Scottish Independence Referendum |OT| 18 September 2014 [Up: NO wins]

Where do you stand on the issue of Scottish independence?


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
So what happens to the BBC in Scotland if there's a yes vote?

Does it just cut to black like the end of the sopranos?

I can only hope we bin that licence fee model and sell subscriptions to folk that want it, it's 2014 I can do without a £10 a month subscription to a couple of shit TV channels and some mediocre radio stations.
 
You wouldn't believe how difficult it is to respond to a comment as ignorant as this with anything but anger and insults. If that makes me a typical nationalist then so be it. I believe in a society where weapons of prestige for a failing empire don't take precedence over nurses and teachers, where parents aren't forced to go to food banks just to feed their children while politicians give themselves a 10% pay rise and maintain the highest level of expenses ever, and where democracy prevails with a government voted for by the people here, with no unelected upper chamber of inherited titles.

If I'm demonised for waving the flag that represents all that and getting a bit angry at people who want to take it away, I'll take it and proudly say: Go fuck yourself.

Reality is going to hit you like a sack of shit.



Nationalism as a belief in shared cultural identity and history can be a powerful force for positive change. Irish nationalism secured independence for most of the Republic and ensured at least some form of representation for average people in politics even if it is full of the same bullshit that every representative government has. Or was that also operating at an "ugly base level"?

The free state, and de valeras culchie shithole was fucking anarchy.
 
Hmm, I looked this up and turns out it's true, I never knew this but now I do :p. However, I've read that joining the EU is a long and tedious process so for at least for that time period international fees will apply affecting those 16 year olds, who are capable of voting. And furthermore, this is assuming Scotland joins the EU. There are countries such as Spain with their own separatist movements and could potentially veto Scotland for joining to set an example, even the UK could veto Scotland from joining if it really wanted to. For me, this is a position I would hate to be in.
The idea is for Scotland to negotiate its membership of the EU while in the UK. That way it would continue as it is seamlessly. Of course there's the risk you brought up that maybe the process will take longer than expected, and that is indeed a risk.

But actually, right now English universities can charge whatever they like to Scottish students, just as Scottish universities do to English students. In fact only by becoming independent will Scottish students -protect- their right to be charged the same as English students!

That's without even considering that the UK may vote to leave the EU in a referendum much more popular in other parts of the UK than Scotland - which would be devastating for EU research grants and the Erasmus programme at Scottish universities. A 'No' vote is not an option without its own risks.

If this is the case then, as both you and I both agree that tuitions fees are going (coming in your case) to Scotland do you think it's right that the SNP lie to the young?

They're politicians indeed. Very good at lying - and I don't even think they'll be caught out on this. 'Scottish students will not have to pay fees' is very particular wording, if you see what I'm getting at. Maybe those who can afford it will have to pay something else later.

Basically, I agree with all your points apart from Trident (and the voting YES part :p). I would have agreed with you on Trident this time last year but information has come to light since then: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/raf-fighters-intercepted-russian-warplanes-3817292. This scares the shit out of me, and even more worryingly I didn't even know this went on however since reading I am a supporter of Trident...even though we will hopefully never have to use it. But this also introduces the question of why Scotland wants to join NATO if you are so against nuclear weapons. The argument I keep hearing is that the majority of states are non nuclear states and therefore Scotland should be able to join but non of those states have ever dis-armed a NATO nuclear member - there's not enough time in 4 years to relocate Trident within the UK thus it will have to be dis-armed. I read that it's more likely a compromise will likely take place regarding the movement of Trident for Scotland to join NATO where Trident will stay in Scotland for a further 15 years while a new home is built for it in the UK.
It doesn't actually matter whether I'm for or against nuclear weapons (I am against, for the record) - what matters is the cost of them to us and what the money could be spent on. Trident costs £2000 every minute to maintain. NATO already has nuclear weapons and the idea that they wouldn't protect the UK or Scotland isn't even worth considering, never mind thinking of Russia nuking us.

The only reason Trident exists is prestige. It's a 200 billion pound ticket to a seat on the UN Security Council, and the last hold over of the empire. It has no use other than that.

Personally, I prefer doctors, teachers and securing the future for our children than international elitism.
 
The only reason Trident exists is prestige. It's a 200 billion pound ticket to a seat on the UN Security Council, and the last hold over of the empire. It has no use other than that.

Stick to the class warfare, you know nothing about Trident.

Personally, I prefer doctors, teachers and securing the future for our children than international elitism.

You forgot to mention the free pixies, unicorns and rainbows for all Scottish people.
 
The idea is for Scotland to negotiate its membership of the EU while in the UK. That way it would continue as it is seamlessly. Of course there's the risk you brought up that maybe the process will take longer than expected, and that is indeed a risk.

