First topic message reminder :

Can I invite the members of the forum to have a debate and post their views on the Scottish Independence issues

There are many topic's involved in a debate of this nature
Example's, Would Scotland have to join the EU if they went Independent
Which currency would they use
Would there be a border between the two countries
Would passport have to be shown when entering or leaving the country
Does it mean that there's no longer a British passport, in my case would it be English and in my wife's case be Scottish
What would happen to the people who live and work near to where the border might be
An English and Scottish married couple have children, which nationality would the children have

On a personal note, my wife is a Scottish lassie, if Scotland get's Independence does that mean that I am married to a foreigner

There are a few to go on with
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ... s-16779891 Could this be another storm in a "
Tea"
Cup

cheekychops wrote:

There was an excellent article about this recently which essentially boiled it down to one thing - oil. There's oil in the North Sea and Scotland is closer to it and wants to capitalize on it and doesn't want the Crown interfering. They also want greater autonomy in developing its business sectors. A very large number of Scots want freedom from Britain. But a lot do realize that their economies are so intertwined it would be perhaps more bureaucratic layers if the two countries did split. Further, they wonder what will happen if defense ever becomes an issue. Scotland is home to a large number of UK bases, they can't just all pack up and leave. What do they plan on doing? Converting them to Scots? Will they have a military? Or will they pay the UK for defense? They also worry about joining the Euro, which they view as a failed experiment.

Britain, meanwhile, doesn't want a psychological breakup of the island nor the practical breakup of some of their more productive ports and farming industries, and they worry that more lax financial regulations could break the stranglehold that London has over the Eurozone. They also worry about any loss of the minerals and infrastructure that Scotland has, especially iron ore mining, coal production, ship building, and other heavy industries. Practically access to these resources will not be lost, but taxes or levies that the new government may obtain will put a damper on demand in Britain.

Finally, many in Britain worry that a breakup of the island would effectively cause a breakup of not only Britain with Scotland, but also with Wales as well.

Just a few more thoughts on the Defence issues raised above. Obviously, if Scotland votes for and gets Independence then those British Forces stationed on Scottish soil would be asked to leave. Due to the previous rounds of redundancies and proposed future reductions there would not be a problem accomodating them in empty bases in the South. This would probably help the then British Military establishment coping with the defence cuts being imposed at present as would they would then be free of any obligation to maintain camps in Scotland. The proposed new super camp in West Lothian is going to cost £400 million and to be completed 2014/15. Just in time to hand it over to the SNP. I wonder if the British Government would allow Scottish Soldiers to transfer to any new Scottish Defence Force?. To insist that they stay would be forcing a foreigner to serve in your Army, theres a thought.

Another thought on the Nuke issue. Up whose river down South would Tridant and its replacement be stationed. We saw recently the chaos when travellers had to be moved on and the protests when someone wants a new runway or a new motorway. At least these are not likely to be first targets in any future conflict. So, if you live up a deep River or Port maybe it is time to get worried about what might be parked there in a couple of years. If you live in London you will be safe, as hell will freeze over before the Government would have them sitting in the Thames next to their office. If they do move, I would put money on the N.E. or Wales as there are few Tory voters around there. Getting interesting this topic.

And where would all this lot be moved to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ... 80&
bih=815

willowsend wrote:

And where would all this lot be moved to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ... 80&
bih=815

Well Scotland managed for years and England is much bigger so it shouldn't be much of a problem to hide it some place that votes dont matter, England is twice the size. I'm leaning towards the Tyne. No Tories and REALLY far from London.

PS The protesters are still there and I think they have had their Referendum. Where the Nukes go they follow. If only the UK Government had the staying power of the "
Tree People"
. I understand they used to have a mailbox on a tree for their Giros but it's now paid into their Bank.

sallyann wrote:

As an English woman I have always liked the Scots and would fight with them shoulder to shoulder whilst they remain in the union, in the Union they are my brothers and sisters, if they choose to end this union, that is their decision, but you are either in or out, there should be no second choice which just suits the Scottish for economic purposes. For Alex Salmond to say we should have no say in the Scottish referendum, I think he is very naive, the English decide on the DEVO-MAX vote not the Scottish, we should vote on whether we want them to have the 2nd option, and quite frankly if they hate us that much, as I said before IN or OUT there are no other choices unless the English vote as well on the DEVO-MAX choice. SIMPLE.

I'm sorry sallyann but i find your post quite disturbing. So all the Scottish Armed Forces that have given up, or are, about to give up their lives in defence of "
The Union"
are not your pals anymore., or does that only apply after the referendum?.

Maybe we should pull all Scottish Military out of all conflicts now, so that they can have a balanced view, when the vote comes, now that it has been announced. No sence in dying for your enemy, by your account.

On the international front: There is not a problem in the EU with Scotland splitting from the UK. In fact the Uk supporting the the breakup of the USSR was a great step forward for democracy and a vote from the majority fits right into the the EU mould. So why when it its comes home to the Uk there is such a big problem?

The news has been full of the uprisings in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt and the terrible toll of lives of these people and the forces, British(Scottish) and otherwise to bring the will of the people to the fore and to power. Nearer to home Ireland!! but that better left to another Topic.

Fortunately, democracy already exists in Scotland and people vote with the ballot box instead of Ak47s up the Royal Mall in Edinburgh or Molitovs in George Square in Glasgow.

Quote :

I'm sorry sallyann but i find your post quite disturbing. So all the Scottish Armed Forces that have given up, or are, about to give up their lives in defence of "
The Union"
are not your pals anymore., or does that only apply after the referendum?.

I think that is a bit extreme? Sally wouldn't have meant anything like that and I think you have misinterpreted her post ? only my thoughts.

For those that don’t read history: - The Union of the Crowns of Scotland and England took place in 1603 when James VI, King of Scots took over the English Crown And this gave us the United Kindoms of Scotland and England. The Treaty of Union did not take place for a further 104 years. A little straight thinking will show that dissolution of the Treaty of Union does not affect the position of the Crown. It is only English arrogance that insists on Elizabeth being ERII When she is Elizabeth I of Scotland. Indeed on Coronation she was required to make that affirmation in Scotland. Another piece of information not known to most English is that in England the Queen is Sovereign whereas in Scotland it is the people that hold the countries Sovereignty. Hence the English persons are subjects of the Queen whereas the Scots are citizen of the country. In Scotland a monarch can only hold office if the people agree and in the past a king has been sacked and replaced. Hope this helps spur on some thoughts.

Andy wrote:

For those that don’t read history: - The Union of the Crowns of Scotland and England took place in 1603 when James VI, King of Scots took over the English Crown And this gave us the United Kindoms of Scotland and England. The Treaty of Union did not take place for a further 104 years. A little straight thinking will show that dissolution of the Treaty of Union does not affect the position of the Crown. It is only English arrogance that insists on Elizabeth being ERII When she is Elizabeth I of Scotland. Indeed on Coronation she was required to make that affirmation in Scotland. Another piece of information not known to most English is that in England the Queen is Sovereign whereas in Scotland it is the people that hold the countries Sovereignty. Hence the English persons are subjects of the Queen whereas the Scots are citizen of the country. In Scotland a monarch can only hold office if the people agree and in the past a king has been sacked and replaced. Hope this helps spur on some thoughts.

LisA wrote:

Quote :

I'm sorry sallyann but i find your post quite disturbing. So all the Scottish Armed Forces that have given up, or are, about to give up their lives in defence of "
The Union"
are not your pals anymore., or does that only apply after the referendum?.

I think that is a bit extreme? Sally wouldn't have meant anything like that and I think you have misinterpreted her post ? only my thoughts.

If it was extreme then I apologise to sallyann but her statement had a bit of a "
teddy in the corner"
attitude, in that, leave the Union and I won't stand beside you anymore. Got a lot of that at school, If your not in my gang, I don't want to know you. Also it didn't really contribute much to the debate but it kept me interested. If everybody felt the same on a subject there would be no point in discussing it.

I'm also enjoying the History lessons we are getting as I didn't pay much attention to that subject at school. I was too busy learning a trade so that I could earn loads of dosh and retire early to Bulgaria.

Right, back on topic!!

Quote :

If everybody felt the same on a subject there would be no point in discussing it.

From the BBC------- Labour peer Lord Foulkes has said there should be two separate votes - the first one to decide on independence.

If that vote was defeated, a second ballot could be held on further devolution.

Lord Foulkes has tabled an amendment to the Scotland Bill proposing the measure.

This just gets better. Next the Torys will want a Referendum to see if there should be 1 or 2 Referendums

The Scotland Bill is currently wending its way through Westminster. It is a step towards Devo Max in that it devolves more powers to Holyrood. However, it is unlikely to pass muster (not least because it has had some damn silly stuff inserted into it by some of the loopier ermine clad residents of Westminster). Nevertheless, there is an on-going debate about what the Scotland Bill should contain. The SNP position is, unsurprisingly, as much as possible (hence Devo Max). This, still being short of full independence, finds favour with the less die-hard Unionists. The ex-First Minister Henry McLeish has expressed interest in championing the position and it has support from the STUC and some Tories. Labour and the Tories as Parties have cold feet on the topic because of its implications for the rest of the UK politically. Portillo on the Politics Show was of the view that Cameron would ultimately back the inclusion of something akin to Devo Max because it was the least worst option.

At the moment Devo Max is not defined. "
Everything in"
is the SNP's position but they are not defining that question or backing it. If the proposal, if and when it comes, is a weak non-event (like the current Scotland Bill) they will attack it vigorously. If it is a robust form of Federalism the SNP will still go all out for their own question but obviously they will not be devastated if the political paradigm shifts to full Federalism. It would be a short step from there to full independence. The polls are clear though if more powers are the cards then the status quo comes a long way behind Devo Max and Independence.

My own view is that the Tories and Labour will dither too long over the matter or fail to agree a line and that it could end up being the single question "
Do you agree Scotland should become an independent country? Yes or No"
.

I think this is cleaner and easier but obviously it forces people into one of two camps when they favoured a third. Salmond has made it clear that he is not shutting the door on this option but if no one enters that is hardly his fault.

This seems to be an ongoing political nightmare. The issues aren't clear at a top political level so how they can expect people to vote on it from an intelligent perspective is beyond me. Salmond strikes me as a jumped up gloryhunter who is out to make a name for himself in history, regardless of whether it is right or wrong for Scotland and it's people.

I think there are some clever people in Scotland who could make serious headway in either devolving Scotland or gaining greater power, however, Solmond for me is someone I would go out of my way not to put in power.

And for the record, I don't care one way ot the other whether Scotland gets independence, I just get the feeling that Darling is right when he said the Scottish population would "
vote with their claymores instead of their heads"
.

meandmine wrote:

This has nothing to do with independence for Scotland. This is one man's determination to change his status as a political nonentity in the UK and beyond today into in all but words the King of Scotland tomorrow. His quest for power knows no bounds and he will do and say whatever he needs to do for personal ambition and gain. His time is over. He is overheard, oversold, overindulgent, and overwhelmingly boring. Many have wanted to leave the UK and have done so only to find that the grass is not greener elsewhere. Have some dignity First Minister, if you wish to leave this country, no one, and I mean, no one will try and stop you.

He may be a polical nonentity who is overheard, oversold, overindulgent and overwhelmingly boring but for an nonentity he managed to get an overall majority at the elections. I dread to think what the outcome of the Scottish Election would have been if he was a popular political figure, possibly a one Party State. As it is, he can do as he or his party wishes until the next election.

The Tories are finished in Scotland (most likely forever), the Greens are moving around making up the numbers wherever they can get a compromise and due to the bad decisions made by their masters in Westminster, the Labour Party in Scotland got a bloody nose.

With free buses for the Auld Yins, free university for the Young Yins and free prescriptions for everybody it is really difficult for any of the other parties to offer anything popular that might get their supporters back on board the party bus.

If Scotland gets Independence then Big Eck will most likely be its first Prime Minister. Mind you President Salmond also sounds good and Wee Nicola could take the PMs job just to keep the womens vote.

One thing about the First Minister is that he is definately overweight. Too many curries me thinks!!

Quote :

Mind you President Salmond also sounds good

Many always thought that a certain Mr Blair would have liked to have been President. Just to think Tony Blair President of Europe. Nah maybe would be better if good old Tony Blair cut his teeth on a smaller territory "
Tony Blair Scottish President"
has a ring to it don't you think :Very funny 2:By then again what about Gordon Brown now there is a thought.

villyman wrote:

One thing about the First Minister is that he is definately overweight. Too many curries me thinks!!

In our family, all Scots, he is known as "
Shrek!"
.