View Full Version : Why the referendum on Scottish independece is a stupid idea
Gotlieb Alexander
10-12-2008, 18:55
Firstly, I would like to apologise to Austin for the title, and kindly ask him not to reply with "I think independence would be good for Scotland".
This thread bears no relation to the merits of Scottish independence, that is up for debate in many threads, this thread is about the specific 2010 referendum.
If Scotland becomes independent there will be some sort of splitting agreement between Scotland and the UK, and there are many specific parts to an independence treaty which would have to be negotiated between Scottish and UK politicians. These include:
Who will pay for setting up infrastructure in Scotland
What political form will Scotland take, i.e will it be a republic, what kind of parliament will it have etc.
What relationship will Scotland and the UK have, will they be totally independent like Britain and France (EU ties presumably) or will there be citizenship rights like with Ireland
How will assets be split, in particular defence assets, the civil service, management of services etc
How will the national debt be split, will some be given to Scotland? will Scotland pay England off over time? What proportion of it are Scots liable for
What kind of handover will there be? For example will responsibilites be handed to a Scottish parliament one by one, or will Scotland prepare for a bit then BANG, your on your own
What will happen the the UK energy supply, will the national grid be sawn in 2? what about power stations in Scotland that the English paid for?
All these factors will affect the future of both the UK and Scotland post-independence, and the answers to these questions will be crucial to voters in an independence referendum. If a Scottish voter votes Yes then it may be under the assumption that they would still be able to live and work in England if they wanted to, if they voted No it may be because they thought that Scotland would have to pay for all the replacements of central services, which may not be the case.
I therefore think that it is stupid to hold a referendum on "Should Scotland be independent" unless the treaty of Independence is first written up, approved by Non-Scottish Westminster MPs and approved by the Scottish Parliament.
Then, when all the details are put straight it could be put to the voters, otherwise the SNP have no right to claim that a "Yes" vote is unconditional, and that Scottish people want independence regardless of the way it happens.
Austin Sheridan
10-12-2008, 19:07
Firstly, I would like to apologise to Austin for the title, and kindly ask him not to reply with "I think independence would be good for Scotland".
This thread bears no relation to the merits of Scottish independence, that is up for debate in many threads, this thread is about the specific 2010 referendum.
If Scotland becomes independent there will be some sort of splitting agreement between Scotland and the UK, and there are many specific parts to an independence treaty which would have to be negotiated between Scottish and UK politicians. These include:
Who will pay for setting up infrastructure in Scotland
What political form will Scotland take, i.e will it be a republic, what kind of parliament will it have etc.
What relationship will Scotland and the UK have, will they be totally independent like Britain and France (EU ties presumably) or will there be citizenship rights like with Ireland
How will assets be split, in particular defence assets, the civil service, management of services etc
How will the national debt be split, will some be given to Scotland? will Scotland pay England off over time? What proportion of it are Scots liable for
What kind of handover will there be? For example will responsibilites be handed to a Scottish parliament one by one, or will Scotland prepare for a bit then BANG, your on your own
What will happen the the UK energy supply, will the national grid be sawn in 2? what about power stations in Scotland that the English paid for?
All these factors will affect the future of both the UK and Scotland post-independence, and the answers to these questions will be crucial to voters in an independence referendum. If a Scottish voter votes Yes then it may be under the assumption that they would still be able to live and work in England if they wanted to, if they voted No it may be because they thought that Scotland would have to pay for all the replacements of central services, which may not be the case.
I therefore think that it is stupid to hold a referendum on "Should Scotland be independent" unless the treaty of Independence is first written up, approved by Non-Scottish Westminster MPs and approved by the Scottish Parliament.
Then, when all the details are put straight it could be put to the voters, otherwise the SNP have no right to claim that a "Yes" vote is unconditional, and that Scottish people want independence regardless of the way it happens.
I understand your point.
But an independence treaty will not be written up before a yes vote for the Should Scotland open negotiations with Westminster to become independent referendum.
I don't see why non-Scottish MP's should vote on Scottish independence. Scotland is not their country and should be up to the people of Scotland, The Scottish Parliament and Scottish MP's.
