PH referendum - Should Scotland be an independent country?
Poll: PH referendum - Should Scotland be an independent country?
Total Members Polled: 544
Discussion
Troubleatmill said:
For those considering posting here... Why not post in the main Scottish referendum thread?
It's a PITA juggling between 2 identical threads.
after the utter bile spewed by one yesser in relation to a forum member recovering from a severe illness i would rather not.It's a PITA juggling between 2 identical threads.
i am a scot,living in scotland and voting no,as are my wife,eldest daughter,my father,step mother,brother and two sisters.
Moonhawk said:
MintyChris said:
I believe the No side is the positive one. Voting No to remain united, it is about respecting your fellow man and not claiming to be something we aren't (victims and at the same time somehow superior).
Yep - it's also about staying together through thick and thin - not taking the ball home when the UK gets into a bit of strife and you think you are better off going it alone because you see big oil coloured pound signs ......conveniently forgetting about all the years when you didn't have oil.RandomTask said:
Scottish living in Scotland, I will be voting yes.
I believe the Scottish parliament and the subsequent changes have been really good for Scotland and a future as an independent country offers bright prospects. I think the campaign has shown that Scotland could be a prosperous nation, if we are willing to accept the risks and hard work that goes along with that.
The no campaign have had little positive to say and have clouded the issue with fearmongering statements.
I believe the Scottish parliament and the subsequent changes have been really good for Scotland and a future as an independent country offers bright prospects. I think the campaign has shown that Scotland could be a prosperous nation, if we are willing to accept the risks and hard work that goes along with that.
The no campaign have had little positive to say and have clouded the issue with fearmongering statements.
The no campaign have been sharing facts, the yes campaign have been telling you what they think you want to hear.
RandomTask said:
Scottish living in Scotland, I will be voting yes.
I believe the Scottish parliament and the subsequent changes have been really good for Scotland and a future as an independent country offers bright prospects. I think the campaign has shown that Scotland could be a prosperous nation, if we are willing to accept the risks and hard work that goes along with that.
The no campaign have had little positive to say and have clouded the issue with fearmongering statements.
So you think devolution has been good for Scotland. Scotland has been doing well within the UK?I believe the Scottish parliament and the subsequent changes have been really good for Scotland and a future as an independent country offers bright prospects. I think the campaign has shown that Scotland could be a prosperous nation, if we are willing to accept the risks and hard work that goes along with that.
The no campaign have had little positive to say and have clouded the issue with fearmongering statements.
And you're happy to risk that to perhaps be a prosperous nation?
How peculiar.
We were discussing this at work today - I keep getting asked what I think because I am the only Scot in the entire company.
The simplest way I could think of to describe Alex's position was to use an analogy of asking an architect to design a house for you.
If the architect arrives with a drawing that looks like this:
You would be slightly concerned. You would be get more concerned if the answer to questions like "What are the walls made of?" or "And the roofing material is?" were met with a response of "Don't worry about that, just sign the contract and pay me in full now".
When you resist he has a rant about how things aren't fair and he is right.
Obviously you would have to be completely out of your mind to decide to use said architect.
Alex is that architect - you would need to be completely mental to vote Yes.
The simplest way I could think of to describe Alex's position was to use an analogy of asking an architect to design a house for you.
If the architect arrives with a drawing that looks like this:
You would be slightly concerned. You would be get more concerned if the answer to questions like "What are the walls made of?" or "And the roofing material is?" were met with a response of "Don't worry about that, just sign the contract and pay me in full now".
When you resist he has a rant about how things aren't fair and he is right.
Obviously you would have to be completely out of your mind to decide to use said architect.
Alex is that architect - you would need to be completely mental to vote Yes.
simoid said:
Puggit said:
As someone who lives in England I'd love Scotland to breakaway. No more Labour governments!
Not sure if you're being totally serious... but if you take Scotland out of the equation, Labour would have still won pretty much all the elections they did anyway 
1992 election result including Scotland: Tory majority
1992 election result excluding Scotland: Tory majority
1997 election result including Scotland: Labour majority
1997 election result excluding Scotland: Labour majority
2001 election result including Scotland: Labour majority
2001 election result excluding Scotland: Labour majority
2005 election result including Scotland: Labour majority
2005 election result excluding Scotland: Labour majority
2010 election result including Scotland: Tory Lib Dem coalition
2010 election result excluding Scotland: Tory majority
Alpacaman said:
The no campaign have been sharing facts, the yes campaign have been telling you what they think you want to hear.
The economies of the two countries have been broadly similar though.
For me it's about self determination, and identity. I consider myself Scottish before British and think we have the knowledge, resources to make a fairer, more equal society.
RandomTask said:
The economies of the two countries have been broadly similar though.
Only if you take the "geographic share of oil" stance (i.e. best case for Scotland).If you take the more likely scenario based on existing international precedents (i.e. population share) - then Scotland has been running a deficit almost double that of the UK.
Going independent - this is what you will have to contend with.
RandomTask said:
For me it's about self determination, and identity. I consider myself Scottish before British and think we have the knowledge, resources to make a fairer, more equal society.
I think this is the nub of the argument. It's not about whether financially you'll be better of in or out of the union, it's whether you feel like you are in charge of your own destiny.It's like leaving home as a teenager, you know your standard of living will go down, and you'll have to handle all your own washing, but you are also free to stay out late every night and invite whoever you want home
In terms of a fairer, more equal society, I'm not sure what that actually means, although it does make a good sound-bite. You'll need a good economy to support a socialist welfare state, so my real concern is that newScotland will not be able to afford this land of milk & honey being proposed and there will be a catastrophic reduction in welfare to those most in need. It's all very well having freedom, but if that means that people are going hungry and the bins don't get emptied then it'll end in tears.
If come five years down the line it's all went to s
t and the country is worse off than it ever would have been otherwise, then I hope that all the YES people would still be sticking around and not leaving?
No complaining either mind, you'd have got what you wanted, it's nobodies fault bar your own.
t and the country is worse off than it ever would have been otherwise, then I hope that all the YES people would still be sticking around and not leaving?No complaining either mind, you'd have got what you wanted, it's nobodies fault bar your own.
Moonhawk said:
Only if you take the "geographic share of oil" stance (i.e. best case for Scotland).
If you take the more likely scenario based on existing international precedents (i.e. population share) - then Scotland has been running a deficit almost double that of the UK.
Going independent - this is what you will have to contend with.
Which international precedents? Genuine question, as I haven't heard of this being brought up in the debate by either side. If you take the more likely scenario based on existing international precedents (i.e. population share) - then Scotland has been running a deficit almost double that of the UK.
Going independent - this is what you will have to contend with.
RandomTask said:
Which international precedents? Genuine question, as I haven't heard of this being brought up in the debate by either side.
I believe it was AstonZagato who pointed us in the direction of at least one example (although I cant find the link he provided - it was on vol.4 of this thread I think relating to a country in Africa - PH really needs a better search function).I also understand it is a point of international law - to prevent exactly what Scotland are trying to do - whereby a small region of a country declares independence when significant mineral reserve is found within it's region. Mineral reserves belong to the country as it existed when the deposit was found - if the country splits up - the mineral rights are shared per capita.
edit: Found it:
http://www.sudantribune.com/IMG/pdf/oil_agreement_...
Edited by Moonhawk on Wednesday 3rd September 13:04
You're correct I read it as well.
It was something to do with the UN trying to ensure, or try to ensure, that there was less liklihood of a war breaking out post any split of a nation over mineral rights.
A split of existing rights by populace, but with all new rights going to the new nation concerned after seperation.
It was something to do with the UN trying to ensure, or try to ensure, that there was less liklihood of a war breaking out post any split of a nation over mineral rights.
A split of existing rights by populace, but with all new rights going to the new nation concerned after seperation.
I think this will be very tight and will end up with scotland out on their own.
I think it will be an utter catastrophe for them and ultimately end in something far worse than they currently imagine.
However, purely from a geo-economics- / geo-politic / geo-something else perspective I think it'll be utterly fascinating to watch.
Not often a grown up (open to argument) region does this. In fact it's a unique situation.
As PH would say: popcorn.
I think it will be an utter catastrophe for them and ultimately end in something far worse than they currently imagine.
However, purely from a geo-economics- / geo-politic / geo-something else perspective I think it'll be utterly fascinating to watch.
Not often a grown up (open to argument) region does this. In fact it's a unique situation.
As PH would say: popcorn.
Moonhawk said:
RandomTask said:
Which international precedents? Genuine question, as I haven't heard of this being brought up in the debate by either side.
I believe it was AstonZagato who pointed us in the direction of at least one example (although I cant find the link he provided - it was on vol.4 of this thread I think relating to a country in Africa - PH really needs a better search function).I also understand it is a point of international law - to prevent exactly what Scotland are trying to do - whereby a small region of a country declares independence when significant mineral reserve is found within it's region. Mineral reserves belong to the country as it existed when the deposit was found - if the country splits up - the mineral rights are shared per capita.
edit: Found it:
http://www.sudantribune.com/IMG/pdf/oil_agreement_...
Wrathalanche said:
Financial Times had a relevant article on precendents, both exsisting and resultant after a Scottish resource grab.
Yep - I was going to link to that too - but its behind a paywall.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff