Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 5

[NoNeed]

Walford said:

All this cr@p that Scotland carnt do it why not they are not the first


Zimbabwe 18 April 1980

I must confess to not looking at your whole list but the last one which was obvious to see kind of jumped out on me.

It worked out really well for them this independence malarky didn't it.

Actually there are several on your list that are doing really well at heading back towards the dark ages.

[HenryJM]

Walford said:

All this cr@p that Scotland carnt do it why not they are not the first

Country Date Year of Independence Notes
Afghanistan 19 August 1919
Antigua Barbuda 1 November 1981
Australia 1 January 1986 Australia Act 1986
Bahamas 10 July 1973
Bahrain 16 December 1971 15 August 1971
Barbados 30 November 1966 Barbados Independence Act 1966
Belize 21 September 1981 September Celebrations of Belize
Botswana 30 September 1966
Brunei 1 January 1984
Canada 1 July 1982 Canada Act 1982
Cyprus 1 October 1960 16 August 1960, but Cyprus Independence Day celebrated on 1
Dominica 3 November 1978
Egypt 28 February 1922
Fiji 10 October 1970
The Gambia 18 February 1965
Ghana 6 March 1957
Grenada 7 February 1974 Independence Day (Grenada)
Guyana 26 May 1966
India 15 August 1947
Israel 14 May 1948
Iraq 3 October 1932


Rep of Ireland 24 April (Easter Monday) 1922 Proclamation of the Irish Republic
Jamaica 6 August 1962
Jordan 25 May 1946
Kenya 12 December 1963
Kiribati 12 July 1979
Kuwait 25 February 1961
Lesotho 4 October 1966
Malawi 6 July 1964
Malaysia 31 August 1957 Hari Merdeka
Maldives 26 July 1965
Malta 21 September 1964
Mauritius 12 March 1968
Myanmar 4 January 1948
Nauru 31 January 1968 Independence from the UK, Australia and NZ 31 January 1968.
New Zealand 6 February 1986 Constitution Act 1986
Nigeria 1 October 1960
Pakistan 14 August 1947 Yaum e Azadi. Independence from the United Kingdom on 27 Ramadan ul Mubarik, 14 August 1947
Papua N Guinea 16 September 1975 Independence gained from Australia the administering power.
Qatar 3 September 1971 Qatar National Day
Saint Lucia 22 February 1979
Samoa 1 January 1962 Independence granted by New Zealand the administrative country.
Saint Kitts and Nevis 19 September 1983
Seychelles 29 June 1976
Sierra Leone 27 April 1961
Solomon Islands 7 July 1978
South Africa 11 December 1961 1931 adoption of Statute of Westminster. Not a public holiday.
Sri Lanka 4 February 1948 4 February 1948, Sri Lanka had their independence. After nearly 150 years of the UK ruling the country. Gained independence as the Dominion of Ceylon
Somalia Somaliland 26 June 1960 Gained Independence as part of Somalia. Unrecognised independent state declared in 1991 during the crisis in Somalia covering the same territory as British Somaliland as the SomalilandRepublic of Somaliland.
Sudan 1 January 1956 South Sudan gained independence from Sudan on 9 July 2011.
Swaziland 6 September 1968
Tanzania 9 December 1961
Trinidad and Tobago 31 August 1962
Tuvalu 1 October 1978
Uganda 9 October 1962
United Arab Emirates 2 December 1971 National Day (United Arab Emirates)
United States 4 July 1776 Fourth of July. Declaration of Independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1776
Vanuatu 30 July 1980 Independence from United Kingdom and France in 1980
Yemen 30 November 1967 South Yemen 1967
Zambia 24 October 1964
Zimbabwe 18 April 1980

Ok well start by going through your list and correct it. Really, Australia did not gain independence in 1986, nor did New Zealand.

Then take out those that were self sufficient functioning economies in their own right before independence, that's all the colonies, dependencies and so on.

Cut out any that happened when global trading was not a feature of the world, I mean fifty years ago was a world of difference from today.

