Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 6

[rovermorris999]

speedchick said:

Ok, a question.

As I understand it, at present, Great Britain is England, Wales and Scotland.
The UK is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

So, if it's a yes, I am assuming that GB becomes England and Wales, and the UK is the new GB and NI (with some random foreign country stuck to the top of England), or will it be GB, NI and Scotland?

Great Britain is the name of the island and thus won't change.

[speedchick]

Ah, right ok, thanks chaps

[davepoth]

So much like The United States of America only takes up a small proportion of America, the UK of GB &NI would legitimately be able to retain the same name.

[McWigglebum4th]

Hero of the day so far

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2760039/Sa...

Toolmaker Fraser grant who walked out with 20 others when the fat fuehrer came to visit

[MintyChris]

That's my no vote in . Only one scruffy yes campaigner at the entrance. Looked like he needed a shower if I'm honest.

[FiF]

so called said:

Moonhawk said:

fluffnik said:

Nope, it's down to history, the sole remaining sources of the "U" in UK are the Acts and Treaties of Union between England (incorporating Wales) and Scotland.

But if/when the Act is updated to remove references to Scotland - we can redefine what the "United" in United Kingdom stands for.

It can mean whatever the UK chooses it to mean.

Un-united kingdom works for me. UK

Untied Kingdom

[fluffnik]

Gaspode said:

It's interesting that in the event of a No vote, the Nationalists would consider it legitimate to continue to strive for independence, whereas in the event of a Yes vote, the unionists would be denied the chance to press for a reunion. Doesn't seem quite democratic, fair, and equitable somehow?

I'll campaign for a Republic of Britain if there's a No...

I'll also take the Unionists to task if (when!) their promises of Devo-max turn out to be lies.

[rich1231]

fluffnik said:

I'll campaign for a Republic of Britain if there's a No...

I'll also take the Unionists to task if (when!) their promises of Devo-max turn out to be lies.

And the rest of the UK will take them to task if the do it.

[Mojocvh]

What was that about lies?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29213416

[McWigglebum4th]

fluffnik said:

I'll campaign for a Republic of Britain if there's a No...

I'll also take the Unionists to task if (when!) their promises of Devo-max turn out to be lies.

Yes Scotland needs more funding then northern England as we are feckless

Or do you believe you are more deserving?

[McWigglebum4th]

Mojocvh said:

What was that about lies?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29213416

Ah but that is the fault of the Tory party

[Cheese Mechanic]

Mojocvh said:

What was that about lies?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29213416

Yes, amazing what crap Salmond and co have trotted out, despicable . Its even worse when you consider that that the Scots "parliament" has the power to levy up to 3p in the £ income tax in Scotland, have they done so? No mates, they have not, don't wish to be seen to pay their own way , do they?

Heck, why risk being popular, when you can sponge from others. SNP = lying duplicitous scrotes.

[Ayahuasca]

fluffnik said:

Gaspode said:

It's interesting that in the event of a No vote, the Nationalists would consider it legitimate to continue to strive for independence, whereas in the event of a Yes vote, the unionists would be denied the chance to press for a reunion. Doesn't seem quite democratic, fair, and equitable somehow?

I'll campaign for a Republic of Britain if there's a No...

I'll also take the Unionists to task if (when!) their promises of Devo-max turn out to be lies.

They would not be denied the chance to vote on re-joining, but to re-join would require the agreement of the rest of the people in the UK which, let's face it, would not happen. That js why it is a one way door.

[Pesty]

Freedom

fk you all you english tts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2760467/Do...

Doncaster is technically still part of Scotland after it was signed over 900 years ago and never formally given back

[MarkRSi]

Hm, someone on my Facebook I'm sure was going to vote no said they couldn't do it and voted yes. Fair enough, his decision/vote etc., but amongst the utter wkfest in the comment by the OP/Yes supporters there's a few mentions of 'No' voters turning to 'Yes'

[fluffnik]

McWigglebum4th said:

Yes Scotland needs more funding then northern England as we are feckless

Or do you believe you are more deserving?

No, I don't think devomax is workable, I think promises of it are a cynical con.

The Union is broken, I just hope we can end it neatly and humanely, today.

[TheRainMaker]

fluffnik said:

The Union is broken, I just hope we can end it neatly and humanely, today.

Which ever way it will go it WILL be a mess

[Norfolkit]

Moonhawk said:

It's highly unlikely given the number of people voting - plus the number of people voting would have to be an even number.

One vote either way would be enough.

That should be fun if it's really close as no recounts are allowed (I read somewhere on BBC).

[Axionknight]

That is my no vote cast, couple of people from both sides outside, I had a coat on from the weekend that had No Thanks stickers on it so they both left me too it, quick and effortless just as it should be.

Have a cracking evening all,

[Gaspode]

fluffnik said:

No, I don't think devomax is workable, I think promises of it are a cynical con.

I agree, I think it smacked of desperation. On the other hand, I think that the SNP have been far more cynical in their attempts to con the Scottish voters.

I also agree that Devomax is unworkable, I can't see the rest of the electorate tolerating further toadying to Scotland. A fair deal for Scotland has got to be part of a fair deal for the whole of the UK.

I don't think the Union is broken, but it has been seriously damaged. What will emerge? I don't know, but it's going to take a long time to mend the divisions that have been exposed.