Support NeoGAF

[gutter_trash]

as an Irish person, I don't understand why anyone in Scotland would vote no

Run your own country, ignore the scaremongering

when will you get this chance again?

Have anyone from Ireland gave any motivational speeches to the Scots about independence?


*pro tip to the Scots, don't act like separatist Quebec. Quebec stupidly beat the drums of ethnic nationalism and that is the main reason why they failed both times.

Be positive about your campaign and stay away from Quebec's negative whiny style of campaign on ''ethnic'' nationalism

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Approximately 2/3 of the 2014 polls from that Wikipedia page are "Stay" wins. If a referendum happens, nobody is going to let a "Leave" vote through. The UK already leans to "Stay," despite current times being a low point of EU membership from the perspective of many UK citizens.

"A" low point sure. The lowest it can or will ever go? I don't know, I can't see the future.

With the weight of economic partners (such as the US) and huge domestic businesses and overseas trading partners behind "Stay" (including parent companies of the media outlets which love to toy with the idea), "Leave" will never get through. It's not even worth talking about.

Hey, if you don't want to talk about it fair enough. It's probably off-topic here anyway. I was just taking issue with your inaccurate assertion that the British public leans heavily towards stay. I can find plenty of polls showing leave out ahead on the page I linked.

 

[BertramCooper]

Balmoral probably brings in a good amount of tourists and where else would the wee royal bairns go to university if not St Andrews?

Dunno.

McGill?

 

[Fox_Mulder]

good luck

 

[8bit]

Have anyone from Ireland gave any motivational speeches to the Scots about independence?


*pro tip to the Scots, don't act like separatist Quebec. Quebec stupidly beat the drums of ethnic nationalism and that is the main reason why they failed both times.

Be positive about your campaign and stay away from Quebec's negative whiny style of campaign on ''ethnic'' nationalism

I think the message from Yes has been mostly positive, if maybe muted at times.
Can't say the same of Better Together's "Project Fear"/You can't do it/Too wee. IMO.

 

[gutter_trash]

a positive inclusive campaign will lead you to victory

a negative campaign of exclusion will lead you to defeat

I'm happy to hear to that you guys going positive

 

[Tadaima]

"A" low point sure. The lowest it can or will ever go? I don't know, I can't see the future.

Hey, if you don't want to talk about it fair enough. It's probably off-topic here anyway. I was just taking issue with your inaccurate assertion that the British public leans heavily towards stay. I can find plenty of polls showing leave out ahead on the page I linked.

What you linked to does suggest a close win for "Stay" rather than a landslide which was implied by my wording, for which I apologise. But I do assert that with the indicated win for "Stay", combined with pressure from businesses and economic partners, a win for "Leave" is just too far out of reach.

As it stands, the thought of UK independence from the EU is nothing but a nationalist's wet dream, while the question remains a cute play-thing for media outlets to toy with on a slow news day.

 

[CyclopsRock]

As an Englishman from London, I don't care. I view Scottish Independence in much the same way as I view snow leopards and killer whales - I'd like them to be out there, in the wild, but it's not like I'm ever gonna see them anyway, am I? If they all went extinct tomorrow, nothing about my life would change. I do believe the people of Scotland would be worse off, but that's up to them.

That said, I'd love us to have some tax competition near the border.

 

[JonnyBrad]

As an American with tenuous ancestral ties to Scotland who has been watching this debate quite closely, I'm puzzled by the choice to maintain the English monarch in the "Yes" plan.

Strategically, I can understand why they would do it, considering the monarchy is still surprisingly popular in Scotland, but from a purely ideological standpoint, it seems to undermine the very purpose of Scottish independence.

Should Scotland choose independence (as unlikely as it seems), I would hope they'd eventually get rid of the monarchy, just as I hope Canada, Australia, and New Zealand eventually get rid of it.

The Monarchy is just a tourist attraction nowadays. I can understand it for Aus, Canada etc but the Queen lives in Scotland for part of the year. She's a tourist attraction who brings in money.

 

[Giant Panda]

Scotland should stay. Leaving would start its course down the drain economically.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I'd also point out that it's basically impossible to run a "positive" campaign about retaining the status quo. People already know what it's like - they're living it right now. The only thing you can explain is why it's better than the alternative being offered, which amounts largely to deconstructing the opposition's arguments rather than make your own. That's impossible to spin in a "positive" way. The only way it'd ever be possible is if the UK were at some sort of cross roads where it's definitely going to change from where it is now, and the argument is that Scotland would be better off in this new, changed UK - but that isn't the case, because the UK isn't at a crossroads.

 

[BertramCooper]

The Monarchy is just a tourist attraction nowadays. I can understand it for Aus, Canada etc but the Queen lives in Scotland for part of the year. She's a tourist attraction who brings in money.

This argument has always puzzled me.

I'm pretty sure all of the castles in France and Germany are pulling in plenty of tourists without being occupied by monarchs.

The beautiful architecture and history don't die with the monarchy - just the antiquated, offensive concept of a head of state being an inherited role.

 

[8bit]

I'd also point out that it's basically impossible to run a "positive" campaign about retaining the status quo. People already know what it's like - they're living it right now.

Sure, that's true. However, it's only recently they've tried to put a positive spin on things and I think that's down to Saatchi influence. If it is a no, it'll be a shame because they've mostly run an unpleasant campaign of untruths instead of one with a positive spin on Scotland's place in the UK.

Mind you, it's Blair McDougall in charge, he fucked David Miliband's chances of the Labour post IMO so I maybe shouldn't be so surprised.

 

[jimbobsmells]

If Scotland want to go then that's ok with me. But they should do it fully, and that does not include a currency union IMO. Otherwise it seems like another form of devolution to me. EU membership is a tricky one - they surely wouldn't have an automatic right to join. I would expect they would have to request membership even if that was a formality.
Anyway, if they leave then let's have that funky looking flag that replaces the blue with black. I like that one. ;-)

 

[QuicheFontaine]

As an Englishman from London, I don't care. I view Scottish Independence in much the same way as I view snow leopards and killer whales - I'd like them to be out there, in the wild, but it's not like I'm ever gonna see them anyway, am I? If they all went extinct tomorrow, nothing about my life would change. I do believe the people of Scotland would be worse off, but that's up to them.

That said, I'd love us to have some tax competition near the border.

You're....you're, uh, talking about the snow leopards there, right?

And can't the tax competition take place right now anyway if the Scottish Government uses its existing powers to vary tax rates? +/- 3% isn't it?

 

[Acosta]

This argument has always puzzled me.

I'm pretty sure all of the castles in France and Germany are doing just fine without being occupied by monarchs.

The beautiful architecture and history don't die with the monarchy - just the antiquated, offensive concept of a head of state being an inherited role.

It's a national thing. "It´s ours, so it´s good" for many people. The fact that France and Germany doesn't have a king only reinforce that argument.

Monarchy should royally (duh) screw it up to change that feeling. That´s why Charles will never, ever, be king.

 

[AGoodODST]

Vote Yes Scotland!

A few points worth noting, Scotlad is already seen as a separate entity by the EU and despite what Wesrminster would like to pretend no one knows in what way Scotland will stay/rejoin the EU.

Also the pound has only been a free floating currency since 2002 when the last of the gold reserves were sold off. Prior to that it was pegged to the Mark and the US dollar. To put a currency union completely out of the question is clearly bullshit.

 

[8bit]

That´s why Charles will never, ever, be king.

Brenda isn't invincible and he's been laying foundation for this role for years. He's effectively a puppet King pulling strings of Government.

 

[Spaghetti]

As an Englishman from London, I don't care. I view Scottish Independence in much the same way as I view snow leopards and killer whales - I'd like them to be out there, in the wild, but it's not like I'm ever gonna see them anyway, am I? If they all went extinct tomorrow, nothing about my life would change.

sounds like this came straight out of westminster

vote yes, scotland

 

[BumblebeeCody]

I would argue no presence on the world stage.

I think the same. If anything I see them having more of a presence because they're apart of Great Britain.

If Scotland do want to leave, I don't blame them.

 

[Stuart444]

I'm voting No, I feel staying in the UK will be better long term. That said, I don't like either campaigns, feels like every political campaign ever. (aka a shit flinging contest between them)

That aside, if we left, we'd lose the pound... if we stay in the EU though (or we 'rejoin' it)... does that mean we'd get the Euro?

If so, add another country that will get screwed with $60 = €60 for games. Lovely. :/

 

[Tadaima]

Monarchy should royally (duh) screw it up to change that feeling. That´s why Charles will never, ever, be king.

The only thing preventing Charles from becoming King is his own death. I imagine that an abdication would weaken public perception of the British monarchy probably more than his calling to the throne.

His tarnished history and an unfortunate sequence of events led to him being nowhere near as beloved as his mother or children. He was born into a very difficult position, and his actions have worsened it.

I'm not saying he should or shouldn't be king – I'm just pointing out that protocol will force him to become king, probably against everybody's (including his own) will.

I'm surprised the monarchy aren't trying infinitely harder to give him more positive exposure, since their future could depend on him.

 

[CyclopsRock]

This argument has always puzzled me.

I'm pretty sure all of the castles in France and Germany are pulling in plenty of tourists without being occupied by monarchs.

The beautiful architecture and history don't die with the monarchy - just the antiquated, offensive concept of a head of state being an inherited role.

So do the many castles in the rest of the UK that don't have any attachment to the monarchy - but not as many. I don't think anyone's suggesting for a moment that the monarchy is single handedly propping up any tourist industries, but that doesn't mean it doesn't play a role, and I doubt anyone at all would be piling into the UK to check out the house of President Blair - so if we do need an executive head of state (even if, like in many countries, they're purely a functionary position), why not have one that contributes? It's not like an elected head of state would be free.

But these are all fairly crude, economic arguments that don't matter much - I've never been of the belief that our political structures should be organised around meagre financial to'ing and fro'ing; By the sum of the nation's wealth, it's not a huge deal eitherway. However, if we're acknowledging that the role is basically a political irrelevance, as the heads of states in many countries are, then I struggle to see how an entity which has support and polling that most politicians would strangle their own children in their sleep to obtain taking up this role is "offensive" - indeed, replacing them with an entity that is almost certainly going to have less popular support seems like a peculiar cure of offensiveness. There's a lot more to democracy than elections, after all.

And finally, the UK's a particularly unusual example here because - unlike our colonial brothers and sister who maintain the monarchy as their technical head of state - we don't have a written constitution. Parliamentary democracy as the world knows it was developed in Westminster through the gradual (and occasionally not-so-gradual) alterations of our organic, uncodified constitution. It's not static and it can be changed, but one has to confront the fact that our current gang of inept loons that run the country and the civil service would be the ones taking a hatchet to the constitution in any possible path in which we got rid of the monarchy. And given that the entire power of parliament, the prime minister, the cabinet, every branch of government and many things that aren't branches of government technically receive their power as proxy of the monarch, there would need to be a significant change in our constitution. Since the monarchy don't do anything politically significant, the most significant way of actually "removing" them would be by removing these constitutional empowerments (which is why I don't believe anyone who says that we could basically just ignore this constitutional issue), so the question is - what do we replace our ~800 year old constitution with, and who's gonna write it? Lord Heseltine? Sir Jeremy Heywood? Baroness Ashton? Fuck that.

 

[8bit]

That aside, if we left, we'd lose the pound... if we stay in the EU though (or we 'rejoin' it)... does that mean we'd get the Euro?

No, you need to be a member of ERM or something for a few years before you can join the Euro unless I've forgotten something so that's not likely.

 

[CyclopsRock]

You're....you're, uh, talking about the snow leopards there, right?

And can't the tax competition take place right now anyway if the Scottish Government uses its existing powers to vary tax rates? +/- 3% isn't it?

Heh, I originally wrote "Scotland" in that sentence and replaced it with "Scottish Independence" to avoid this confusion!

All I mean is that, as a Londoner, I've never been to Scotland, and I don't "work" with Scotland professionally. Should that ever change, I still don't think Independence would matter because they'd be joining the EU wherein I could still go there and trade with them in the same way I can now. In that sense, like the Snow Leopard going extinct, whether Scotland remains part of the Glorious City-State of London the UK is really neither here nor there.

As for the tax thing, yeah, they can vary it now but they've never used that power, apparently because there's been some confusion on whether they can actually keep that specific revenue should they raise it. Still, if they leave and join the EU - ie, people can just as easily work "abroad" across the border as they could do now - it'll necessarily come to the fore unless Scotland actually peg their tax rates to that of the UK, which seems incredibly unlikely.

 

[Acosta]

Brenda isn't invincible and he's been laying foundation for this role for years. He's effectively a puppet King pulling strings of Government.

I don't disregard the influence of him, I'm sure he has the ear of more than one politic interested in "natural conservatism". But I'm pretty sure Brenda would freeze herself before letting Camilla become "princess consort" or whatever they come up to call her.

I still think he will be forced to abdicate to William as soon as he is coronated. These people think on dynasty levels and he will do it on the benefit of the Windsor house.

(In any case, I would guess it´s bad form to talk about UK monarchy in a Scotland Independence thread sorry guys!)

 

[Stuart444]

No, you need to be a member of ERM or something for a few years before you can join the Euro unless I've forgotten something so that's not likely.

Ah... so we'd be currency-less?

Seems like a small thing but it's what I'm wondering since it seems like we won't keep the pound. .

 

[AGoodODST]

Ah... so we'd be currency-less?

Seems like a small thing but it's what I'm wondering since it seems like we won't keep the pound. .

We could just continue to use it outside of a currency union. Wouldn't be so different , you already can't use Scottish money in England anyway.

 

[StuBurns]

I like you Scotland, even if you leave us, you'll still be awesome.

 

[Stuart444]

We could just continue to use it outside of a currency union. Wouldn't be so different , you already can't use Scottish money in England anyway.

Heh, that's true.

First the referendum then we can worry about this depending on the result.

 

[genjiZERO]

As an American with tenuous ancestral ties to Scotland who has been watching this debate quite closely, I'm puzzled by the choice to maintain the English monarch in the "Yes" plan.

Strategically, I can understand why they would do it, considering the monarchy is still surprisingly popular in Scotland, but from a purely ideological standpoint, it seems to undermine the very purpose of Scottish independence.

Should Scotland choose independence (as unlikely as it seems), I would hope they'd eventually get rid of the monarchy, just as I hope Canada, Australia, and New Zealand eventually get rid of it.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Elizabeth II is a Scottish monarch too. England and Scotland have shared a monarch since 1601 when King James VI of Scotland also became heir to the English throne after the death of Elizabeth I (last Tudor). This is called the Union of Crowns. However, while they shared a monarch the crowns were no completely merged until the Treaty of Union in 1707 which established the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

 

[Lirlond]

One question always come to my mind when I think about the referendum.

Why is there never money for starving weans, but we can spend £100m a year on Nuclear weapons?

Getting rid of the nukes and reducing defense spending is a massive reason I want to leave the union. No longer should Scots be dragged ahead of English soldiers into war zones.

 

[OverlordSteph]

Sounds like you have no clue whatsoever about what you are talking about. Can you think of any small northern European countries that are happy and successful without any oil or pound sterling?

Last time i checked Scotland's Fiscal and Economical structure is tied to the pound, you cant just drop it over night it will take many years. and when that happens Scotland will needs its own currency and trust me it will not be anywhere near close to the strength of the Pound, and thats the simple truth.

Spend some time and read up on it, as you seem to need a reality check

 

[8bit]

I don't disregard the influence of him, I'm sure he has the ear of more than one politic interested in "natural conservatism". But I'm pretty sure Brenda would freeze herself before letting Camilla become "princess consort" or whatever they come up to call her.

I still think he will be forced to abdicate to William as soon as he is coronated. These people think on dynasty levels and he will do it on the benefit of the Windsor house.

(In any case, I would guess it´s bad form to talk about UK monarchy in a Scotland Independence thread sorry guys!)

Nah, it's relevant. Don't worry about it. You might want to check into the UK Pol thread though.

 

[Tadaima]

One question always come to my mind when I think about the referendum.

Why is there never money for starving weans, but we can spend £100m a year on Nuclear weapons?

Getting rid of the nukes and reducing defense spending is a massive reason I want to leave the union. No longer should Scots be dragged ahead of English soldiers into war zones.

Did you know that the UK's nuclear arsenal is actually stored in Scotland? The warheads are at Faslane Naval Base. Not that it really matters, since I assume the weapons will be moved if an independence vote got through.

Anyway, I think the stance on nuclear weapons is something that just about all British citizens can agree upon. But the program is something that the UK has been moving away from for a while now.

English and Scottish military ties go back centuries – it's not like military might is something that the English burdened the Scottish with or vice versa. However, it's something that both countries have made great progress with during this time – in terms of both effectively managing its power and scaling it upwards and downwards.

An exit for Scotland leaves this behind, for better or worse. The two countries will no doubt retain military ties, but I don't know if I can agree that there will be a cost reduction that offsets the proportional £8 - 9 million saving from storing nuclear weapons (based on your figure and the % of Scottish taxpayers in the UK). Both Scotland and England will have increased military expenditures due to the inevitable need to form and manage a military alliance and to run smaller, more expensive (cost per capita) militaries of their own.

 

[xbhaskarx]

Giving up nukes, a UN Security Council veto, and the Prime Minister's office half the time... for what exactly? When the oil runs out the rest of Scotland will be as irrelevant globally as Celtic/Rangers have become.

 

[BertramCooper]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Elizabeth II is a Scottish monarch too. England and Scotland have shared a monarch since 1601 when King James VI of Scotland also became heir to the English throne after the death of Elizabeth I (last Tudor). This is called the Union of Crowns. However, while they shared a monarch the crowns were no completely merged until the Treaty of Union in 1707 which established the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

When I said "English monarch," I was specifically referring to Elizabeth II's ethnicity, which is English.

You are correct that she currently serves as the Scottish monarch as well, though I know that quite a few Scots are irked by the fact that she's named "Elizabeth II of Scotland" when she's the first Elizabeth to reign as queen of Scotland.

 

[RedShift]

When I said "English monarch," I was specifically referring to Elizabeth II's ethnicity, which is English.

You are correct that she currently serves as the Scottish monarch as well, though I know that quite a few Scots are irked by the fact that she's named "Elizabeth II of Scotland" when she's the first Elizabeth to reign as queen of Scotland.

a) She's German (ethnically)

b) In Scotland she is not known as Elizabeth II of Scotland, she's known as Elizabeth Queen of Scots, so those Scottish people you know are obviously very confused.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

When I said "English monarch," I was specifically referring to Elizabeth II's ethnicity, which is English.

You are correct that she currently serves as the Scottish monarch as well, though I know that quite a few Scots are irked by the fact that she's named "Elizabeth II of Scotland" when she's the first Elizabeth to reign as queen of Scotland.

Ethnicity? I thought she was German or something.

Edit: beaten by a whisker

 

[gutter_trash]

When I said "English monarch," I was specifically referring to Elizabeth II's ethnicity, which is English.

You are correct that she currently serves as the Scottish monarch as well, though I know that quite a few Scots are irked by the fact that she's named "Elizabeth II of Scotland" when she's the first Elizabeth to reign as queen of Scotland.

ethnicity is kind of joke when concerning Monarchs since the House of Windsor (who changed their names when anti-German sentiment rose up during WW1 from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha ) are of German descent.

So your current Queen comes from German bloodline

 

[CyclopsRock]

One question always come to my mind when I think about the referendum.

Why is there never money for starving weans, but we can spend £100m a year on Nuclear weapons?

Getting rid of the nukes and reducing defense spending is a massive reason I want to leave the union. No longer should Scots be dragged ahead of English soldiers into war zones.

Never money? Far and away the single largest government expenditure is welfare and provisions for the poor. You can argue that it should be an even greater amount, but to argue it's currently some sort of afterthought is just incorrect.

 

[daviyoung]

Ethnicity? I thought she was German or something.

Edit: beaten by a whisker

Pretty sure most of England is German if you go far enough back

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Pretty sure most of England is German if you go far enough back

Probably. I was surprised to see the word "ethnicity" in this thread at all, frankly!

 

[gutter_trash]

Pretty sure most of England is German if you go far enough back

many of Europe's monarchs come from a small pool of royal families, like House of Habsburg, House of Bourbon and so on.

There were many reasons why for many centuries that France, Spain and Austria were always on the same side... their monarchs where from the same House!

 

[kmag]

So do the many castles in the rest of the UK that don't have any attachment to the monarchy - but not as many. I don't think anyone's suggesting for a moment that the monarchy is single handedly propping up any tourist industries, but that doesn't mean it doesn't play a role, and I doubt anyone at all would be piling into the UK to check out the house of President Blair - so if we do need an executive head of state (even if, like in many countries, they're purely a functionary position), why not have one that contributes? It's not like an elected head of state would be free.

But these are all fairly crude, economic arguments that don't matter much - I've never been of the belief that our political structures should be organised around meagre financial to'ing and fro'ing; By the sum of the nation's wealth, it's not a huge deal eitherway. However, if we're acknowledging that the role is basically a political irrelevance, as the heads of states in many countries are, then I struggle to see how an entity which has support and polling that most politicians would strangle their own children in their sleep to obtain taking up this role is "offensive" - indeed, replacing them with an entity that is almost certainly going to have less popular support seems like a peculiar cure of offensiveness. There's a lot more to democracy than elections, after all.

And finally, the UK's a particularly unusual example here because - unlike our colonial brothers and sister who maintain the monarchy as their technical head of state - we don't have a written constitution. Parliamentary democracy as the world knows it was developed in Westminster through the gradual (and occasionally not-so-gradual) alterations of our organic, uncodified constitution. It's not static and it can be changed, but one has to confront the fact that our current gang of inept loons that run the country and the civil service would be the ones taking a hatchet to the constitution in any possible path in which we got rid of the monarchy. And given that the entire power of parliament, the prime minister, the cabinet, every branch of government and many things that aren't branches of government technically receive their power as proxy of the monarch, there would need to be a significant change in our constitution. Since the monarchy don't do anything politically significant, the most significant way of actually "removing" them would be by removing these constitutional empowerments (which is why I don't believe anyone who says that we could basically just ignore this constitutional issue), so the question is - what do we replace our ~800 year old constitution with, and who's gonna write it? Lord Heseltine? Sir Jeremy Heywood? Baroness Ashton? Fuck that.

While you claim it's a political irrelevance, the current government is pulling out all the legal stops to stop us finding out how much direct influence the completely unelected and non accountable heir to the throne has been exerting behind the scenes on a myriad of subjects.

They're only an political irrelevance when they're not meddling in politics which Charlie boy seems to have a great deal of trouble with.

A constitution isn't exactly that difficult, while ours is unwritten which is a nonsense anyway some of the central tenets are pretty clear. At least with a written constitution you wouldn't have the supreme court just making shit up completely off the bat.

The tourist thing is the single silliest pro-monarchy argument. The biggest attraction in Windsor is effing Legoland, and Buckingham Palace doesn't even merit a place on VisitLondon's top 10 attractions (which is measured by visitor numbers http://www.visitlondon.com/things-to-do/sightseeing/tourist-attraction/top-ten-attractions) The history is there, they'll make far more dosh opening everything up 24-7 than the partial openings they've currently got. France's palaces do a roaring trade.

 

[Jezbollah]

I find it strange that I am so interested in this referendum. To be honest I think that either way I think rUK is better off - I firmly believe the rUK will be better off themselves if those in Scotland vote Yes - and if they vote No, hopefully that'll shut some people up for the next dozen years.

That being said, I think Salmond is a bellend and think he has no real concrete, credible and solid plan (that isnt based upon fancy assumptions) on what goes on the day after the referendum if he gets the Yes vote. My fear is that we will see a car crash in action..

 

[kmag]

Got to love the English.

You're too wee, too stupid and too poor to go alone.

Even without Oil, Scotlands GDP per capita is second only to the South East of England. While you can argue about the spending being greater or less depending on the price of Oil (in some years Scotland is a net contributor in some years not) it sort of hides the point the entire UK runs a massive deficit so Scotland (even ignoring the £3 billion out of the £5 billion we give to UK defense which isn't spend in Scotland at all so doesn't contribute to our GDP) some years runs a surplus and some years runs a deficit.

No-one ever questions how Ireland, Denmark, Holland, Iceland, Sweden all survive without Oil or the benevolent hand and guidance of the English.

The country for all it's faults isn't some backwards backwater. It's a modern, well educated country with pretty strong export base a strong bio-chemical and bio-science sector. It's just not just shortbread, whisky and oil.

And btw we must be the only country in the world where oil reserves are a fucking problem rather than a boon.

 

[Tadaima]

I find it strange that I am so interested in this referendum. To be honest I think that either way I think rUK is better off - I firmly believe the rUK will be better off themselves if those in Scotland vote Yes - and if they vote No, hopefully that'll shut some people up for the next dozen years.

The United Republic of Great Britain... doesn't have quite the same ring to it. If a republic ever happened, I wonder what would happen to the name.

Speaking of which, I wonder what would happen to the flag of the UK in the event of a Scottish "Yes" on independence. The blue colour and white cross is Scottish. I can't see it changing, to be honest – perhaps "origins" will be used as an excuse to keep the iconic flag the same as it's been for the last couple of centuries.

 

[jimbobsmells]

Got to love the English.

You're too wee, too stupid and too poor to go alone.

smh...

 

[genjiZERO]

Pretty sure most of England is German if you go far enough back

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the English are mostly Brittonic. I've read that this is what modern genetic studies have shown.