Yeah, about that, I guess Salmond needs to impose the sovereign will of the Scottish people on Spain. :P

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...endent-Scotland-would-get-euro-not-pound.html

An independent Scotland would be forced to wait at least five years to join the EU and would then have to sign up to the euro, the Spanish government has warned in a major intervention 48 hours before the referendum that directly contradicts Alex Salmond’s claims.

Inigo Mendez de Vigo, the Spanish European Affairs Minister, rejected the First Minister’s claims Scotland could negotiate membership “from within” the EU, saying it would have to apply from scratch and follow the usual accession process.

He told BBC’s Newsnight programme Jean-Claude Juncker, the new European Commission president, has hinted this would take five years and no new member state would be given an opt-out from the single currency.

The Spanish Prime Minister has also said Scotland would start life outside the EU, while Mr Juncker has said voters’ decision would be respected but it could not become a member merely by sending a letter.

Mr Mendez de Vigo said: “It is crystal clear that any partner member-state that leaves the member state is out of the European Union. If they want to apply again, they would have to follow the procedure of article 49 of the treaties.”

He said there were “more ifs than a poem by Kipling” about whether and on what terms Scotland would gain entry, emphasising this must be unanimously agreed by the member states and “it is a process that takes more or less five years”.
 
I'm sure that's just scaremongering or a bluffing, as is usual for anything anti-Yes.
 
Yeah, about that, I guess Salmond needs to impose the sovereign will of the Scottish people on Spain. :P
This guy has said that about 20 times now - and it holds as much truth as a UK's pound bluff. Do they seriously expect anyone to believe they will cut off 6 million people and the entirety of Scottish waters from the Spanish economy, which has a massive fishing industry? It'd be the definition of cutting of your nose to spite your face.

They've even been setting the scene for their back track with the claims that situation in Scotland and Catalonia are different, as the Scottish case proceeded 'in accordance with the legal and institutional procedures’ of the UK, while Catalonia's wouldn't. - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/977a39ea-8c...n=uk&siteedition=uk&_i_referer=#axzz3DUPJTGZI

No one with any credibility seriously believes Spain will block Scotland's entry to the UK.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2...-veto-an-independent-scotlands-eu-membership/
 
I can only hope we bin that licence fee model and sell subscriptions to folk that want it, it's 2014 I can do without a £10 a month subscription to a couple of shit TV channels and some mediocre radio stations.

My guess is that it's more likely to follow the Irish model. The Irish government have a commercial deal with the BBC to allow access to their services, and then you have a separate PSB - such as RTE. How Scotland fund both of those is up to them - license fee, ads, combination of both.
 
It doesn't actually matter whether I'm for or against nuclear weapons (I am against, for the record) - what matters is the cost of them to us and what the money could be spent on. Trident costs £2000 every minute to maintain. NATO already has nuclear weapons and the idea that they wouldn't protect the UK or Scotland isn't even worth considering, never mind thinking of Russia nuking us.

The only reason Trident exists is prestige. It's a 200 billion pound ticket to a seat on the UN Security Council, and the last hold over of the empire. It has no use other than that.

Personally, I prefer doctors, teachers and securing the future for our children than international elitism.

Nato does not have like a Justice League flying castle or something. UK is Nato, France is Nato, Canada is Nato, US is Nato, all 12 members are Nato are all in it together, you can't just one day decide that we don't want to fund our share anymore. And if you have not noticed, the UK is kind of on Russia's doorstep, by the time those missiles in Kansas are ready to fly it would be all over for us, and maybe they would call off the launch because the Russins would just launch against the US...?? There is no black and white when you are dealing with a mad man... And even if it does cost £2000 a minute, that is 0.000033p per person in the UK per minute or £1214 per person, per lifetime, out of their taxes, assuming they live an average of 70 years - I pay more than that a month in taxes. I'm already paid up for my nuclear protection. numbers in the thousanads are not comparible when you are dividing by the contributions of 10s and 10s of millions. Have some perspective
 
I'm sure that's just scaremongering or a bluffing, as is usual for anything anti-Yes.

Are you referring to Osiris's quote directly above you? You think Inigo Mendez de Vigo, the Spanish European Affairs Minister, is bothered which way the Scots go in terms of their membership? If you are, why would he scaremonger or bluff? They've no horse in this race.
 
Stick to the class warfare, you know nothing about Trident.



You forgot to mention the free pixies, unicorns and rainbows for all Scottish people.
Is it not tax payers money that is been channelled into a hyper-expensive, hyper-destructive, and hyper-underutilised weapon that has zero demonstratable net positive effect for the average citizen of the UK is it? In fact, since you like it and I don't how about you pay my share? Because I see fuck all positive reasons why wen should have such a useless piece of junk. The balance of power argument is misleading because none of the major players will even countenance disarmement because no one will be the first to make a move. Britain advocating disarmament (rather than just harrying those other who want a piece of the pie) would be a progressive step.

