Independence! (or for the one Gibosn fan out there Freeeederm!)

[FireKnife]

Ok so with me receiving a letter through the post to check I am on the electoral register for voting for Scottish Independence next year I was wondering what peoples thoughts on the matter was?

 

For me it boils down to two things:

 

1. I am voting No, this is purely because I think it is at the moment a badly thought out idea when Scotland has far too many other things to worry about at the moment.

2. I would vote Yes if first Scotland could sustain itself for not just 10 but 100 years after the choice has been made and if it wasn't Salmon the Hutt and his cronies pushing for it but instead a decent proposal with at least ten to twenty very good reasons as to why independence will work from an intelligent group of people that are not just having a psuedo-President like title assigned to themselves.

 

I am all for patriotism and respect for ones country but I find that some people are taking this to the equivalent of 'Scotland, *fruitcage* Yeah' and not really focusing on the issue at hand.

 

So given that is my stance how do you all feel about Scottish Independence, even those that are not allowed to vote have your say here.

 

Disclaimer: Everyone is entitled to a valid opinion, please don't turn this into an opportunity to just slag others off even if you see their views as ill conceived (get enough of that from the arrogant people up here that just don't see other opinions as valid).

 

'FireKnife'

[spetsnazdave87]

Scottish independence is basically a massive ego-stroke for Salmon. Scotland couldn't support themselves independently, period. It's a profile-raising exercise for the SNP, if they've got any sense they'll be praying they DON'T get independence, because then they'll have to run the place themselves instead of nitpick how we do it. I'm not an expert in the subject but I can't see HMG handing the rights to the north sea oil fields to the Scots.

 

On the upside, if they do go independent, the NHS starts saving masses of money from treating all the unhealthy people north of the border, and we all stop subsidising the Scots' medical, education and policing bills.

[mimesis]

How many Conservative MPs do Scottish constituencies currently send to Westminster?  (Check on it--you may be surprised...)

 

With that in mind, what would the net result be on Parliament in London?

[Azubi]

I'd love to see them try it.

[gunnermaniac]

Nationalistic nonsense. It is a mutually beneficial relationship in which neither parties are subjugated by the other. A split of union would result in a weaker presence on the world stage and not much else.

[Jagdraben]

Could somebody more familiar with the issue please define, in this instance, the meaning of, "independence"?

 

I get the feeling that what they mean is not what I would mean....

 

That aside, I'm all for self-determination. If the Scots want to go, so be it. I can't see how they could possibly be any worse off for it than, oh, Kosovo or Monaco or Lichtenstein. 

[FireKnife]

See that is the big issue no-one really knows what exactly 'Independence' in Scotland will bring.

 

There is a lot of speculation and that is about it, no-one has come up with a 'this is exactly what we want' yet. It is more an opportunity for Salmon the Hutt to claim he was the man who made Scotland independent again.

 

But with the whole 'I want out of the UK but into the EU' debate and many other things (military, oil, education, border control etc) up in the air it is just getting more and more pointless as nothing has been laid down yet.

 

Though after the whole Trump Golf Course debacle here in Scaberdeen I wouldn't trust or vote for Salmon as far as I could throw the fat, gormless ogre: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27ve_Been_Trumped

 

'FireKnife'

[amateurstuntman]

I think it is retarded and I mean that is the truest sense of the word:

 

 

retarded

r??t??d?d/

adjective

adjective: retarded

1.

less advanced in mental, physical, or social development than is usual for one's age.

 

 

We should be forming larger countries with small federated states in them.

We should be thinking in terms of Europe, addressing our problems together.

 

Not splitting into decadent little city-states and slowly becoming irrelevant third-world holes.

 

There are less people in Scotland than London, forget independence and focus on real problems.

[Spudgun]

Politians love to get their names into the history books. I think that Salmond wants to go down as the first President of Scotland. If he wins, he gets his name in the history books, becomes the first President, retires after a term in office with a big fat pension. He won't care if Scotland goes to hell in a handcart afterwards. If he loses, he'll retire with a nice pension.

 

I regard Salmond as a self serving smeg-head.

[creepingfear]

 

I think it is retarded and I mean that is the truest sense of the word:

 

 

retarded

r??t??d?d/

adjective

adjective: retarded

1.

less advanced in mental, physical, or social development than is usual for one's age.

 

 

We should be forming larger countries with small federated states in them.

We should be thinking in terms of Europe, addressing our problems together.

 

Not splitting into decadent little city-states and slowly becoming irrelevant third-world ###### holes.

 

There are less people in Scotland than London, forget independence and focus on real problems.

 

 

 

You have got to be taking the ######? The EU wants utter control of peoples lives. It is the new coming tyranny in waiting.

 

*fruitcage* that with a great big *suitcasey* *fruitcage* stick.

[Inkall]

Hating Salmond is not a reason to vote no.

 

If anything it is a reason to vote FOR Independence.

 

Post independence the whole political landscape of Scotland will change.

 

The London run Labour, Liberal and Tory parties will cease to have their "North Britian" branches, new parties will have to be formed and most likely at least 2 of those 3 will become center-left parties, like the SNP and the original Labour party.

 

Similarly people interested in the future of Scotland rather than keeping the status-quo of London, especially when the Tory party is in power, will be making their cases.

 

Salmond will have FAR more competition in an Independent Scotland than he will ever have against the London mouth pieces currently facing him.

 

Go and look at some real information on the Yes campaign, there are a great many people involved in it who are totally un-tied to the SNP never mind Salmond.

 

As for "Scotland not being to sustain itself", what a joke that is.

 

Scotland has put above the UK average in tax into the London coffers for over 30 years, a total of over 200 BILLION more than the UK average over that time. This is before you look at even modest estimates on North Sea Oil, and don't forget the Oil off the West in the Irish Sea which is 100% untouched because the MoD down south said working those fields would disrupt their precious nuclear missile carrying submarines.

 

There are over 130 countries in the world smaller than Scotland, to think that Scots are too weak, poor and stupid to run their own affairs is nonsense especially considering how much learning, technology and engineering Scottish organisations are at the fore front of.

 

Canada

Australia

New Zealand

Ireland

 

None asked for London rule back, why would Scotland?

[amateurstuntman]

You have got to be taking the ######? The EU wants utter control of peoples lives. It is the new coming tyranny in waiting.

 

*fruitcage* that with a great big *suitcasey* *fruitcage* stick.

I should have been clearer.

 

The EU as it stands is a joke, what I think we should be heading towards is a Europe that is useful.

Standardised healthcare and welfare systems that would put an end to health tourism (from Europe).

Consolidated education policy.

Combined effort (and therefore savings) on border control and such.

A better, more sensible approach to tax.

 

 

 

There are over 130 countries in the world smaller than Scotland, to think that Scots are too weak, poor and stupid to run their own affairs is nonsense especially considering how much learning, technology and engineering Scottish organisations are at the fore front of.

 

Canada

Australia

New Zealand

Ireland

 

None asked for London rule back, why would Scotland?

 

Australia and Canada are wealthy because they are resource rich and empty, their combined populations are less than Britain's but with vast mineral deposits.

 

New Zealand is pretty but has been totally brought to its knees by the earthquakes and without its "special relationship" with Australia would be unable to effectively police its borders.

 

Ireland's economy is a *fruitcage* mess.

It might have been a shining example of how a small country can have a high GDP (per capita) but it has been hit especially badly by the economic downturn.

 

Other countries like Scotland are Iceland, Spain and Greece and we can see how well they are doing.

 

Oil doesn't matter, it is old news.  The rasping death rattle of fossil fuel will keep us going for a couple of decades but what then?

 

 

Looking at Scotland and thinking "we can do OK for a small country" is madness.

We should be looking at Europe, Russia and Scandinavia and thinking "If we get our *suitcase* together in time we might be OK compared to India, Brazil and China".

[Jagdraben]

I thought there was a stereotype of Scots as being bankers.

 

So they could have that going for them. Which is nice (just ask the Swiss).

 

ETA: And, as one of two members to post here from the current reigning world champ-, I mean superpower, I just want to say that being a superpower is overrated. Not saying it isn't nice or not worth it, but definitely overrated.

[Azubi]

What I would like to know is who gets the oil, and what would happen to the armed forces? Would Scotland expect a certain amount of military hardware to be given to them?

[hitmanNo2]

Selective independence lol

[Inkall]

 

Australia and Canada are wealthy because they are resource rich and empty, their combined populations are less than Britain's but with vast mineral deposits.

 

New Zealand is pretty but has been totally brought to its knees by the earthquakes and without its "special relationship" with Australia would be unable to effectively police its borders.

 

Ireland's economy is a *fruitcage* mess.

It might have been a shining example of how a small country can have a high GDP (per capita) but it has been hit especially badly by the economic downturn.

 

Other countries like Scotland are Iceland, Spain and Greece and we can see how well they are doing.

 

Oil doesn't matter, it is old news.  The rasping death rattle of fossil fuel will keep us going for a couple of decades but what then?

 

 

Looking at Scotland and thinking "we can do OK for a small country" is madness.

We should be looking at Europe, Russia and Scandinavia and thinking "If we get our *suitcase* together in time we might be OK compared to India, Brazil and China".

"Australia and Canada are wealthy because they are resource rich" - So is Scotland.

 

"Other countries like Scotland are..." - Nice of you to ignore the obvious example of Norway which is doing fantastic at the moment in no small part to the £500 BILLION+ oil fund that they have. Meanwhile Scotlands oil has been sucked away by London and spent on illegal wars, playing at still being an empire, and funding Tory tax breaks for the rich for decades.

 

Scotland is the only country in the world to find oil and get poorer.

 

"Oil doesn't matter, it is old news.  The rasping death rattle of fossil fuel will keep us going for a couple of decades but what then?"

All the more reason to become Independent and put every penny of profit from the oil into a fund for the future. As for the what then, Scotland is already a world leader in various fields of alternative energy generation.

 

It isn't a case of "we can do okay as a small country", it is a case of "we can do better than we are doing with London in command". Scotland's economy per head of population is far stronger than the rest of the UK and this is despite the fact that Scotland gets a raw deal on a great many things, for example Scottish electrical producers have to pay to be connected to the National Grid while producers in the South East of England are paid to connect.

 

London politics are totally at odds with the majority of Scotlands views. Westminster only cares about keeping the rich rich and keeping up the facade of still being a world power by jumping into needless wars with their unfit for purpose military that is kitted out to look big rather than be impressive.  The people of Scotland have shown that they care much more about social welfare and looking after those who are having a hard time.

 

Your "looking to the future" part at the end is interesting. With the world the way it is I would rather have a Scottish voted Government with Scottish International Relations groups doing deals with the rest of the world than continue to have no say in the world what so ever as Scotland is just dragged along into whatever mess London takes us.

 

 

 

What I would like to know is who gets the oil, and what would happen to the armed forces? Would Scotland expect a certain amount of military hardware to be given to them?

Naturally those things would need to be decided between the Scottish and "former UK". The oil is simply a case of international law as there are clear rules on what parts of the sea a nation has claim to.

 

When it comes to military hardware, and other sharable assets, Scotland would be entitled to it's share. One very unlikely course of action would be for Scotland not to be given any share of movable UK assets but also be exempt from a share of UK debts, which would be great for Scotland because we wouldn't have to take on any of the massive debt run up by Westminster over the decades.

[Azubi]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Inkall]

Very constructive.

[Habakure]

So Scotland hasn't run up any debt, thats your view? Let England, Wales and Northern Ireland have the debt and Scotland will just start a fresh with the oil in its waters.

 

Am pretty sure Westminster would go for that, may even throw in a new aircraft carrier while they're at it.

 

I thought, when it comes to armed forces, that it goes by population. So the armed forces would be divided up by percentages, equal to the percentages of the population.

 

If Scotland did go independent am pretty sure, that there are plans to scrap alternative sources of fuel, to bring costs down. That way, they can charge less for electricity and gas.

[QQexDERA]

 

 

massive debt run up by Westminster over the decade

 

Massive debt was how Scotland became part of the UK. Your country was flat broke and in the ###### financially.  Those truly massive debts were paid off under the Act of Union and thats why you're ruled from Westminster. Of course, if you want to repay those debts then we'll be more than happy to offset that against oil taxes paid over the decades. However, please be aware that with inflation adjusted, you still owe a metric *fruitcage*ton of cash

 

PS - It won't be "Scottish Oil" when the Orkney's and Shetland's go their own way

[Azubi]

EDIT

 

Not worth the debate.

[Inkall]

So Scotland hasn't run up any debt, thats your view? Let England, Wales and Northern Ireland have the debt and Scotland will just start a fresh with the oil in its waters.

 

Am pretty sure Westminster would go for that, may even throw in a new aircraft carrier while they're at it.

 

I thought, when it comes to armed forces, that it goes by population. So the armed forces would be divided up by percentages, equal to the percentages of the population.

 

If Scotland did go independent am pretty sure, that there are plans to scrap alternative sources of fuel, to bring costs down. That way, they can charge less for electricity and gas.

 

What I said was that if assets were not split with an independent Scotland then there would also be no splitting of the debt. This of course is very unlikely to happen, so as you say things will most likely be divided up based on population percentage.

 

Scotland is already paying more than the rest of the UK for electricity and I'm pretty sure gas is up there too. Alternative sources would not be scrapped, already Scotland produces 40% of the UKs total renewable energy and is miles ahead of any other part of the UK when it comes to hitting renewable energy targets.

 

Massive debt was how Scotland became part of the UK. Your country was flat broke and in the ###### financially.  Those truly massive debts were paid off under the Act of Union and thats why you're ruled from Westminster. Of course, if you want to repay those debts then we'll be more than happy to offset that against oil taxes paid over the decades. However, please be aware that with inflation adjusted, you still owe a metric *fruitcage*ton of cash

 

PS - It won't be "Scottish Oil" when the Orkney's and Shetland's go their own way

 

Go read some British history. Scotland was not in debt. A few of the rich lords and land owners were bankrupt but the country itself was doing fine. These lords were then bribed, to agree to the Treaty of Union. Scotland saw none of that money.

 

If Orkney and Shetland went their own way there would still be a lot of oil in Scottish waters.

 

 

One thing that is very noticable in the debates.

 

I have yet to hear a single positive reason for Scotland to stay part of the UK.

It is always "don't go something bad will happen" or "oh Scotland is too wee, too poor, too stupid to look after itself".

 

Then you have Westminster telling the EU to get stuffed while also telling Scotland "we are better together". You can't have it both ways.

[FireKnife]

To me it all boils down to two things.

 

1. There are 100 more important issues in the UK as a whole to worry about bar this independence malarky.

2. Neither side, politically, has really put up a reason to vote either way. While many people are speculating on the reasons and what might or might not happen as it stands from Hollyrood or Westminster. If this was sorted out I would be more inclined to consider something other than a flat No but until then that is how I would vote.

 

History in this regard is irrelevant, both nations have evolved since then and politics is a very different kettle of fish. Decisions would have to be made according to the issues that affect us now and not what will affect us in the future.

 

'FireKnife'

[spetsnazdave87]

Are the oil fields etc not property of HMG? For Scotland to actually take them in the event of independence, the government would have to sign off on it, which seems unlikely. Scotland just can't go 'oh we're going our own way but please give us a, b, c, and d.'

 

Why should Scotland get a bunch of stuff they didn't have back before the union?

[Jagdraben]

Are the oil fields etc not property of HMG? For Scotland to actually take them in the event of independence, the government would have to sign off on it, which seems unlikely. Scotland just can't go 'oh we're going our own way but please give us a, b, c, and d.'

 

Why should Scotland get a bunch of stuff they didn't have back before the union?

 

You're right.

 

I vote that Scotland go to war with the rest of the Union to determine who gets what.

 

I'll loan them my 1000-pt Dark Eldar army and my 1000-pt Space Marine army, assuming they don't have something better to fight it with.