Jump to content

One Word Post - Should Scotland Be An Independent Country? Yes Or No.


The Jukebox Rebel
 Share

Independence Poll  

126 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?

    • Yes
      93
    • No
      33


Recommended Posts

If Scotland decides that we should stay in the UK then we go with the majority, thats democracy, what you are asking for with a new vote in a few years is going with the minority, thats not democracy. If it is a NO vote then the public and the majority of the population do not want to leave, and that should be the end of the matter.

 

So hopefully you accept that a YES majority should also be the end of the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean you believe that in an independent Scotland there would be a popular movement to vote for a return to Westminster control?

 

Really?

 

It would depend on how an independent Scotland copes outside the UK. Alex Salmond has ruled out Scotland having its own currency as proposed by Jim Sillars and others including myself. The alternatives are Sterling-isation with its huge economic risks and (possibly) then the Euro if the EU Council approves the Scotland's application to join (2016 at the earliest).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would depend on how an independent Scotland copes outside the UK. Alex Salmond has ruled out Scotland having its own currency as proposed by Jim Sillars and others including myself. The alternatives are Sterling-isation with its huge economic risks and (possibly) then the Euro if the EU Council approves the Scotland's application to join (2016 at the earliest).

 

Things would have to get dreadful beyond belief, as no other country that has either gained or regained independence has ever asked to return under the previous controlling country's power. And it would require a majority to vote in an election for a party whose manifesto contained calling a referendum on surrendering independence to Westminster (I'm assuming that would be the desired controlling establishment). Do you honestly think those hypothetical factors add up to a plausible scenario?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ If there were big economic problems, e.g. linked to Sterling-isation, re-joining the union might the "price" of a Bank of England bailout. There is the historical precedent of the bailout following Scotland's Panamian disaster which let to the Act of Union in 1707.

 

Then there is the future of the Unionist parties in Scotland. Labour often needs its Scottish MPs in Westminster to have an overall majority in the Commons. Will it simply accept independence without a fight? The stakes seem too high unless Miliband wins a huge majority next year.

 

The Conservatives could go back to being the Unionist Party. The old Unionist Party won the majority of Scottish seats in 1955. It fortunes declined when it adopted the Conservative name, Then there are the Scottish Lib Dems who are facing electoral meltdown. Could there be an alliance using the old Liberal Unionist name?

 

The political future of an independent Scotland is impossible to predict at this point, especially as it will have to apply for EU membership after independence. If the application is turned down or delayed, the Unionists' (especially Labour) will be quick to take advantage.

Edited by kni
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ If there were big economic problems, e.g. linked to Sterling-isation, re-joining the union might the "price" of a Bank of England bailout. There is the historical precedent of the bailout following Scotland's Panamian disaster which let to the Act of Union in 1707.

 

Then there is the future of the Unionist parties in Scotland. Labour often needs its Scottish MPs in Westminster to have an overall majority in the Commons. Will it simply accept independence without a fight? The stakes seem too high unless Miliband wins a huge majority next year.

 

The Conservatives could go back to being the Unionist Party. The old Unionist Party won the majority of Scottish seats in 1955. It fortunes declined when it adopted the Conservative name, Then there are the Scottish Lib Dems who are facing electoral meltdown. Could there be an alliance using the old Liberal Unionist name?

 

The political future of an independent Scotland is impossible to predict at this point, especially as it will have to apply for EU membership after independence. If the application is turned down or delayed, the Unionists' (especially Labour) will be quick to take advantage.

 

Yes, but do you feel that any combination of factors, even any of those above, could result in (1) a majority vote for a Scottish party with a manifesto pledge of a referendum for Scotland to go back to being controlled by Westminster, and then (2) the majority in the referendum voting away the country's sovereignty again?

 

I think that's an unbelievable future scenario following independence. Of course the Scottish people had no say in the formation of the union; that long-term grievance is at least being addressed now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but do you feel that any combination of factors, even any of those above, could result in (1) a majority vote for a Scottish party with a manifesto pledge of a referendum for Scotland to go back to being controlled by Westminster, and then (2) the majority in the referendum voting away the country's sovereignty again?

 

I think that's an unbelievable future scenario following independence. Of course the Scottish people had no say in the formation of the union; that long-term grievance is at least being addressed now.

 

It is a perfectly believable scenario and the answer to your question is yes as no can never be ruled out. The economic future of Scotland is uncertain - especially on EU membership, the currency and the impact on the economy. Salmond has no plan B and refuses to even discuss, e.g. at Arbroath, a Scottish currency or joining the Euro. The prospect of number 2 would depend on the extent of the economic problems, who is to blame for them and the deal with the UK.

 

Of course, the people in the rest of the UK have had no say in the possible break-up of the Union. A large proportion have relatives and friends who live in Scotland or business interests in Scotland. That grievance will never be addressed and there are a lot of Scots who have been disfranchised. For example, those from EU states who have lived in Scotland for only a few months will have a vote but hundreds of thousands of Scots (who would have citizenship of an independent Scotland) do not. Will those real Scots have the right to vote in Scottish Parliamentary elections?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a perfectly believable scenario and the answer to your question is yes as no can never be ruled out. The economic future of Scotland is uncertain - especially on EU membership, the currency and the impact on the economy. Salmond has no plan B and refuses to even discuss, e.g. at Arbroath, a Scottish currency or joining the Euro. The prospect of number 2 would depend on the extent of the economic problems, who is to blame for them and the deal with the UK. Of course, the people in the rest of the UK have had no say in the possible break-up of the Union. A large proportion have relatives and friends who live in Scotland or business interests in Scotland. That grievance will never be addressed and there are a lot of Scots who have been disfranchised. For example, those from EU states who have lived in Scotland for only a few months will have a vote but hundreds of thousands of Scots (who would have citizenship of an independent Scotland) do not. Will those real Scots have the right to vote in Scottish Parliamentary elections?

 

The economic future of the UK is uncertain. Many scenarios can never be ruled out. We could be hit by a gigantic asteroid.

 

You can be absolutely certain that Salmond and his advisors have not only a plan B, but plans C and D. Why should he discuss them; they are negotiating tools. Westminster even refuses to discuss plan A, simply saying "no" (and a lot of people don't believe them).

 

The rules for who votes in the referendum or Scottish Parliamentary elections has nothing to do with the Scottish government or Alex Salmond, so any grievance against them for that is misplaced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The economic future of the UK is uncertain. Many scenarios can never be ruled out. We could be hit by a gigantic asteroid.

 

You can be absolutely certain that Salmond and his advisors have not only a plan B, but plans C and D. Why should he discuss them; they are negotiating tools. Westminster even refuses to discuss plan A, simply saying "no" (and a lot of people don't believe them).

 

The rules for who votes in the referendum or Scottish Parliamentary elections has nothing to do with the Scottish government or Alex Salmond, so any grievance against them for that is misplaced.

 

The UK does not have any uncertainty over which currency it will use. There are also uncertainties over banking security, border controls and defence. Your asteroid analogy is utterly ridiculous.

 

I have no confidence that Salmond and his advisors have Plans B, C and D. They are not negotiating tools if he will not even discuss them and, as a result, undecided voters vote No. Salmond must to demonstrate that he has deliverable and credible alternatives to Sterling or lose.

 

The Westminster Parliament is not forcing Scotland out of the UK. Scotland has chosen to vote on whether to leave so why should Westminster negotiate on Salmond's terms? All three main UK parties have agreed that Scotland will not benefit from a currency union. It's only the Yes supporters that will not take no for answer.

 

The rules on who is able to vote were set out in the Scottish Independence Referendum (Franchise) Bill. It had everything to do with Scottish government that had agreed the terms of the franchise with Coalition government - the Edinburgh Agreement.

 

Why should anyone vote Yes when supporters write such nonsense? Unbelievable!!!

Edited by kni
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ If there were big economic problems, e.g. linked to Sterling-isation, re-joining the union might the "price" of a Bank of England bailout. There is the historical precedent of the bailout following Scotland's Panamian disaster which let to the Act of Union in 1707.

 

Then there is the future of the Unionist parties in Scotland. Labour often needs its Scottish MPs in Westminster to have an overall majority in the Commons. Will it simply accept independence without a fight? The stakes seem too high unless Miliband wins a huge majority next year.

 

The Conservatives could go back to being the Unionist Party. The old Unionist Party won the majority of Scottish seats in 1955. It fortunes declined when it adopted the Conservative name, Then there are the Scottish Lib Dems who are facing electoral meltdown. Could there be an alliance using the old Liberal Unionist name?

 

The political future of an independent Scotland is impossible to predict at this point, especially as it will have to apply for EU membership after independence. If the application is turned down or delayed, the Unionists' (especially Labour) will be quick to take advantage.

 

Ah, the Darien Scheme. Ironically, I read the other day that they have recently discovered oil close to the Isthmus of Panama!

 

Another major factor behind Darien's failure was William of Orange preventing English colonies in the Americas from trading with Darien for fear of pissing off the Spanish (Darien being situated, inconveniently, in territory that Spain had claimed). This, plus the passing of the Alien Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_Act_1705 by Westminster, which had been passed in response to the Scottish Act of Security http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Security_1704 meant that a financially f*cked Scotland had little choice but to sign up to the Act of Union.

 

Anyway, I don't think another Labour majority in the House of Commons without Scotland is all that unlikely. IIRC, Tony Blair would have had majority governments in 1997 and 2001 even without support from Scotland. My personal view is that a Yes vote can at least give some hope to the left in England in the sense that is a rejection of Westminster's increasingly right-wing approach to politics. A No vote is a passive acceptance of what they are doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The UK does not have any uncertainty over which currency it will use. There are also uncertainties over banking security, border controls and defence. Your asteroid analogy is utterly ridiculous.

 

I have no confidence that Salmond and his advisors have Plans B, C and D. They are not negotiating tools if he will not even discuss them and, as a result, undecided voters vote No. Salmond must to demonstrate that he has deliverable and credible alternatives to Sterling or lose.

 

The Westminster Parliament is not forcing Scotland out of the UK. Scotland has chosen to vote on whether to leave so why should Westminster negotiate on Salmond's terms? All three main UK parties have agreed that Scotland will not benefit from a currency union. It's only the Yes supporters that will not take no for answer.

 

The rules on who is able to vote were set out in the Scottish Independence Refe

The UK does not have any uncertainty over which currency it will use. There are also uncertainties over banking security, border controls and defence. Your asteroid analogy is utterly ridiculous. I have no confidence that Salmond and his advisors have Plans B, C and D. They are not negotiating tools if he will not even discuss them and, as a result, undecided voters vote No. Salmond must to demonstrate that he has deliverable and credible alternatives to Sterling or lose. The Westminster Parliament is not forcing Scotland out of the UK. Scotland has chosen to vote on whether to leave so why should Westminster negotiate on Salmond's terms? All three main UK parties have agreed that Scotland will not benefit from a currency union. It's only the Yes supporters that will not take no for answer. The rules on who is able to vote were set out in the Scottish Independence Referendum (Franchise) Bill. It had everything to do with Scottish government that had agreed the terms of the franchise with Coalition government - . Why should anyone vote Yes when supporters write such nonsense? Unbelievable!!!
rendum (Franchise) Bill. It had everything to do with Scottish government that had agreed the terms of the franchise with Coalition government - the Edinburgh Agreement.

 

Why should anyone vote Yes when supporters write such nonsense? Unbelievable!!!

 

Scotland has no uncertainty over which currency it will use. It's whether and to what extent there will be a currency union that is debated. The UK has uncertainties about border controls, defence, and banking security! I have no confidence in any Westminster government acting first and foremost for the good of the Scottish people. I do have such faith in Scottish MPs in and independent Scotland.

 

Economic plans are not negotiating tools? What planet are you on? Tell you what, I'll make you an offer on your car. I have a plan B in case you refuse my offer. Tell you what, I'll even let you know my plan B beforehand.......

 

Some undecided voters may vote no, like yourself. Many others will see that in the bigger picture independence will be better for future generations of Scots. Many learned experts have stated that the rUK will indeed consider discussing currency union; you simply calling their views "utter tosh" or whatever doesn't change that.

 

What you should have written is why would anybody vote NO when their supporters (and you are one, it's clear to see) write mistruths at every opportunity. The Bill that you link to states quite clearly that voting rights are as determined by the UK Representation of the People Act 1983. Keep trying to twist and denigrate. People are no longer buying these kinds of distortions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, the Darien Scheme. Ironically, I read the other day that they have recently discovered oil close to the Isthmus of Panama! Another major factor behind Darien's failure was William of Orange preventing English colonies in the Americas from trading with Darien for fear of pissing off the Spanish (Darien being situated, inconveniently, in territory that Spain had claimed). This, plus the passing of the Alien Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_Act_1705 by Westminster, which had been passed in response to the Scottish Act of Security http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Security_1704 meant that a financially f*cked Scotland had little choice but to sign up to the Act of Union. Anyway, I don't think another Labour majority in the House of Commons without Scotland is all that unlikely. IIRC, Tony Blair would have had majority governments in 1997 and 2001 even without support from Scotland. My personal view is that a Yes vote can at least give some hope to the left in England in the sense that is a rejection of Westminster's increasingly right-wing approach to politics. A No vote is a passive acceptance of what they are doing.

 

I'd go further than that, and say that a "no" vote is a vote for anything distinctive about Scotland, whether it's the NHS, education, political distinctiveness, even many of the devolved powers to be stripped as Westminster will aim to "kill nationalism stone dead" this time around. Scotland as a nation will be crippled, and in the eyes of the world will be diminished, there should be little doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd go further than that, and say that a "no" vote is a vote for anything distinctive about Scotland, whether it's the NHS, education, political distinctiveness, even many of the devolved powers to be stripped as Westminster will aim to "kill nationalism stone dead" this time around. Scotland as a nation will be crippled, and in the eyes of the world will be diminished, there should be little doubt.

 

The only thing that will be crippled is the independence movement nothing else

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd go further than that, and say that a "no" vote is a vote for anything distinctive about Scotland, whether it's the NHS, education, political distinctiveness, even many of the devolved powers to be stripped as Westminster will aim to "kill nationalism stone dead" this time around. Scotland as a nation will be crippled, and in the eyes of the world will be diminished, there should be little doubt.

 

A question Jaggernaut as i cant get anyone to answer it elsewhere, Scotland runs at a deficit of approx £8bn a year (that's with the oil included) so we spend more than we put in, please tell me how Scotland would deal with this, taking into account that swinny says they will stop all the cuts from Westminster, keep all the freebies borrow £2bn just in the first few weeks, not raise taxes in fact looking to reduce them all whilst paying for a public sector of about a third of Scotland work force...and all this without using the oil and gas money as that is going to the oil fund..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A question Jaggernaut as i cant get anyone to answer it elsewhere, Scotland runs at a deficit of approx £8bn a year (that's with the oil included) so we spend more than we put in, please tell me how Scotland would deal with this, taking into account that swinny says they will stop all the cuts from Westminster, keep all the freebies borrow £2bn just in the first few weeks, not raise taxes in fact looking to reduce them all whilst paying for a public sector of about a third of Scotland work force...and all this without using the oil and gas money as that is going to the oil fund..

 

Remind me, how big a deficit does Westminster run at?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remind me, how big a deficit does Westminster run at?

 

you show me yours and i will show you mine.

 

yes it is big, it also has a population of approx 64 mil with the tax take from that, and is making cuts to reduce it, what would (given what i have already shown above) a independent Scotland do?

 

 

Are you going to answer the question please?

Edited by jaggybunnet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vote Yes and put 69 MPs out of a job . . . eventually!

 

And that's going to cut the deficit? Or seeing BAE, Rolls, Babcocks etc add more to the unemployment list whilst an Independant Scotland will cut taxes, increase benefits and public spending all on top of borrowing 2 billion (plus share of UK debt) how will that balance the books??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A question Jaggernaut as i cant get anyone to answer it elsewhere, Scotland runs at a deficit of approx £8bn a year (that's with the oil included) so we spend more than we put in, please tell me how Scotland would deal with this, taking into account that swinny says they will stop all the cuts from Westminster, keep all the freebies borrow £2bn just in the first few weeks, not raise taxes in fact looking to reduce them all whilst paying for a public sector of about a third of Scotland work force...and all this without using the oil and gas money as that is going to the oil fund..

 

I'm no expert, and I guess you aren't either. Could we agree that Credit Suisse working parties are more knowledgeable than any of us who post here? Here's what Credit Suisse finds, as reported in Saturday's Herald:

 

"Scotland would rank higher than the UK in the United Nations index of human development even without the income from North Sea oil."

 

What you should really be asking is what rUK could possibly do to reduce their massive annual deficit and clear their truly abysmal levels of debt when they no longer have access to taxes from oil and whisky, to take two examples. What are their plans B? As the former most senior British senior civil servant stated, the lack of preparations in rUK about how to deal with Scotland regaining independence is astonishing. They have arrogantly believed that the vast majority of Scots would meekly succumb to project fear and all the union jacks from the olympics and the forces day fiasco in Stirling. Followed by love-bombing and then more threats. They of course are also relying on their foot soldiers such as your good self to continue promoting FUD (fear, uncertainly, doubt). It's an old tactic, but it's being increasingly seen through this time.

Edited by Jaggernaut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...