Gotlieb Alexander
10-12-2008, 19:11
I understand your point.
But an independence treaty will not be written up before a yes vote for the Should Scotland open negotiations with Westminster to become independent referendum.
I don't see why non-Scottish MP's should vote on Scottish independence. Scotland is not their country and should be up to the people of Scotland, The Scottish Parliament and Scottish MP's.
What the Non-Scots MPs are voting on is not whether independence should go ahead but the actual terms of the independence. It's important that both sides agree otherwise theoretically the Scots could simply vote for "Independence with 90% of England's money going with it" which would simply not be fair. That is why both sides must support it.
If the Referendum is before the treaty negotiations then how would they know that the people of Scotland support the independence in it's finalised form? would there be a second referendum?
Austin Sheridan
10-12-2008, 19:17
What the Non-Scots MPs are voting on is not whether independence should go ahead but the actual terms of the independence. It's important that both sides agree otherwise theoretically the Scots could simply vote for "Independence with 90% of England's money going with it" which would simply not be fair. That is why both sides must support it.
Why Should English MP's tell Scotland they can't become independent ?
If the Referendum is before the treaty negotiations then how would they know that the people of Scotland support the independence in it's finalised form? would there be a second referendum?
We may have a second referendum.
Why Should English MPs tell Scotland they can't become independent?
They have to agree the terms of independence - if Scotland declare independent unilaterally the UK is perfectly within its rights to use military force against the 'leaders of the rebellion'.
There has to be an agreement between the leaving party and the governing party on the terms - similar to how there was when Ireland was granted independence as the Irish Free State.
Why Should English MP's tell Scotland they can't become independent ?
He's not saying that, he's saying that any independence treaty must be agreed with by both sides before the Scottish vote for independence takes place, otherwise it would be an illegal (not to mention confusing and politically limbo-ing) unilateral declaration. A good snub it would be, best also very destructive.
And by the way, there are no English MPs. The house of parliament contains British MPs
Gotlieb Alexander
10-12-2008, 19:23
Why Should English MP's tell Scotland they can't become independent ?
This would apply only if the terms of the proposed independence were unfair.
There is a difference between blocking independence unconditionally and blocking it because the deal is unfair.
Austin Sheridan
10-12-2008, 19:26
This would apply only if the terms of the proposed independence were unfair.
There is a difference between blocking independence unconditionally and blocking it because the deal is unfair.
I understand you now. You would have to come up with a very good reason for not agreeing with Scottish independence if the people of Scotland vote for independence.
Gotlieb Alexander
10-12-2008, 19:29
I understand you now. You would have to come up with a very good reason for not agreeing with Scottish independence if the people of Scotland vote for independence.
The whole point of my argument in this thread is that a vote for or against independence, whether by an Englishman or a Scotsman is never an unconditional one. I'm sure that there are cases when even you would vote against Scottish independence, and there are cases where I would vote for it.
However there are many decisions that need to be taken together, in particular the split of assets, and neither side has the right to write up a treaty, ratify it in their own country and then force the other side to comply
I understand you now. You would have to come up with a very good reason for not agreeing with Scottish independence if the people of Scotland vote for independence.
Scotland not wanting to take on any UK debt.
Scotland demanding that the UK recognise Faslane as Scottish territory. [I think it will remain UK extraterritorial territory]
Scotland demanding UK support for Scottish UN/EU/etc membership.
Scotland nationalising crown property in Scotland and becoming a republic.
Unionism
~All of the above [and more] could lead to a NO vote on a possible independence treaty in the commons.
Austin Sheridan
10-12-2008, 19:35
The whole point of my argument in this thread is that a vote for or against independence, whether by an Englishman or a Scotsman is never an unconditional one. I'm sure that there are cases when even you would vote against Scottish independence, and there are cases where I would vote for it.
However there are many decisions that need to be taken together, in particular the split of assets, and neither side has the right to write up a treaty, ratify it in their own country and then force the other side to comply
The SNP would say no to independence if it meant Scotland would do very bad. Scotland and England will be best pals if Scotland becomes independent and always will be I hope.
Gotlieb Alexander
10-12-2008, 19:57
The SNP would say no to independence if it meant Scotland would do very bad.
Surely you don't expect all the marginal voters to put all their trust in people they know are very pro-independence?
orcprocess
10-12-2008, 20:45
The SNP would say no to independence if it meant Scotland would do very bad.
Scotland would do very badly economically:
Scotland does receives subsidies and development aid from the UK government annually to boost its economic growth. Scotland receives more from the UK government than it gives to it. The income derived from oil reserves alone would be insufficient to maintain Scotland’s present rate of growth, much less propel it to greater heights.
Scotland is far better disposed in safeguarding its economic interests and territorial sovereignty by remaining a part of the UK, which is larger in size. Crucially, the continued development of the European Union (EU) into a quasi-political union may eventually reduce the autonomy of its Member States. There may come the day when individual Member States will be pressured to lose their identity as national entities in order to be a part of a "United States of Europe". If Scotland wishes to maintain a strong identity outside of such a "United States of Europe", it may be better off as part of a stronger UK, which may be more capable of fending off such calls for a federalized EU.
Marcus89
10-12-2008, 20:56
which may be more capable of fending off such calls for a federalized EU.
Nothing wrong with an United Europe, so long as it benifits as a whole.
Marcus89
10-12-2008, 21:06
http://www.unitedflags.co.uk/Images/historyunion.gif
Scottish Indepedance will mess up the Union Jack..
http://www.unitedflags.co.uk/Images/historyunion.gif
Scottish Indepedance will mess up the Union Jack..
It will look roughly like this:
http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/6240/ukscotlandub7.jpg
Gotlieb Alexander
10-12-2008, 21:43
It will look roughly like this:
http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/6240/ukscotlandub7.jpg
Now that is a truly horrible flag.
Liam Hannan
10-12-2008, 22:23
Scotland would do very badly economically:
Scotland does receives subsidies and development aid from the UK government annually to boost its economic growth. Scotland receives more from the UK government than it gives to it. The income derived from oil reserves alone would be insufficient to maintain Scotland’s present rate of growth, much less propel it to greater heights.
Scotland is far better disposed in safeguarding its economic interests and territorial sovereignty by remaining a part of the UK, which is larger in size. Crucially, the continued development of the European Union (EU) into a quasi-political union may eventually reduce the autonomy of its Member States. There may come the day when individual Member States will be pressured to lose their identity as national entities in order to be a part of a "United States of Europe". If Scotland wishes to maintain a strong identity outside of such a "United States of Europe", it may be better off as part of a stronger UK, which may be more capable of fending off such calls for a federalized EU.
Ever thought about reading up on a topic before giving us the 'benefit' of your opinion? Or do you just sit and say random things on the logic that the law of averages means you'll get some right eventually?
http://ukyp.org.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=61&highlight=scottish+independence
As for the rest of you;
I appreciate the merit of writing up a treaty before a referendum, but there's a few problems with it:
1) the publicity. Even if the terms of the treaty are not very favourable, drawing out the process would give it heightened media coverage, with every little concession making the news.
Exposure = votes. If the terms are bad the SNP can rally supporters with cries of "look how bad england is to us", if the terms are good they can say "quick, vote SNP while we're getting free stuff", if they're fair then it'll be a line of "we're making progress towards a fairer independent scotland, and we're securing all the important stuff for you, the scottish people".
Those are three very good lines to have, and giving them media exposure will probably boost support for a "yes" vote quite substantially; perhaps even tipping the scales.
So entering that negotiation, from your point of view, would be counterproductive.
2) The treaty might be drawn up in unfavourable terms to britain. Presuming it's drawn up 100% fairly, what if there was only a tiny margin that decided the issue? If the treaty was decided before then it would be fair, if it was decided after the UK government could lean on the nationalists and be like
"you don't have as much support as you think, better take on this extra chunk of debt or we'll wait until your support dies down and call another referendum and keep you here".
3) Why spend so much resources and politicians time negotiating for something that might not happen?
Such a major constitutional change would eat up a lot of PM/cabinet time, the nats talk about it all day anyway, but would england be able to stomache taking second place to scotland going independent?
Or would it all be done by the secretary for scotland, in which case the treaty might be skewed in our favour?
4) If we go independent without a referenda, how can we prove that most people wanted it?
5) As we've already said, the media exposure will swing a lot of undecideds, probably towards independence. how many of them will read the treaty, or will just be voting on general principles?
If they're going to vote just on principles isn't it better to get it out the way without giving the SNP an extra boost in the polls?
6) if a treaty is negotiated, it will come under the scrutiny of the academic community, who are fairly pro union ATM. Will a "good" treaty, not swing this influential, and fairly staunch, section of the community, and their writings influence others? So building up a tide of nationalist intelligentsia, which is slightly more dangerous than the community riven with debate ATM.
see where I'm coming from?
Gotlieb Alexander
10-12-2008, 22:27
All I can see in the future is Scots nationalist being unreasonable at the negotiating table, trying to claim the democratic high ground because they have had a referendum
Liam Hannan
10-12-2008, 22:30
All I can see in the future is Scots nationalist being unreasonable at the negotiating table, trying to claim the democratic high ground because they have had a referendum
I don't think it's the democratic high ground. It's not a party secret that the reason we're pro referendum is it's the only way to bring the UK government to the negotiating table and have a legitimate mandate for doing so. Without it being legally binding we couldn't lord it over anybody; it is literally to get the ball rolling and start talks.
Besides, with the edge that england has in this (being bigger and stuff) we need something like that in our back pocket to make sure we're not set up to fail. We don't need, and aren't entitled to, and handout for leaving; if we're given a fair chance and our own resources and mess it up - then its our own fault and we have to sort the mess.
I figure we can go it alone, but I want a decent chance to prove it, and i don't want that blighted by stroppy unionists trying to push us around cos they're bigger.
See where we're coming from on it?
Marcus89
10-12-2008, 22:32
All I can see in the future is Scots nationalist being unreasonable at the negotiating table, trying to claim the democratic high ground because they have had a referendum
Referenda still doesn't rise about Parliamentary Sovereignty, thankfully, although it may hold some political weight. If a Referendum is to take place in Scotland, why not the rest of the UK. Surley many Southen Brits would have comments on the breaking up of their country.
Gotlieb Alexander
10-12-2008, 22:34
Without it being legally binding we couldn't lord it over anybody; it is literally to get the ball rolling and start talks.
Do you really think it's beyond Salmond to say "The people of Scotland voted for independence and the British government are trying to stop us!" in response to English MPs rejecting some of his proposals?
Liam Hannan
10-12-2008, 22:48
Do you really think it's beyond Salmond to say "The people of Scotland voted for independence and the British government are trying to stop us!" in response to English MPs rejecting some of his proposals?
No, but I certainly think it's beyond the party, who constrain him, to allow it to be so, especially since being pedantic would lose us so much support, both amongst the media and the populace.
We need people onside, and if he's playing up divides we'll lose out, so we can't let him do that.
You see?
Liam Hannan
10-12-2008, 22:51
Referenda still doesn't rise about Parliamentary Sovereignty, thankfully, although it may hold some political weight. If a Referendum is to take place in Scotland, why not the rest of the UK. Surley many Southen Brits would have comments on the breaking up of their country.
Because the state of scotland entered the union of it's own accord and the scotland act (1707) allows for it to secede likewise. Equal partners in a union.
Likewise, England wales and NI could hold a referendum to leave us (though the case is different with wales, because it was conqured, and NI because it joined as a partition of Ireland... so they don't have legal claim to referenda, though morally the argument would hold)
Hamsterwaffle
10-12-2008, 23:25
I understand your point.
But an independence treaty will not be written up before a yes vote for the Should Scotland open negotiations with Westminster to become independent referendum.
I don't see why non-Scottish MP's should vote on Scottish independence. Scotland is not their country and should be up to the people of Scotland, The Scottish Parliament and Scottish MP's.
So North Britain would negotiate terms with the remaining UK for it's independence? And you really think you are in a position to "negotiate" anything compared a country which's capital is richer and more populous than the entire of North Britain?
Also, with regards to the "I don't see why non-Scottish MP's should vote on Scottish independence. Scotland is not their country and should be up to the people of Scotland, The Scottish Parliament and Scottish MP's." point
I don't see why Highland MSPs should vote on Lowland issues, why Glasgow MSPs should vote on Aberdeen issues or why the mainland North Britain should have any say on Orkney issues. Once you start using that argument Austin, it inevitably leads to Balkanisation.
Hamsterwaffle
10-12-2008, 23:26
Scotland and England will be best pals if Scotland becomes independent and always will be I hope.
You really believe that? Do you expect us to shake your hand before or after we wipe your spit from our faces?
Liam Hannan
10-12-2008, 23:36
You really believe that? Do you expect us to shake your hand before or after we wipe your spit from our faces?
Neither. We expect you to kiss our ass for the cheap goods floating your failing economy, and the stable banks protecting your investments :P
And for the horde of horsemen we send to defend you from the realm of mordor.
(If you get to make stuff up and live in a fantasty world, so do I - it's only fair.)
Gotlieb Alexander
10-12-2008, 23:39
Because the state of scotland entered the union of it's own accord and the scotland act (1707) allows for it to secede likewise. Equal partners in a union.
If we are equal partners then why don't we have equal responsibilities over Wales and NI?
Hamsterwaffle
10-12-2008, 23:42
Neither. We expect you to kiss our ass for the cheap goods floating your failing economy, and the stable banks protecting your investments :P
And for the horde of horsemen we send to defend you from the realm of mordor.
(If you get to make stuff up and live in a fantasty world, so do I - it's only fair.)
Something tells me Austin is going to agree with this comment.
Liam Hannan
10-12-2008, 23:44
If we are equal partners then why don't we have equal responsibilities over Wales and NI?
wales = because it was subsumed as part of england.
NI = because england is bigger it is presumed it would be seen as the successor of the UK, and we'd be the breakaway entity. (and, with the referendum being the fact that we're leaving you, rightly so) were the roles to be the other way, and Scotland was the successor state, we'd probably assume responsibility, seeing as Ireland was partitioned so the north would remain part of the UK.
It only follows that until further notice it will remain part of the UK, rather than following some breakaway state.
(that said, nothing against it, if they want to leave with us I can't see anybody objecting.)
Gotlieb Alexander
10-12-2008, 23:49
It only follows that until further notice it will remain part of the UK, rather than following some breakaway state.
There would be no UK, the UK was created between England and Scotland and so if Scotland left there would only be England. In fact NI could claim to be the only country still part of the UK, seeing as their joining is the only one that hasn't been undone.
And if England is bigger and therefore the natural successor...then we aren't equal partners.
Neither. We expect you to kiss our ass for the cheap goods floating your failing economy, and the stable banks protecting your investments :P
Hmm.
Biggest Socttish Banks
Bank of Scotland - On verge of Collapse
Royal Bank of Scotland - On verge of Collapse
Biggest English Banks
HSBC - Stable
Barclays - Stable (rescuing Lehman Brothers)
LLoyds TSB - Stable (rescuing HBOS)
wales = because it was subsumed as part of england.
NI = because england is bigger it is presumed it would be seen as the successor of the UK, and we'd be the breakaway entity. (and, with the referendum being the fact that we're leaving you, rightly so) were the roles to be the other way, and Scotland was the successor state, we'd probably assume responsibility, seeing as Ireland was partitioned so the north would remain part of the UK.
It only follows that until further notice it will remain part of the UK, rather than following some breakaway state.
(that said, nothing against it, if they want to leave with us I can't see anybody objecting.)
I can see someone objecting - AUSTIN MCSCAITHGILL disapproves because despite having similar problems and in some ways cultures those from Norn Iron just aren't Scottish enough for Austin (despite many identifying as Scottish - and they are too god damn poor).
Hamsterwaffle
10-12-2008, 23:54
There would be no UK, the UK was created between England and Scotland and so if Scotland left there would only be England. In fact NI could claim to be the only country still part of the UK, seeing as their joining is the only one that hasn't been undone.
And if England is bigger and therefore the natural successor...then we aren't equal partners.
The UK was formed in 1801 by the merger between the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland. The merger between the Kingdoms of England and Scotland are thereby overwritten by this and if Scotland was to leave it would be entitled to nothing(although the actual terms would be more
generous than that)
Liam Hannan
10-12-2008, 23:58
There would be no UK, the UK was created between England and Scotland and so if Scotland left there would only be England. In fact NI could claim to be the only country still part of the UK, seeing as their joining is the only one that hasn't been undone.
And if England is bigger and therefore the natural successor...then we aren't equal partners.
Unless you're talking about gifting us yorkshire or something then we are - under the terms of the act of union we entered as two distinct political identieis into a partnership of equals. It's since then things have been done on a per head basis for MPs etc. hence parliamentary inequality.
furthermore, the international view is that "scotland joined england" because that's legally what happened. We became part of a unitary state with the right to opt out again in the future - leaving england+bits as the successor.
Hmm.
Biggest Socttish Banks
Bank of Scotland - On verge of Collapse
Royal Bank of Scotland - On verge of Collapse
Biggest English Banks
HSBC - Stable
Barclays - Stable (rescuing Lehman Brothers)
LLoyds TSB - Stable (rescuing HBOS)
not arguing with that, you're right. You conveniently left out the bit abour the armies and mordor... If he's going to live in an imaginary land where this is all some ridiculous plot and the british empire is still going strong then reasoned political arguments won't have much juice - I'm just trying to talk his language :P
Hamsterwaffle
10-13-2008, 00:00
not arguing with that, you're right. You conveniently left out the bit abour the armies and mordor... If he's going to live in an imaginary land where this is all some ridiculous plot and the british empire is still going strong then reasoned political arguments won't have much juice - I'm just trying to talk his language :P
Hey, I never said going strong. And also what the hell are you talking about?
Austin Sheridan
10-13-2008, 11:33
I can see someone objecting - AUSTIN MCSCAITHGILL disapproves because despite having similar problems and in some ways cultures those from Norn Iron just aren't Scottish enough for Austin (despite many identifying as Scottish - and they are too god damn poor).
Austin MacScaithghil has said many times that NI as an economic drain and would not be good for Scotland. NI would probably want to stick with England anyway. Scotland would probably be involved in helping NI.
e.g
The British Irish Council
Gotlieb Alexander
10-13-2008, 12:13
Austin MacScaithghil has said many times that NI as an economic drain and would not be good for Scotland. NI would probably want to stick with England anyway. Scotland would probably be involved in helping NI.
e.g
The British Irish Council
So since it's bad for Scotland you therefore have no responsibility for it?
Austin MacScaithghil has said many times that NI as an economic drain and would not be good for Scotland. NI would probably want to stick with England anyway. Scotland would probably be involved in helping NI.
e.g
The British Irish Council
Why would it want to stick with England - the same England that wants/wanted to lower the age of consent , force NI to accept meter charging for utilities, force NI businesses to serve gays, treat British citizens the same as Irish citizens [the eborder scheme will treat flights/boats from NI as if they were taken from ROI because it would be politically bad and expensive to erect border posts in NI again].
Northern Ireland isn't as liberal as Ireland [or England] - I think that it naturally is more culturally similar to Scotland [especially because of the plantations from Scotland], as well as being closer geographically to it.
EmmaGallen
10-13-2008, 16:36
Discussion today in my history class about if Ireland was united. One guy said that his mum has always told him if Ireland is ever united they are moving to Scotland ie heading back where they came from. (The guy himself doesn't mind a united Ireland.)
Discussion today in my history class about if Ireland was united. One guy said that his mum has always told him if Ireland is ever united they are moving to Scotland ie heading back where they came from. (The guy himself doesn't mind a united Ireland.)
And they came from there when exactly? 300/400 years ago?
EmmaGallen
10-13-2008, 16:41
Yeah. But they are like "we are Protestant thus descendants from Scotland" and wouldn't want to head to England because no one likes the English (sweeping statement there)
Yeah. But they are like "we are Protestant thus descendants from Scotland" and wouldn't want to head to England because no one likes the English (sweeping statement there)
lol do you remember the case in Dublin where the man got €20,000 because people took the mick out of him for being british?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7555589.stm
EmmaGallen
10-13-2008, 16:46
It's pretty common. If you go to France, they hate the English with such passion. And they don't like accepting that you are Irish. Prefer to hate you.
Hamsterwaffle
10-13-2008, 16:48
It's pretty common. If you go to France, they hate the English with such passion. And they don't like accepting that you are Irish. Prefer to hate you.
Of course they prefer to hate you, they are French and as such they are arrogant and wine sodden in equal measures. (Hooray for offensive stereotypes)
Austin Sheridan
10-13-2008, 16:48
It's pretty common. If you go to France, they hate the English with such passion. And they don't like accepting that you are Irish. Prefer to hate you.
They like the Scottish.
EmmaGallen
10-13-2008, 16:48
Of course they prefer to hate you, they are French and as such they are arrogant and wine sodden in equal measures. (Hooray for offensive stereotypes)
If you mention that you are aware you are stereotyping in brackets then it is okay...
Hamsterwaffle
10-13-2008, 16:52
They like the Scottish.
Not since 1603. And even before that they only liked you because you were you helped them divide the English forces onto two fronts.
Austin Sheridan
10-13-2008, 16:56
Not since 1603. And even before that they only liked you because you were you helped them divide the English forces onto two fronts.
If you go to France and most places abroad you will find that the Scottish are more liked than the English.
EmmaGallen
10-13-2008, 16:56
Ooh! I know how to test the Scotland issue! Ask James McAvoy. He's amazing and Scottish. Ooh or Ewan McGregor and Shirley Manson!
EmmaGallen
10-13-2008, 16:57
If you go to France and most places abroad you will find that the Scottish are more liked than the English.
More liked than the English isn't the same as liked.
Hamsterwaffle
10-13-2008, 16:58
More liked than the English isn't the same as liked.
True, you are unlikely to find anywhere outside the Anglosphere that actually likes the English or even the British as a whole. Except for Iceland, but Iceland is weird.
Austin Sheridan
10-13-2008, 16:59
More liked than the English isn't the same as liked.
What ???????
If you go abroad you will find that the like the Scottish and dislike the English.
EmmaGallen
10-13-2008, 16:59
True, you are unlikely to find anywhere outside the Anglosphere that actually likes the English or even the British as a whole. Except for Iceland, but Iceland is weird.
Americans kinda do. They like the accents.
Hamsterwaffle
10-13-2008, 17:00
What ???????
If you go abroad you will find that the like the Scottish and dislike the English.
I've been to France many times, and let me tell you, they don't like anyone.
Hamsterwaffle
10-13-2008, 17:01
Americans kinda do. They like the accents.
America is kinda included in the "Anglosphere", although that varies by definition. But I'll let it go.
Austin Sheridan
10-13-2008, 17:04
I've been to France many times, and let me tell you, they don't like anyone.
I find the people in Paris don't like anyone but outside Paris you find that the people are much nicer.
Just the same as
London - They think that they are better than every one else.
Hamsterwaffle
10-13-2008, 17:06
I find the people in Paris don't like anyone but outside Paris you find that the people are much nicer.
It's not just Paris, but also areas around the Belgian border and in the alps the French don't like anyone either.
EmmaGallen
10-13-2008, 17:10
Yeah although in the south they are more "if you are white we will tolerate you"
More stereotyping from me...
Although that is based on how the French National Front is most popular there and in areas closer to Italy...
Gotlieb Alexander
10-13-2008, 17:36
What ???????
If you go abroad you will find that the like the Scottish and dislike the English.
I don't count "Scotland" as "Abroad".
And as for the French not liking anyone......They love the Germans!
Austin Sheridan
10-13-2008, 17:46
I don't count "Scotland" as "Abroad".
And as for the French not liking anyone......They love the Germans!
What are you on about ?
Asfandyar
10-13-2008, 19:08
They have to agree the terms of independence - if Scotland declare independent unilaterally the UK is perfectly within its rights to use military force against the 'leaders of the rebellion'.
I would absolutely disagree with this statement. If any group of people which to form their own nation than they should be able to do so without any military threat whatsoever. I believe that this is a self-evident right for all people and without the acknowledgement of this right we are, in effect, severely infringing on everybody's liberty. These people, as free people from a free country, ought to be able to leave if they choose, and to take whatever is theirs with them because they have a natural right, an unalienable right, to their life, liberty, and their pursuit of happiness (this last sentance is an adaptation of someone else's words which struck a chord with me).
That being said, if they decided to take with them what is not theirs (for instance, an excessive amount of our treasury) than we would be able to use force to prevent this theft. For simply exercising their right to secede, with no theft or murder (or the forcing of anybody to live in Scotland who had no wish to, or the forcing of anybody who lived in Scoland prior to secession out of it) involved (even if the non-Scottish British did not agree with their terms), no harm, or threat of harm, should come to them.
Just for those of you who are interested, I am not Scottish, have never lived in Scotland and would much rather have a Scotland which remained within the United Kingdom.
I would absolutely disagree with this statement. If any group of people which to form their own nation than they should be able to do so without any military threat whatsoever. I believe that this is a self-evident right for all people and without the acknowledgement of this right we are, in effect, severely infringing on everybody's liberty. These people, as free people from a free country, ought to be able to leave if they choose, and to take whatever is theirs with them because they have a natural right, an unalienable right, to their life, liberty, and their pursuit of happiness (this last sentance is an adaptation of someone else's words which struck a chord with me).
That being said, if they decided to take with them what is not theirs (for instance, an excessive amount of our treasury) than we would be able to use force to prevent this theft. For simply exercising their right to secede, with no theft or murder (or the forcing of anybody to live in Scotland who had no wish to, or the forcing of anybody who lived in Scoland prior to secession out of it) involved (even if the non-Scottish British did not agree with their terms), no harm, or threat of harm, should come to them.
Just for those of you who are interested, I am not Scottish, have never lived in Scotland and would much rather have a Scotland which remained within the United Kingdom.
The UK has a sovereign right to exist and to protect its territorial integrity by all measures deemed necessary - for a part of the UK to withdraw from the union without a prior agreement would be an attack on this territorial integrity. Every area previously under British control which is now independent was granted its independence in a detailed treaty. Unilateral declarations are crushed...
Gotlieb Alexander
10-13-2008, 19:31
I would absolutely disagree with this statement. If any group of people which to form their own nation than they should be able to do so without any military threat whatsoever.
So if the Wentworth estate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wentworth_Estate) declared independence you would let it?
(The Wentworth estate is one of the richest parts of the world, and secession would cause a massive tax blow to the government. The residents could easily afford to do without any public services as they could provide them privately
Austin Sheridan
10-13-2008, 19:55
The UK has a sovereign right to exist and to protect its territorial integrity by all measures deemed necessary - for a part of the UK to withdraw from the union without a prior agreement would be an attack on this territorial integrity. Every area previously under British control which is now independent was granted its independence in a detailed treaty. Unilateral declarations are crushed...
So you think it would be okay to use military force if Scotland becomes independent ?
Why would you want to force Scotland to stay in union if the people of Scotland want independence. It would be wrong and undemocratic.
Liam Hannan
10-13-2008, 19:57
So you think it would be okay to use military force if Scotland becomes independent ?
Why would you want to force Scotland to stay in union if the people of Scotland want independence. It would be wrong and undemocratic.
He said that that would be ok if there was no negotiated terms for ending the union; implying that if the terms were negotiated and agreed then he accepts the right and proper thign to do is accept the secession.
Austin Sheridan
10-13-2008, 20:06
He said that that would be ok if there was no negotiated terms for ending the union; implying that if the terms were negotiated and agreed then he accepts the right and proper thign to do is accept the secession.
ahh I see.
Although if Scotland were to secede unilaterally, chances are we wouldn't blow you up, we'd just blank you (as we did with Rhodesia) and veto any and every measure before the Security Council concerning formalising Scotland's state...
Gotlieb Alexander
10-13-2008, 22:39
To be honest, if Scotland were to secede without UK support, under unfavourable terms then the UK could easily withhold services etc, if it saw fit. Therefore there is no real danger to the UK of Scotland insisting on unfavourable terms. We wouldn't need any military action because Scottish independence is doomed to fail unless the UK agree to split assets and help a smooth transition
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.