traditions etc,,etc etc )

I thought everyone was going to get a vote, Scottish or otherwise, culturally aware or not.

Personally, I have not found the Scots greatly different from other people

SC

[wigantojapan]

Westminster isn't and has never shown any desire to do so. In fact, right from the start the government and UK Parliament have made it clear that this is for Scots and Scots alone to run and decide.

We all know that Westminster would be bound by the result, that's the whole point in having the referendum in the first place. To give the Scottish people the opportunity to decide where their future lies!

You will find fairly easily that there was massive objections from the start as you so put it that even a referendum could legally take place,,,,and im sure you can find the links if you desire.

Westminster isn't and has never shown any desire to do so. In fact, right from the start the government and UK Parliament have made it clear that this is for Scots and Scots alone to run and decide.

We all know that Westminster would be bound by the result, well it seems that quite a few people here are unclear about that.

What would/ is Westminister bound? can you clarify that as you have indicated that you know..Thank you

[7by7]

(note by 7by7: Quotes of previous posts in the post quoted below regarding the conduct of the referendum have been removed to comply with forum software on the number of quotes allowed per post)

And the leader of the westminister Uk government at the time agreed and signed approval
of the conduct and actual question and voter eligibility. A joint decision by the leader of the
Scottish government and the leader of the UK westminister government who refuses to have
a public debate on independence with the Scottish leader. The question of Salmond having
a debate with anyone other than the leader of the UK government is at best irrelevant.

First the pro independence lobby say you want Westminster to have no part in this, then you say you want the leader of the Westminster government to have a public debate with Salmond!

Make your minds up!

I find it very interesting to note that although invited on several occasions to
have a public debate with Salmond on independence for Scotland Cameron
has ignored that request.
It is also notable that the NO campaigners on and off this thread have studiously
managed to avoid any discussion on this subject, I wonder why???
Any answers Laddies and Lassies of the NO campaigners???
What is Cameron afraid of???

The truth I suspect.

He hasn't ignored the request; he's responded and said no.

Scottish independence: David Cameron will not have TV debate with Alex Salmond

(Quote from above link removed as per comment above)

So, answer me this; why doesn't Salmond want a televised debate with Darling?

What's Salmond afraid of?

Darling attacks Salmond over refusal to debate on live TV

The Labour MP said Mr Salmond wanted to face Mr Cameron in order to turn the independence debate into "him [Mr Salmond] against the Tories".

But he added: "He is the leader of their campaign, I'm the leader of ours. What's he got to be afraid of?"

So why wont Salmond, the leader of the Yes campaign, debate with Darling, the leader of the No campaign?

Edited April 15, 2014 by 7by7

[wigantojapan]

Though i am all for the idea of democracy and everyone has the right to free speech,it is clear on this forum that the ones of non Scottish blood,added with the fact that they have never studied the Scots in any shape or form ,mentally .spiritually ,culturally are a vast world apart on how and what a Scot thinks and feels.

Its complicated enough with all the variety of Scots( and how our family up bringing, social interaction regional diversity,education,modern day tribal associations,,political backgrounds/influences .Scottish Unionists .folklore,music traditions etc,,etc etc )

I thought everyone was going to get a vote, Scottish or otherwise, culturally aware or not.

Personally, I have not found the Scots greatly different from other people

SC

yes everyone will get the vote as you stated

on the latter it depends on what Scot you meet ,associate with ,,but whatever isd the degree of difference there is a difference like any race.group of people

[7by7]

Westminster isn't and has never shown any desire to do so. In fact, right from the start the government and UK Parliament have made it clear that this is for Scots and Scots alone to run and decide.

We all know that Westminster would be bound by the result, that's the whole point in having the referendum in the first place. To give the Scottish people the opportunity to decide where their future lies!

You will find fairly easily that there was massive objections from the start as you so put it that even a referendum could legally take place,,,,and im sure you can find the links if you desire.

Westminster isn't and has never shown any desire to do so. In fact, right from the start the government and UK Parliament have made it clear that this is for Scots and Scots alone to run and decide.

We all know that Westminster would be bound by the result, well it seems that quite a few people here are unclear about that.

What would/ is Westminister bound? can you clarify that as you have indicated that you know..Thank you

What are you on about?

It is you who first pointed out in this topic that Westminster would be bound by the result; I simply agreed!

Are you seriously suggesting that should the Westminster parliament disagree with the result that it will simply ignore it and effectively say to the Scots "You've had your fun, now back in your place!"?

If so, you are even more paranoid than your many cut and paste jobs suggest!

[wilcopops]

If the people of Scotland decide they want to leave the Union, then it is UP TO THEM.....I think at present there is almost a "dog-in-the-manger" attitude by some people - once they make that decision I would suggest that it countries such as England and Wales are morally obliged not just to accept this decision but to actively encourage and help Scotland into independence. Not only will it help Scotland, it will benefit the remainder of the UK. as well as the UK the rest of the EU should help too, it can only be in the interest of the EU to strengthen that Union wherever possible. This will of course apply to other regions in the EU that want greater self-determination. resisting this will only result in Ukraine type situations occurring again and again as countries look elsewhere for a chance of autonomy.

You miss my points entirely..................

WE ALREADY HAVE A UNION. THE UK.....................

TA - you're not making any points - read your posts when you've slept it off!

That is a reply that I expect from nooooooooooooooo answers. You carry on.

Can I remind you, does Mr & Mrs Scotland get taxed in their everyday life different from the rest of the UK ?

Do they have access to the same NHS as England ?

Are the postal services the same cost as England ?

Are pensions the same as England ?

Does the union together take care of all it's citizens ?

Will Scotland rely on England's Nuclear deterrent ?

Will Scotland tell England to get the UK submarine fleet out of Scotland BUT please take care of us ?

My list can go on but........

Tax -

"The Scottish Government is the devolved administration for Scotland, dealing with all devolved issues independently of the UK Government. Devolution is the delegation of power from a central government to local bodies. This enables decisions to be made at a level closer to the point at which they have an impact. However, some areas remain reserved to the UK Parliament such as Foreign Affairs, Defense and National Security, and Social Security. The Scottish Government was officially renamed on 3 September 2007, having formerly been known as the Scottish Executive."

if your worried that the Scots won't look after you once they have independence, may I suggest that you be nice to them and support them in their move to indolence or they may not look favourably on you?

you may also notice that several countries in Europe (and around the world) far quite well without a nuclear arsenal....or the expense of maintaining one - however Scotland does of course have an abundance of physicists etc who could be called upon to help out if England runs into problems.

TA - you really don't seem to know anything about Scotland or the history of the Union or how it came about.

I doubt if you realise that Scotland has ALWAYS kept its own legal and education systems....it's not just a northern county of England you know.

as for healthcare.....you don't seem to understand that either....

"The National Health Service (NHS) in Scotland was created in 1948 at the same time as the NHS was created for England and Wales. It remains a separate body from the other public health systems in the UK although this is often not realised by patients when "cross-border" or emergency care is involved due to the level of co-operation and co-ordination."

Edited April 15, 2014 by wilcopops

[wigantojapan]

So why wont Salmond, the leader of the Yes campaign, debate with Darling, the leader of the No campaign?

you tell us? and i will also offer a suppose question ... if the leader of a Conservative led UK government was Scottish would you think it right or wrong for him/her to debate with Salmond?

[transam]

Yep, nuclear, someone else is paying for it, in your perhaps future case.......England

Taxes..............If a yes, watch out ordinary Scots folk.

[Chicog]

We all know the answer - Salmond wants to make it an issue about the Tory party and not about the UK.

No point harping on about it.

[7by7]

So why wont Salmond, the leader of the Yes campaign, debate with Darling, the leader of the No campaign?

you tell us?

The only answer I can think of is that Salmond is afraid he will be shown up for the blustering buffon many suspect him to be.

What is your answer to the question of why Salmond refuses to debate with Darling?

and i will also offer a suppose question ... if the leader of a Conservative led UK government was Scottish would you think it right or wrong for him/her to debate with Salmond?

I suspect, and certainly hope, that in such a case the answer would be the same as now. That this is a matter for the Yes and No campaigns to debate and the British Prime Minister should not be involved on either side.

[Scott]

Off-topic post and replies deleted.

[wigantojapan]

So why wont Salmond, the leader of the Yes campaign, debate with Darling, the leader of the No campaign?

you tell us?

The only answer I can think of is that Salmond is afraid he will be shown up for the blustering buffon many suspect him to be.

What is your answer to the question of why Salmond refuses to debate with Darling?

and i will also offer a suppose question ... if the leader of a Conservative led UK government was Scottish would you think it right or wrong for him/her to debate with Salmond?

I suspect, and certainly hope, that in such a case the answer would be the same as now. That this is a matter for the Yes and No campaigns to debate and the British Prime Minister should not be involved on either side.

its simple Darling is a spokesperson for the no campaign that's all

Cameron also does not want a separation, though personally i see that as a smokescreen,,never the less

As the head of the Union on such an important question he/she alone should debate .

As people keep pointing out as of today Scotland and its people are still a part of the UK so its proper that the UK Prime Minister only should debate

[uptheos]

Scottish independence would damage maritime defence, says First Sea Lord

Admiral Sir George Zambellas says breakaway would weaken navy with bases and infrastructure carved up

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/15/scottish-independence-damage-defence-sea-lord

[nontabury]

How black gold was hijacked: North sea oil and the betrayal of Scotland

In 1975, the Government faced a dilemma: how to exploit the potential of its new oil fields without fuelling demands for Scottish independence. So it buried the evidence... It was a document that could have changed the course of Scottish history. Nineteen pages long, Written in an elegant, understated academic hand by the leading Scottish economist Gavin McCrone, presented to the Cabinet office in April 1975 and subsequently buried in a Westminster vault for thirty years. It revealed how North Sea oil could have made an independent Scotland as prosperous as Switzerland. LINK IS THE INDEPENDENT TUESDAY 16TH APRIL.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe McCrone report was a UK Government document which was written and researched at the Scottish Office (St. Andrews House in Edinburgh) on behalf of the British Government of the day (Conservative, led by Edward Heath).

The eighteen page report focused on the likely effects of North Sea oil revenue on the economic viability of an independent Scotland. Professor Gavin McCrone wrote the paper as advice to the UK Government. The report predicted that North sea oil revenue would give an independent Scotland a large tax surplus, on such a scale as to be "embarrassing", making the country "as rich as Switzerland."^[1] He also surmised that this surplus revenue would make the Scottish pound the hardest currency in Europe "with the exception of the Norwegian kronor".

Up till recently the No side said that Scotland was too poor ,,they have since changed that for use of a better word propaganda ,,but a serious amount of the less informed potential voters, deliberate or not still have that thought pattern.

Choose for yourself,think for your self

This does read like an "oil thing". If Scotland had no oil would this independence thing still be on the table ?

Is it an "I am alright jack" thing ?

Enlighten me............

Well Transom I think your finally getting it. While its true that the SNP has been in existence for about 80yrs, it was't until after the discovery of North Sea oil that the independence campaign really took of. Today South East England and Scotland are the two most wealthy ares of the UK, but while the SE have stuck with the rest of the UK, financially supporting the north of England, from where I come from, many Scots, some of whom are fair weather socialist have decided it is " I am alright jock. As a fellow Englishman maybe you will now realise why I have been a big supporter of separation for many,many years, we DO NOT need compatriots or even friends like these people, I'm only sorry for those Scots, and there are many, who do not hold those views.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[7by7]

Previous quotes removed to comply with forum software.

The question was "Why wont Salmond have a debate with Darling?

its simple Darling is a spokesperson for the no campaign that's all

Cameron also does not want a separation, though personally i see that as a smokescreen,,never the less

As the head of the Union on such an important question he/she alone should debate .

As people keep pointing out as of today Scotland and its people are still a part of the UK so its proper that the UK Prime Minister only should debate

So you are saying that Salmond, the leader of the Yes campaign, wont debate with Darling, who is not just a spokesperson for, but the leader of the No campaign, simply because Darling the leader of the No campaign!

Dear, oh dear; what a pathetic answer! As pathetic as Salmond's refusal to debate with Darling; his opposite number in this whole referendum debate.

As for Cameron; as already said, as British Prime Minister it is right and proper that he stays out of the debate. This is a matter for the Scottish people, not the Westminster Parliament.

First you complain that the British Parliament may try to influence the vote, now you are complaining because the British Prime minister declines to try and do so!

Make your mind up; you can't have it both ways.

BTW, do you have an answer to the question of why Salmond wont produce the documents he supposedly has which allegedly prove the claims made by Wings Over Scotland?