What are you left with - South Sudan? Any others? Was South Sudan what you would call an equivalent?

[AstonZagato]

The first world ones (Australia, New Zealand and Canada) have recent dates due to historical oddities (e.g. Until 1982, Canada's constitution could only be changed by the British Parliament by the request of the Canadian people).

I guess the closest analogues are the Eastern Euroean client states of the USSR - but they did not have high functioning economies. Scotland would be an order of magnitude more complex (and therefore more expensive and more risky economically) than anything that has gone before.

[HenryJM]

AstonZagato said:

The first world ones (Australia, New Zealand and Canada) have recent dates due to historical oddities (e.g. Until 1982, Canada's constitution could only be changed by the British Parliament by the request of the Canadian people).

I guess the closest analogues are the Eastern Euroean client states of the USSR - but they did not have high functioning economies. Scotland would be an order of magnitude more complex (and therefore more expensive and more risky economically) than anything that has gone before.

Yes, Australia arguably dates from 1901, but like most of the list they never had the status of being part of another country in the first place.

Meanwhile Eastern Europe is a model but there Russia kept the rouble, Russia kept the membership of international bodies and the others needed to apply and so on, that despite Russia being little more than 50% of the population of the USSR.

Even South Sudan which was, at least, a part of a country going independent, they didn't get all the things like use of the currency, membership of international bodies, etc. etc. that the Scots think will happen to them.

[DanL]

Walford said:

All this cr@p that Scotland carnt do it why not they are not the first

Ok - two things.

1) No one's saying Scotland can't do it - the question is whether Scotland would be better off as part of the UK, or as an independent country.
2) There's no R in can't.

[Walford]

DanL said:

Walford said:

All this cr@p that Scotland carnt do it why not they are not the first

Ok - two things.

1) No one's saying Scotland can't do it - the question is whether Scotland would be better off as part of the UK, or as an independent country.
2) There's no R in can't.

No the question is "shud scotland be an independent country"

we can all use spell check thanks

If for instance the UK ever got a vote on leaving the EU, and we were told we would be worse off I would still vote to leave, its not just about the money, I dont like the EU

Edited by Walford on Sunday 3rd August 14:19

[Moonhawk]

Walford said:

All this cr@p that Scotland carnt do it why not they are not the first

Has anybody actually said they can't do it.

People have expressed the opinion that it's unlikely to be the 'land of milk and honey' that the yes campaign have made it out to be - and that much of the yes campaign seems to be based on assumption/promises that may not be realistic - however I have yet to see a single person claim Scotland fundamentally couldn't achieve independence.

[bigkeeko]

Walford said:

No the question is "shud scotland be an independent country"

we can all use spell check thanks

Apparently not.

[Walford]

DanL said:

1) - the question is whether Scotland would be better off as part of the UK, or as an independent country.

your spelling may be perfect BUT that is NOT the question

[Moonhawk]

Walford said:

your spelling may be perfect BUT that is NOT the question

I think they meant - the question that people on here are asking - not the question on the Referendum vote.

Nobody had said Scotland can't be an independent country - but they are questioning whether Scotland will be better off as a result (this key point seems to form much of the basis of the Yes campaign).

Edited by Moonhawk on Sunday 3rd August 14:54

[GetCarter]

Walford said:

DanL said:

1) - the question is whether Scotland would be better off as part of the UK, or as an independent country.

your spelling may be perfect BUT that is NOT the question

I beg to differ. Most I have spoken to here (Highlands) the question IS whether we would be better off as part of the rUK, socio economically, culturally, as part of an historical union and, looking forward to a stable future. I understand why people have strong opinions towards the yes vote. My best friend here will vote yes (He's English BTW), but nobody from the yes campaign ever answers the fundamental concerns regarding currency, EU membership, diminishing oil revenues, money & jobs leaving the smaller nation, increased borrowing costs... etc, etc, etc, etc.

I'm all for a clear and unique Scottish character, but 'throwing out the baby with the bathwater' springs to mind whenever I read 'yes' hyperbole.

Edited by GetCarter on Sunday 3rd August 14:52

[Welshbeef]

Burger

On the BBC website both the Pro Yes and Pro No are releasing new leaflets in the referendum vote. You have stated quite recently that you have received nothing from Pro No - keep an eye out for this as it will contain the answers to your questions.



Also can you list the unanswered question you'd have both from Pro Yes and Pro No so we can evaluate how the info you receive helps your voting decision.

[Walford]

A referendum on whether "Scotland should be an independent country" ? Yes or No

It has nothing to do with being better off, it is quite frankly ridiculous that you would try to change the question

[Gaspode]

Walford said:

A referendum on whether "Scotland should be an independent country" ? Yes or No

It has nothing to do with being better off, it is quite frankly ridiculous that you would try to change the question

So what criteria do you think that voters should use to judge whether Scotland should or should not be independent from the UK?

[mybrainhurts]

Gaspode said:

Walford said:

A referendum on whether "Scotland should be an independent country" ? Yes or No

It has nothing to do with being better off, it is quite frankly ridiculous that you would try to change the question

So what criteria do you think that voters should use to judge whether Scotland should or should not be independent from the UK?

Romance. Probably...

[Moonhawk]

Walford said:

A referendum on whether "Scotland should be an independent country" ? Yes or No

It has nothing to do with being better off, it is quite frankly ridiculous that you would try to change the question

Who is trying to change anything - the referendum question is set and has been for ages.

The question "Should Scotland be an independent country" may be the question that is being asked - but people's reasons for answering Yes to this question will vary widely - as are the reasons being given by the Yes campaign.

If it was simply a question of independence for pride, freedom, democracy etc - then the question of money should be irrelevant. How do you put a price on such things?

Whether Scotland will be better of as an independent country however is very much on the table and has been pushed by the Yes campaign from the start. If they make claims such as this - isn't it natural for people to want to examine the claims and if they are found lacking, challenge the figures?

Edited by Moonhawk on Sunday 3rd August 16:26

[Walford]

Gaspode said:

Walford said:

A referendum on whether "Scotland should be an independent country" ? Yes or No

It has nothing to do with being better off, it is quite frankly ridiculous that you would try to change the question

So what criteria do you think that voters should use to judge whether Scotland should or should not be independent from the UK?

I would vote for the UK to leave the EU, I know we would be worse off for maybe 10 years, I would not looking at the short term

This is why i think you are trying to twist the question there is very little chance of scotland being better off in the short term
,

[Walford]

DanL said:

1) No one's saying Scotland can't do it - the question is whether Scotland would be better off as part of the UK, or as an independent country.
.

He is

[Moonhawk]

Walford said:

......there is very little chance of scotland being better off in the short term

That doesn't seem to be the tune being played by the Yes campaign though.

If they turned round and said "it will be struggle for the first 10 years - but ultimately we will make Scotland a better and more prosperous place" - then people may have a certain respect for that.

But they haven't

They keep peddling vote grabbing headlines like "99% of us will be £2700 better off"..... the "in 10 years time" caveat on that seems to conspicuously absent?

[Wombat3]

Walford said:

This is why i think you are trying to twist the question there is very little chance of scotland being better off in the short term
,

But this is not what the Yes campaign is saying is it?

For some people being worse off for a while may not be an issue. For some (quite a lot in fact) its a bit of a deal breaker / eat-don't eat issue.

As above, nobody is saying Scotland can't do it, but what is being said is that Scotland should not expect everyone else to pick up the bill to make it happen & if it does happen Scotland needs to be prepared to stand on its own two feet from day one & not expect to be able to fall back on the UK if things get rough (i.e. not expect a currency union because THAT is the key issue about same).

The Nationalists are all saying its going to be a bed of roses. In fact, assuming you are a Nat, you would be the first Nat I've seen to suggest otherwise - in which case, good for you.