Scottish Independence.

[Dekan]

Well, I think it's all a load of carp.

[John Cuthber]

Well, you are entitled to an opinion.

Do you have any evidence to go with it, or are you preaching?

[CaptainPanic]

Well, you are entitled to an opinion.

Do you have any evidence to go with it, or are you preaching?

 

John, are you really asking for "Evidence" when someone compares the potential independence of Scotland to a fish?

 

I know emotions are running high, so I just want to check who's still using this thing called humor, and who's secretly stockpiling large fish to slap people with? You seem to acknowledge that Dekan's post was an opinion, and evidence for an opinion is a rather strange thing to ask for.

 

Why, for example, should there be passport + border controls there any more than there are between plenty of neighbouring countries?

 

Open borders between Scotland/England is dependent on treaties. Since the current UK don't seem to like such treaties much (they aren't part of the Schengen treaty for example) an open border will depend on how much Scotland will open up to the rest of the EU. If Scotland enters the Schengen treaty and the rotUK (rest of the UK) won't, then I could understand that there will be a passport check at the England/Schengen border.

[Delbert]

Why, for example, should there be passport + border controls there any more than there are between plenty of neighbouring countries?

I'm sorry, but that sounds like a riddle. Yes it will be like neighbouring countries. Do you not need a passport to enter a country other than the EU? Not forgetting once Scotland separate they are yet to be (assuming they want to be) part of the EU.

 

Do you imagine that, for some reason, one side or the other of the border will suddenly forget what has been learned over those years?

As far as I can see, undoing 300 years of history is exactly what they want.

 

Scotland is already another country.

No it's not, is a different place within the UK. No different than saying Birmingham is a different city than Manchester.

 

Blaming the EU makes little, if any, sense. Better to blame the Tories.

Either blame them for decisive policies which alienated many Scots, or simply blame them for agreeing to the referendum.

Blaming a particular political party is blaming democracy. There'll always be a significant percentage of the populous that think they've got (and therefore blame) the wrong party in power. At the current state of play it looks like whatever the outcome of the Scottish vote, something very close to 50% of Scots will either have the wrong outcome or stuck with a new constitution they don't want and can't get rid of.

 

To quote the blindingly obvious, the result of an election is the voice of the organism called The People. To blame any particular political party is in effect to blame the people. We have a voice and we exercise our voice at election time. We cannot blame anyone but ourselves if we elect what we then think is the wrong party in power.

 

Do I hear: "but they didn't do what they said they'd do at election time". That's still our fault because we didn't look deep enough at the baubles offered or the integrity of the candidate. Were they practical, possible or even affordable? If we are gullible enough to be taken in by a few impractical, impossible or unaffordable baubles, then we've no one but ourselves to blame.

 

As for this Scottish business: has the main proponent of independence produced a realistic, practical not to mention possible plan for the currency? It seems to me as an outsider (and one who doesn't care one jot as to how they vote) he hasn't and always sidesteps the issue when questioned. Like the other day he was asked about a particular issue, and all I heard was a comment about a public announcement being made before the end of a meeting. Well, there may have been a slip of paper passed under a door, and very naughty if it was, but that's nothing to do with the issue. But presumably it's a good sidestep shuffle.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Delbert

[CaptainPanic]

 

Scotland is already another country.

 

No it's not, is a different place within the UK. No different than saying Birmingham is a different city than Manchester.

 

Well, there are 4 countries within the country. And yes, that is really confusing. I don't think it's worth fighting over though. You were both right in a way. John was right because Scotland is not the same country as UK. It is a country within a country. But Delbert is right because we're discussing the independence from the UK (i.e. Scotland becoming a sovereign state), and therefore the fact that the UK calls its 4 parts "countries" instead of a more logical word is not very relevant, and just confuses things.

 

Now move along, there's really nothing of interest to see here.

 

[DimaMazin]

 

So, you are not predicting any change?

 

Senseless change creates only harm.

[dimreepr]

Senseless change creates only harm.

 

 

Why?

 

Change is inevitable, whether by design or not, the outcome of which is almost always unknowable.

[John Cuthber]

 

John, are you really asking for "Evidence" when someone compares the potential independence of Scotland to a fish?

 

 

No I'm making an assumption that what he meant was something which made sense, but he was euphemising it.

Are you aware of the vulgar word "crap"?

I'm sorry, but that sounds like a riddle. Yes it will be like neighbouring countries. Do you not need a passport to enter a country other than the EU? Not forgetting once Scotland separate they are yet to be (assuming they want to be) part of the EU.

 

As far as I can see, undoing 300 years of history is exactly what they want.

 

No it's not, is a different place within the UK. No different than saying Birmingham is a different city than Manchester.

 

Blaming a particular political party is blaming democracy. There'll always be a significant percentage of the populous that think they've got (and therefore blame) the wrong party in power. At the current state of play it looks like whatever the outcome of the Scottish vote, something very close to 50% of Scots will either have the wrong outcome or stuck with a new constitution they don't want and can't get rid of.

 

To quote the blindingly obvious, the result of an election is the voice of the organism called The People. To blame any particular political party is in effect to blame the people. We have a voice and we exercise our voice at election time. We cannot blame anyone but ourselves if we elect what we then think is the wrong party in power.

 

Do I hear: "but they didn't do what they said they'd do at election time". That's still our fault because we didn't look deep enough at the baubles offered or the integrity of the candidate. Were they practical, possible or even affordable? If we are gullible enough to be taken in by a few impractical, impossible or unaffordable baubles, then we've no one but ourselves to blame.

 

As for this Scottish business: has the main proponent of independence produced a realistic, practical not to mention possible plan for the currency? It seems to me as an outsider (and one who doesn't care one jot as to how they vote) he hasn't and always sidesteps the issue when questioned. Like the other day he was asked about a particular issue, and all I heard was a comment about a public announcement being made before the end of a meeting. Well, there may have been a slip of paper passed under a door, and very naughty if it was, but that's nothing to do with the issue. But presumably it's a good sidestep shuffle.

Mainly wrong.

For a start there are, in fact, 4 countries in the UK.

(Captain, Sorry if that confuses you. They have their own languages*; laws and cultures. Many people outside the UK are not aware of this.

Since we invented the word "country" we use it correctly by definition. The word is "logical" because it's correct.)

 

This

" Do you not need a passport to enter a country other than the EU?"

doesn't make sense because the EU isn't a country.

If you meant to ask if there are countries outside the EU where you don't need a passport to cross the border then the answer is yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Passport_Union

 

 

This

"As far as I can see, undoing 300 years of history is exactly what they want."

is meaningless- you can't "undo" history- it happened.

 

"Blaming a particular political party is blaming democracy."

Yep, and I was using it ironically.

I was illustrating the absurdity of blaming the EU by pointing out that, at least the Tories had an influence.

 

Why have you not taken Dekan to task for blaming the EU?

 

 

*Here, to illustrate the point, is the Lord's prayer in Welsh.

It really is not the same as English

Ein Tad yn y nefoedd,

sancteiddier dy enw;

deled dy deyrnas;

gwneler dy ewyllys,

ar y ddaear fel yn y nef.

Dyro inni heddiw ein bara beunyddiol,

a maddau inni ein troseddau,

fel yr ym ni wedi maddau i'r rhai a droseddodd yn ein herbyn;

a phaid â'n dwyn i brawf,

ond gwared ni rhag yr Un drwg.

Oherwydd eiddot ti yw'r deyrnas a'r gallu a'r gogoniant am byth. Amen.

 

Ditto the Gaelic

Ar n-Athair a tha air nèamh,

Gu naomhaichear d'ainm.

Thigeadh do rìoghachd.

Dèanar do thoil air an talamh,

mar a nìthear air nèamh.

Tabhair dhuinn an-diugh ar n-aran làitheil.

Agus maith dhuinn ar fiachan,

amhail a mhaitheas sinne dar luchd-fiach.

Agus na leig ann am buaireadh sinn;

ach saor sinn o olc:

oir is leatsa an rìoghachd,

agus an cumhachd,

agus a' glòir,

gu sìorraidh. Amen

 

 

 

Incidentally, there may be a reason that they have not yet "decided" on what the currency will be.

Here's the simplistic version.

The current Westminster government likes oil revenue.

So they don't want Scotland to leave.

 

So they make inflammatory comments like " We won't let you use the pound".

 

However, if the Scots vote to leave then exactly the same financial motive will convince Westminster that they might well want the Scots to continue to use Sterling- and of course, it makes all the other vast volume of trade much easier.

So what the government says now may not be what it says later.

Any decision on whether to use the pound would need to be negotiated between Westminster and Edinburgh.

But they can't sensibly start that negotiation until after the vote.

 

So there are 3 "obvious" possibilities for a currency in Scotland.

A new "Scottish pound"

Sterling

or (possibly)

The Euro

Now the last option might not be realistic- certainly it would take a long time so there would need to be some interim system- but it illustrates the absurdity of the argument that "You can't have independent countries using the same currency".

You can.

Most of Europe has.

That leaves the other two options an new currency or sharing Sterling.

The latter would need negotiation and, that negotiation is currently impossible.

 

You say "As for this Scottish business: has the main proponent of independence produced a realistic, practical not to mention possible plan for the currency? It seems to me as an outsider... he hasn't and always sidesteps the issue when questioned."

 

Good. It shows he knows what he's doing.

He can't say "we will use sterling" because Westminster would say "no you won't" (even though they might change their tune later)

He can't say "We will invent a new currency" because people will point out that it would be very disruptive).

So he waits and says nothing.

Smart move.

Edited September 17, 2014 by John Cuthber

[MigL]

Well, we know where some of the members of this forum stand, and the main driving issue seems to be economic. Some think they will be better off independent while others think that independence will weaken all parties concerned.

 

This isn't a referendum.

Its a lottery !

[Ophiolite]

The vote today has nothing to do with economics.

 

The vote today has nothing to do with conventional politics.

 

The vote today is a statement about cultural identity.

 

The vote today is about placing decision making closer to those whom the decisions will effect.

 

A yes vote is not a matter of Scotland turning its back on the rest of the world, but about Scotland engaging closely with the rest of the world as a sovereign nation.

 

Scotland was instrumental in helping to create the modern world, playing a role quite out of proportion to its size. A yes vote says we are ready to play a part again.

 

I vote yes.

[Royston]

The vote today is a statement about cultural identity.

 

Well that is a very misguided vote...what countries in the EU (for instance) have been stripped of their cultural identity (solely) through joining the EU ?

 

Have Scotland been warned of sanctions on Mars Bars and deep fat fryers, or any other stereotypical Scottish behaviour due to Brussels, let alone Britain ?

 

 

 

The vote today is about placing decision making closer to those whom the decisions will effect.

 

I feel this is much closer to the issue that the SNP are espousing, and I can certainly understand it due to the recent political track record of Britain. But there is no evidence, in 'today's world' where collaboration is key to success, that independence works. In fact it has been massively counter productive for all the countries that have recently (and not so recently in some cases) claimed independence. It simply doesn't work when the planet is so economically and socially integrated.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Royston

[CaptainPanic]

Mainly wrong.

For a start there are, in fact, 4 countries in the UK.

(Captain, Sorry if that confuses you. They have their own languages*; laws and cultures. Many people outside the UK are not aware of this.

Since we invented the word "country" we use it correctly by definition. The word is "logical" because it's correct.)

 

That is such a stubborn British attitude! ^*

You have also invented the pound, the stone, the inch and the foot. And by all the gods of the British isles, you shall stick to it!

 

You did indeed invent the English language, but according to wikipedia, the word "country" is derived from Old French, and before that from Latin. But similarly to the word country, you (the English) have also invented the words (or at least the English translation) for "province", "territory", "state". In fact, wikipedia lists 29 alternative English terms for administrative divisions , of which at least a few should be applicable to the case of the UK. Yet, probably for historical reasons, you choose to have 4 non-sovereign countries that form a sovereign country, and just call them all a country. For me, as a non-native English speaker, that is confusing indeed.

 

I am well aware that there are cultural differences between the 4 countries within the country, and yet if you click on the wikipedia link for "country", it will show a map in which the UK is a single color, and its sub-countries are not depicted. I see this as an argument that country is often used in the meaning of "sovereign state". Also, the explanation of what a country means never mentions culture or language as a factor of any relevance. And a set of individual laws is a derivative of sovereignty.

 

So, when we ignore the obsolete and confusing British meaning of country, and use the modern meaning of sovereign state, Scotland can become a country when it gets independence. And if the No-voters win today, you should really consider to start using the word "country" in its modern meaning, which should mean that Scotland (as well as Wales and Northern Ireland) cease to be one. And start using the metric system while you're at it.

 

* No, I do not have evidence for that. That was an opinion.

[StringJunky]

Yes Captain Panic, we, the British Isles, are a country and the present-day Scots are hankering for a past they never knew. We are just different ends of a 4-member continuum.

In scientific discussions I'm fine with metric but in my everyday life I'm dyed-in-the-wool yards and pounds. so, sod off! In the angling fraternity here even young kids, familiar with metric, ask "what pound line are you using?".

Edited September 18, 2014 by StringJunky

[Ophiolite]

A political grouping that has its own laws (and has had them for several centuries, continuously), its distinctive legal and educational systems, prints its own banknotes and has its own languages, has its own team in the World Cup and the Commonwealth Games is - by my reckoning - a country.

[Delbert]

For a start there are, in fact, 4 countries in the UK.

(Captain, Sorry if that confuses you. They have their own languages*; laws and cultures. Many people outside the UK are not aware of this.

Since we invented the word "country" we use it correctly by definition. The word is "logical" because it's correct.)

I'm not going to do step-by-step reply to all your points, but just talking the above: Being currently all part of the UK is how I used the word 'country'. Something I'd have thought reasonable and obvious.

 

And then your comment about the EU not being a country. Yes, of course we all know the EU is not a country; but I was replying to comments on passports, and as far as passports are concerned I understand it's viewed as one with free movement, and that was the context of my reply - something I'd had thought would be fairly obvious. But perhaps I need to submit comments to my lawyer before submitting!

 

Now if you want to delve into grammatical inexactitudes, the odd poorly chosen noun or adjective, question the minutia of the wording to ignore the obvious direction of the discussion, then carry on. But I suggest it's nothing more than a diversionary tactic.

[DimaMazin]

The vote today has nothing to do with economics.

 

The vote today has nothing to do with conventional politics.

 

The vote today is a statement about cultural identity.

 

The vote today is about placing decision making closer to those whom the decisions will effect.

 

A yes vote is not a matter of Scotland turning its back on the rest of the world, but about Scotland engaging closely with the rest of the world as a sovereign nation.

 

Scotland was instrumental in helping to create the modern world, playing a role quite out of proportion to its size. A yes vote says we are ready to play a part again.

 

I vote yes.

I hate cultural identity. I hate tribes languages. I hope new empire will destroy all that I hate.

[Ophiolite]

Good luck with your plan to change a genotype that was 3.5 billions years in the making.

[MigL]

Your opinion Ophiolite, but I'll have to disagree.

The Scotts already have a vibrant cultural identity and no-one ignores their accomplishments ( James Clerk Maxwell is a personal 'hero' )

All the arguments for, that I've read on this forum or seen on TV/online, assert that Scotland would get to decide, and to keep more of her own money and be better off economically as an independent ( I won't use the word country, John ).

Whether the ( yet to be negotiated ) terms of separation bring about such a windfall is the question voters have to ask themselves.

Edited September 18, 2014 by MigL

[John Cuthber]

 

That is such a stubborn British attitude! ^*

You have also invented the pound, the stone, the inch and the foot. And by all the gods of the British isles, you shall stick to it!

 

You did indeed invent the English language, but according to wikipedia, the word "country" is derived from Old French, and before that from Latin. But similarly to the word country, you (the English) have also invented the words (or at least the English translation) for "province", "territory", "state". In fact, wikipedia lists 29 alternative English terms for administrative divisions , of which at least a few should be applicable to the case of the UK. Yet, probably for historical reasons, you choose to have 4 non-sovereign countries that form a sovereign country, and just call them all a country. For me, as a non-native English speaker, that is confusing indeed.

 

I am well aware that there are cultural differences between the 4 countries within the country, and yet if you click on the wikipedia link for "country", it will show a map in which the UK is a single color, and its sub-countries are not depicted. I see this as an argument that country is often used in the meaning of "sovereign state". Also, the explanation of what a country means never mentions culture or language as a factor of any relevance. And a set of individual laws is a derivative of sovereignty.

 

So, when we ignore the obsolete and confusing British meaning of country, and use the modern meaning of sovereign state, Scotland can become a country when it gets independence. And if the No-voters win today, you should really consider to start using the word "country" in its modern meaning, which should mean that Scotland (as well as Wales and Northern Ireland) cease to be one. And start using the metric system while you're at it.

 

* No, I do not have evidence for that. That was an opinion.

You have also invented the pound, the stone, the inch and the foot.

Mainly wrong

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Units_of_measurement_in_France_before_the_French_Revolution

 

 

Well, one option would be to redefine the word country.

Another option would be to use the word "state" when you mean a state.

 

The origins of the word country are well documented- and irrelevant. We are writing in English here.

 

" if you click on the wikipedia link for "country", it will show a map in which the UK is a single color"

Wiki is not God. Please feel free to correct it.

 

The UK adopted the metric system decades ago.

 

Well that is a very misguided vote...what countries in the EU (for instance) have been stripped of their cultural identity (solely) through joining the EU ?

 

 

That's not very close to relevant is it?

The decision on EU membership is yet to be looked at in detail.

Whoever, perhaps you might like to think about a related question-

what countries in the UK (for instance) have been stripped of their cultural identity through joining the UK?

 

Well, Wales and Scotland.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/history/sites/themes/society/language_education.shtml

OK the English failed- but it wasn't for want of trying.

I'm not going to do step-by-step reply to all your points, but just talking the above: Being currently all part of the UK is how I used the word 'country'. Something I'd have thought reasonable and obvious.

 

And then your comment about the EU not being a country. Yes, of course we all know the EU is not a country; but I was replying to comments on passports, and as far as passports are concerned I understand it's viewed as one with free movement, and that was the context of my reply - something I'd had thought would be fairly obvious. But perhaps I need to submit comments to my lawyer before submitting!

 

Now if you want to delve into grammatical inexactitudes, the odd poorly chosen noun or adjective, question the minutia of the wording to ignore the obvious direction of the discussion, then carry on. But I suggest it's nothing more than a diversionary tactic.

I, on the other hand, am willing and able to point out your errors, in order that you might learn.

 

"Being currently all part of the UK is how I used the word 'country'. Something I'd have thought reasonable and obvious."

It may be reasonable and obvious to you but there is no way round the fact that there are 4 countries in the UK and you are wrong.

No matter how often you try to repeat you view it won't get to being any less wrong.

 

"; but I was replying to comments on passports, and as far as passports are concerned I understand it's viewed as one with free movement,"

Yes, and, in just the same way that you don't need a passport to get from Norway to Iceland (neither is in the EU), you may or may not end up needing a passport to get from England to Scotland.

On the other hand, if I want to go to France, I need a passport even though I live in the UK and the UK is part of the EU.

 

It has bugger all to do with the EU.

So, you were plainly factually wrong again.

It's a matter for negotiation if they Scots vote "yes"; maybe the border will be closed (I doubt it) maybe not.

 

 

"But perhaps I need to submit comments to my lawyer before submitting!"

Are you unable to check facts for yourself?

 

" But I suggest it's nothing more than a diversionary tactic."

Nope, you failed to count the countries in the UK. Correcting that error is not a diversionary tactic- it's essentially the point of a discussion page.

You muddled up what the EU means for passport control and assumed that there would be a frankly daft decision (a requirement for passports at the border).

That's a strawman and, as such, a lot closer to being a diversionary tactic.

[dimreepr]

Change is just change, it's not good or bad, it's just change; we just need to deal with it, or not, it won't make much difference in the end.

[Ophiolite]

In three minutes time the polls close. Here is a prediction:

 

Voter Turn Out: 84.7%

Yes Vote: 48.2%

No Vote: 52.8%

 

If this turns out to be correct I shall curse myself for not having visited a bookie.

[iNow]

As of about 20 minutes ago, the "No" vote has a 99% chance of winning.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/yougov-99-chance-of-no-winning-in-scotland-2014-9

[MigL]

I will be happy with a NO vote.

I admire what the UK has been able to accomplish the last couple of hundred years.

They did it together.

[CaptainPanic]

News reports say 54% for No change, and 46% for an independent Scotland. Dutch newspapers online show photographs of celebrating No voters.
It appears that Glasgow and Dundee were among the biggest wins for the Yes, while Edinburgh was has a large majority for No.

At the same time, the newspaper suggests that both sides won. London has promised a lot more power for the Scottish government.

Link in Dutch. Translation mine. But you'll find the same all over the interwebs.

 

[edit]The Guardian even suggests it was 55% No, 45% Yes.

[John Cuthber]

In three minutes time the polls close. Here is a prediction:

 

Voter Turn Out: 84.7%

Yes Vote: 48.2%

No Vote: 52.8%

 

If this turns out to be correct I shall curse myself for not having visited a bookie.

I thought the bookies were the only ones who made money, whoever wins.

 

It will be interesting to see how much of that power ever materialises.