Nato is effectively US and its bully boys. Give me a example of when Nato has ever gone against US interests. This is considering the US has had many foreign affair fuck-ups.
 
Yeah, about that, I guess Salmond needs to impose the sovereign will of the Scottish people on Spain. :P

Except there is no evidence to suggest Scotland will even be leaving the EU at all. Scotland is leaving the UK, not EU. Spain is just trying to scare Scottish voters to try and dampen down its own secessionist movements. It's not the first time these neo-Francoists have tried to subvert democracy.
 
Nato does not have like a Justice League flying castle or something. UK is Nato, France is Nato, Canada is Nato, US is Nato, all 12 members are Nato are all in it together, you can't just one day decide that we don't want to fund our share anymore. And if you have not noticed, the UK is kind of on Russia's doorstep, by the time those missiles in Kansas are ready to fly it would be all over for us, and maybe they would call off the launch because the Russins would just launch against the US...?? There is no black and white when you are dealing with a mad man... And even if it does cost £2000 a minute, that is 0.000033p per person in the UK per minute or £1214 each out of their taxes assuming they live an average of £70 years
As the former UK ambassador to NATO has already said, the idea that NATO will allow the entirety of the north part of the British isles and the North Atlantic to become this unprotected territory open to the Russians by denying Scotland membership is ridiculous.

I'm not opposed to joining NATO, I'm opposed to paying for Trident. These are not co-requisites. Not sure how much clearer I can make that.
 
Except there is no evidence to suggest Scotland will even be leaving the EU at all. Scotland is leaving the UK, not EU. Spain is just trying to scare Scottish voters to try and dampen down its own secessionist movements. It's not the first time these neo-Francoists have tried to subvert democracy.

Precisely.

...I have even got friends who think Scotland won't be able to join the E.U. at all...

DeFiBkIlLeR: What is that even supposed to me? Do you mean attachment to a cause? That is incredibly basic analysis...How can you even compare the two? There is rightful fear of nukes. Even governments haven't been stupid enough to ignore the warnings of experts and the public, as well as their own reasoning, to nuke's destructiveness.

If you are talking about Scottish Nationalism however, I don't think many people have been killed in the last 70 years as a direct or indirect result. Nationalistic expression is generally and umbrella term in which many diverse motivations are expressed. I mean to say that the Nazi aggressions in Europe were merely a result of nationalistic tendencies is incredibly basic.
 
Are you referring to Osiris's quote directly above you? You think Inigo Mendez de Vigo, the Spanish European Affairs Minister, is bothered which way the Scots go in terms of their membership? If you are, why would he scaremonger or bluff? They've no horse in this race.
Of course it matters to him. Two of the richest regions in his country have been dying to leave for decades. Catalonia is planning their own referendum. He'll say anything that'll scare them into staying.
 
Except there is no evidence to suggest Scotland will even be leaving the EU at all. Scotland is leaving the UK, not EU.

Scotland is not a sovereign member of the EU, The UK is the sovereign member of the EU, Scotland is leaving the UK, the UK is the continuing member state of the EU.

It's not rocket science...you leave the UK, you leave the EU.
 
Are you referring to Osiris's quote directly above you? You think Inigo Mendez de Vigo, the Spanish European Affairs Minister, is bothered which way the Scots go in terms of their membership? If you are, why would he scaremonger or bluff? They've no horse in this race.

I think he was being sarcastic.
 
Are you referring to Osiris's quote directly above you? You think Inigo Mendez de Vigo, the Spanish European Affairs Minister, is bothered which way the Scots go in terms of their membership? If you are, why would he scaremonger or bluff? They've no horse in this race.

Absolutely. Spain wants an independent Scotland like a hole in the head. It has done everything possible within the confines of diplomatic niceties to prevent a no vote in order to dissuade Catalans from declaring independence.
 
They should give Scotland like a year or two trial period for this independence thing. Not short enough that you won't run into problems, but not short enough that you don't have a chance to address some of them.

And then after that expires, they can either come back or stay independent.

I think that works well for everyone. I should be the king of stuff.
 
As the former UK ambassador to NATO has already said, the idea that NATO will allow the entirety of the north part of the British isles and the North Atlantic to become this unprotected territory open to the Russians by denying Scotland membership is ridiculous.

I'm not opposed to joining NATO, I'm opposed to paying for Trident. These are not co-requisites. Not sure how much clearer I can make that.

UK is a rich country , why should they not pay their way in a multi national alliance.
Again, see the maths, it's a pittance when divided by the tax contribution of 60 million and growing, population.

That £2000 a minute will be all outgoing expenditure including;

- All personel assigned to the program, country wide
- All building and land costs and the associated costs - Electricity, gas, land rent if applicable.
- Maintenance of all mechanical parts of the program, missiles, submarines etc...
- Everything else...
 
Scotland is not a sovereign member of the EU, The UK is the sovereign member of the EU, Scotland is leaving the UK, the UK is the continuing member state of the EU.

It's not rocket science...you leave the UK, you leave the EU.

The EU is a confederation and proto nation itself. It would be like when West Virginia split off from Virginia, it still carried on being part of the US. You cannot unilaterally revoke EU citizenship to 5 million people
 
No one with any credibility seriously believes Spain will block Scotland's entry to the UK.

Of course. iScotland won't be blocked from entering the EU, as that would be counter productive for all involved. What is up for debate, however, are the conditions of entry. I find it unlikely that there would be a lot of support, within the EU, for letting iScotland in through Article 48, and keeping all the UK opt outs in place.
 
How many people have been killed by a nuclear weapon since WWII ?...none.

How many people died in Yugoslavia, nationalism in full flow....tens of thousands.

Lots more examples out there..
I can't wait to follow Alex Salmond's call to arms. When do the SNP start supplying the rifles and semtex?

Of course. iScotland won't be blocked from entering the EU, as that would be counter productive for all involved. What is up for debate, however, are the conditions of entry. I find it unlikely that there would be a lot of support, within the EU, for letting iScotland in through Article 48, and keeping all the UK opt outs in place.
I agree. There will have to be some compromise, and it will come in the form of losing those opt outs in return for not adopting the Euro. Just my guess though - Scotland will have a pretty decent negotiating team! Salmond, Darling, Brown, Alexander et al..
 
Who would like some REFERENDUM STUDIO PORN? In the BBC's Scottish HQ...

BxqHBsLIQAIhEfg.jpg:large

Get Peter Snow in front of that big Yes/No screen suspended on a bungee rope
 
You cannot unilaterally revoke EU citizenship to 5 million people

lol..EU citizenship is only conferred on the peoples of member states, Scotland is leaving a member state.

You can spin & twist it all you like within the confines of a nationalistic echo chamber, but it cuts no ice in the real world.
 
lol..EU citizenship is only conferred on the peoples of member states, Scotland is leaving a member state.

You can spin & twist it all you like within the confines of a nationalistic echo chamber, but it cuts no ice in the real world.

Is US citizenship conferred on people solely for residing in a US state?
 
The idea is for Scotland to negotiate its membership of the EU while in the UK. That way it would continue as it is seamlessly. Of course there's the risk you brought up that maybe the process will take longer than expected, and that is indeed a risk.

But actually, right now English universities can charge whatever they like to Scottish students, just as Scottish universities do to English students. In fact only by becoming independent will Scottish students -protect- their right to be charged the same as English students!

That's without even considering that the UK may vote to leave the EU in a referendum much more popular in other parts of the UK than Scotland - which would be devastating for EU research grants and the Erasmus programme at Scottish universities. A 'No' vote is not an option without its own risks.

I can't remember the source now, but say Scotland does eventually get into the EU, it could take up to 8-10 years which is way beyond 2016 for when Scotland is to go independent if YES wins. TBH I don't understand your point, could you expand where Scottish residents need protecting within UK universities - all Scottish students I've met have paid exactly the same as any other UK citizen.

They're politicians indeed. Very good at lying - and I don't even think they'll be caught out on this. 'Scottish students will not have to pay fees' is very particular wording, if you see what I'm getting at. Maybe those who can afford it will have to pay something else later.

It is a shame because I know they won't be caught out on this, furthermore I do get what you're saying but how will that affect the amount of UK citizens going to Scottish universities once it becomes a foreign country (and thus affect the Universities revenues)? Additionally, for the *free* education 130,000 university places are cut per year.

It doesn't actually matter whether I'm for or against nuclear weapons (I am against, for the record) - what matters is the cost of them to us and what the money could be spent on. Trident costs £2000 every minute to maintain. NATO already has nuclear weapons and the idea that they wouldn't protect the UK or Scotland isn't even worth considering, never mind thinking of Russia nuking us.

The only reason Trident exists is prestige. It's a 200 billion pound ticket to a seat on the UN Security Council, and the last hold over of the empire. It has no use other than that.

Personally, I prefer doctors, teachers and securing the future for our children than international elitism.

I don't understand people who are against Nuclear Weapons, one could argue that it's been the most pivotal invention of the maintenance of world peace, look at history pre nuclear weapons.

Yes Trident is expensive, however it's of my opinion that the cost of the deterrent is justified. I wish we lived in a perfect world where Nuclear Weapons weren't needed and as you rightly said the money could be spent more wisely but I've come to grow out of my naivety, the world is more like Command & Conquer.
 
haha..the butt hurt agenda is revealed.

Scotland profited from the Empire very nicely thank you very much. They were some of the most ardent colonial expansionists out there.

You don't find it slightly ironic that you lambast nationalism despite the British being some of the fiercest nationalists out there?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom