606v2 Rugby Fans Scottish Independence Thread

[George Carlin]

First topic message reminder :

 v
Let me start this off, then. I have printed and read all literature which either side has published on this debate over the past 2 years (including the main policy papers from the SNP and from Better Together/UK Treasury and the Wee Blue Book).
 
If I had the chance, I would think hard about it, but ultimately I think that I would vote 'no'.
 
It seems to me, with my pea brain, that:
 
1. As a professional economist, Alex Salmond has had his entire political and professional life to make a waterproof financial case for an independent Scotland. Provided that there isn't something I've missed, I cannot see that he has done so. How can we still be fishing for answers to very fundemental questions so close to the actual voting date? Surely if it was the case that Scotland had a solid long term financial future, there would be a far greater volume of published consensus? If the financial case for independence cannot be clearly and verifiably made (without optimistic financial projects which strain credulity), then this is where this debate begins and ends for me. What do we tell our kids otherwise?
 
2. I entirely understand and appreciate that stepping into the unknown cannot in itself be a reason to say 'no'. You cannot have opportunity without risk. However, is anyone else disappointed with the quality of verifiable information that has been made available to us throughout this entire debate? Whilst I don't expect all answers to all questions, surely it is better to err on the side of caution until such time as policy can be firmly established.
 
If this was a trial, the verdict would be 'not proven'.
 
What I don't believe is if Scotland votes no, the chance to do so again would be lost forever. I think that we may see another vote on this topic within a generation (20 years) if a 'no' vote does not have a clear majority amongst Scottish people. I would be happy with that.
 
Discuss. For the love of feck, please be nice.

[SecretFly]

Secretfly you keep banging on about nationalism.... That's what Putin is evoking now when he invaded Crimea and is causing havoc in Eastern Ukraine. It's what Hitler used too.

Nationalism is a dangerous and destructive force in general in my opinion. As I said before - nationalism and divisions generally go hand in hand.

Nationalism is singing the anthem as the athletes prepare to entertain down a 100 metre racetrack at the Olympics. Nationalism is everywhere. You just see it in certain places that stick in your teeth, Beshocked. A toothpick is what you need to remove that niggle

[fa0019]

scotland isnt even self-sufficient in the ingredients it needs to make whisky!

England isn't self sufficient in the ingredients it needs to make money  

Plastic that is...which comes from oil. Oops!  Sorry Salmond.... sensitive topic.

This boobie-for-tatting game could absolutley last a lifetime.  

The revenues Scotland gets from oil would be about 15%. Oil taxation contributes about 1% to the UK currently. Hardly something which is going to break the union.

[beshocked]

sin e yes ungrateful Westminster! Largest single employment site in Scotland....

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/510636/Nuclear-weapons-should-move-to-US-if-Scotland-independent

Completely ignore the jobs in jeopardy...

And you think all of those people are locals?

I see it says it would cost 3 billion to relocate elsewhere in the rUK.

Locals? Perhaps not but they will have a vote in the Scottish referendum as they live in Scotland! They have a livelihood because of this and inevitably it should help the local economy too.

[LordDowlais]

Secretfly you keep banging on about nationalism.... That's what Putin is evoking now when he invaded Crimea and is causing havoc in Eastern Ukraine. It's what Hitler used too.

Nationalism is a dangerous and destructive force in general in my opinion. As I said before - nationalism and divisions generally go hand in hand.

I agree 100% with this, nationalism will not pay the bills, or keep the wolves from the door, or put food on your table, and this is what the YES campaign are building their arguments on, they have no plan of what to do if they win.

[beshocked]

Secretfly you keep banging on about nationalism.... That's what Putin is evoking now when he invaded Crimea and is causing havoc in Eastern Ukraine. It's what Hitler used too.

Nationalism is a dangerous and destructive force in general in my opinion. As I said before - nationalism and divisions generally go hand in hand.

Nationalism is singing the anthem as the athletes prepare to entertain down a 100 metre racetrack at the Olympics.  Nationalism is everywhere.  You just see it in certain places that stick in your teeth, Beshocked.  A toothpick is what you need to remove that niggle

I agree there is some positive nationalism but you're highly naive if you think it's all sunshine and daisys. It has a darker side.

[ME-109]

Someone should encourage all Scottish people to read this thread...its highly enlightening.

[quinsforever]

you mean like breaking up a 300 year old Union in an opportunistic grab for oil

Some would say the entire Middle East Prawblem from the very beginning was because of opportunistic grabs for oil from the then Empires of the World in places they didn't belong.

boobie for tat is an easy game in terms of humanity's long, long history record

dude. the post ww1 draw-up of the middle east was before oil was discovered in the middle east. so that canard dont fly. the british were very responsible for where the lines were drawn on the map, but it was nothing to do with oil then.

see what i did there with that British thing? Because it was as likely to be scots, welsh and NI soldiers and diplomats who did the map-enabling in the Middle East.

[fa0019]

As for the Falklands... what do you expect, Britain reacted as any country would had one of their possessions, a collection of their people been invaded. Any country would have reacted the same.. the USA, France, Japan, China, Belgium the lot. Some may have not but not because they didn't want to, because they couldn't. The fact is whether or not Argentina (not even a country in 1830) had rights over the land or not, the people who had lived in the islands for more than 150 years did not want it from a democratic standpoint... their was no breaking up of the island to build their case like the Irish partition etc.

I don't expect anything.  Why should I expect anything?  Nationalism is Nationalism.  I'm simply saying there are those who want to use it as exclusively the preserve of 'separatists' and 'seditionists' and there are those who see Nationalism as a definition of Nationhood everywhere.

There are some that would say that we came to the Falklands rescue because Maggie wanted to win an election... you could also say that her failure to protect her people would have meant electoral disaster. When your brother is hurt, you pick them up. Its a natural human reaction.

If you saw a woman being assaulted in the street would you not come to her aid? Of course you would. Maybe you know her, maybe you hate her... but would you let some chap slap her around... again, of course you wouldn't especially if she's family.

Would you get away out of that - while Maggie's pr was about saving her people, the real British interest was the UK staking a claim to any natural resources there.  

We had a few tussles with Maggie & Co over a few rocks in the sea as well that had nothing got to do with 'saving her people'.

And 30 years on... how much natural resources have been extracted?

Would the British public have forgiven her had she said, ah well take them and the people... oh and that British Marines garrison in jail, yeah please send them back.

The UK govt. had no choice but to act.

The advice from the military and indeed the Americans was that it would end in disaster for the british. She still went.

To say she was in line for Oil rights is a joke. The british had been there since 1830. maybe had they started drilling and extracting from 1983 onwards you'd have a point. Yet its the same as it always has been. The people are farmers, fisherman no more no less.

[quinsforever]

Someone should encourage all Scottish people to read this thread...its highly enlightening.

they're all busy doing a massive group hug ahead of Thursday.

[Sin é]

Secretfly you keep banging on about nationalism.... That's what Putin is evoking now when he invaded Crimea and is causing havoc in Eastern Ukraine. It's what Hitler used too.

Nationalism is a dangerous and destructive force in general in my opinion. As I said before - nationalism and divisions generally go hand in hand.

Nationalism is singing the anthem as the athletes prepare to entertain down a 100 metre racetrack at the Olympics.  Nationalism is everywhere.  You just see it in certain places that stick in your teeth, Beshocked.  A toothpick is what you need to remove that niggle

Putin's invasion of the Crimea has nothing got to do with nationalism.

Scottish nationalism is about being able to self-determine.

[SecretFly]

scotland isnt even self-sufficient in the ingredients it needs to make whisky!

England isn't self sufficient in the ingredients it needs to make money  

Plastic that is...which comes from oil. Oops!  Sorry Salmond.... sensitive topic.

This boobie-for-tatting game could absolutley last a lifetime.  

The revenues Scotland gets from oil would be about 15%. Oil taxation contributes about 1% to the UK currently. Hardly something which is going to break the union.

Well it's setting itself to -maybe - break this Union!...?  Nobody ever stops talking about it - YES or NO.  
What it is worth,
what it ain't worth,
why some people want to get greedy with it even though its allegedly worth so little.  
How long it'll last,
when it'll run out,
who needs to mind it,
who needs to change an offical residence but keep pumping it,
Why it's selfish of some people to want it all for themselves.

I've heard all that and more so far in the debate.  For something that has such an insignificant impact, it certainly has an impact on minds .... and hearts.

[quinsforever]

Secretfly you keep banging on about nationalism.... That's what Putin is evoking now when he invaded Crimea and is causing havoc in Eastern Ukraine. It's what Hitler used too.

Nationalism is a dangerous and destructive force in general in my opinion. As I said before - nationalism and divisions generally go hand in hand.

Nationalism is singing the anthem as the athletes prepare to entertain down a 100 metre racetrack at the Olympics.  Nationalism is everywhere.  You just see it in certain places that stick in your teeth, Beshocked.  A toothpick is what you need to remove that niggle

Putin's invasion of the Crimea has nothing got to do with nationalism.

Scottish nationalism is about being able to self-determine.

quite a lot of scottish nationalism that is being tapped into is actually about hating the English.

not the best basis for making an irrevocable independence decision, but an effective one for garnering YES votes.

[beshocked]

Secretfly you keep banging on about nationalism.... That's what Putin is evoking now when he invaded Crimea and is causing havoc in Eastern Ukraine. It's what Hitler used too.

Nationalism is a dangerous and destructive force in general in my opinion. As I said before - nationalism and divisions generally go hand in hand.

Nationalism is singing the anthem as the athletes prepare to entertain down a 100 metre racetrack at the Olympics.  Nationalism is everywhere.  You just see it in certain places that stick in your teeth, Beshocked.  A toothpick is what you need to remove that niggle

Putin's invasion of the Crimea has nothing got to do with nationalism.

Scottish nationalism is about being able to self-determine.

Really?

What do you think his invasion of Crimea was about then?

It was most definitely about nationalism.

[Sin é]

As for the Falklands... what do you expect, Britain reacted as any country would had one of their possessions, a collection of their people been invaded. Any country would have reacted the same.. the USA, France, Japan, China, Belgium the lot. Some may have not but not because they didn't want to, because they couldn't. The fact is whether or not Argentina (not even a country in 1830) had rights over the land or not, the people who had lived in the islands for more than 150 years did not want it from a democratic standpoint... their was no breaking up of the island to build their case like the Irish partition etc.

I don't expect anything.  Why should I expect anything?  Nationalism is Nationalism.  I'm simply saying there are those who want to use it as exclusively the preserve of 'separatists' and 'seditionists' and there are those who see Nationalism as a definition of Nationhood everywhere.

There are some that would say that we came to the Falklands rescue because Maggie wanted to win an election... you could also say that her failure to protect her people would have meant electoral disaster. When your brother is hurt, you pick them up. Its a natural human reaction.

If you saw a woman being assaulted in the street would you not come to her aid? Of course you would. Maybe you know her, maybe you hate her... but would you let some chap slap her around... again, of course you wouldn't especially if she's family.

Would you get away out of that - while Maggie's pr was about saving her people, the real British interest was the UK staking a claim to any natural resources there.  

We had a few tussles with Maggie & Co over a few rocks in the sea as well that had nothing got to do with 'saving her people'.

And 30 years on... how much natural resources have been extracted?

Would the British public have forgiven her had she said, ah well take them and the people... oh and that British Marines garrison in jail, yeah please send them back.

The UK govt. had no choice but to act.

The advice from the military and indeed the Americans was that it would end in disaster for the british. She still went.

To say she was in line for Oil rights is a joke. The british had been there since 1830. maybe had they started drilling and extracting from 1983 onwards you'd have a point. Yet its the same as it always has been. The people are farmers, fisherman no more no less.

She was future proofing.

A company called Falkland Gas & Oil (headquartered in London) claim that there is 60 billion barrels (not gallons) of oil in their oilfields off the coast of the Falklands.

[fa0019]

scotland isnt even self-sufficient in the ingredients it needs to make whisky!

England isn't self sufficient in the ingredients it needs to make money  

Plastic that is...which comes from oil. Oops!  Sorry Salmond.... sensitive topic.

This boobie-for-tatting game could absolutley last a lifetime.  

The revenues Scotland gets from oil would be about 15%. Oil taxation contributes about 1% to the UK currently. Hardly something which is going to break the union.

Well it's setting itself to -maybe - break this Union!...?  Nobody ever stops talking about it - YES or NO.  
What it is worth,
what it ain't worth,
why some people want to get greedy with it even though its allegedly worth so little.  
How long it'll last,
when it'll run out,
who needs to mind it,
who needs to change an offical residence but keep pumping it,
Why it's selfish of some people to want it all for themselves.

I've heard all that and more so far in the debate.  For something that has such an insignificant impact, it certainly has an impact on minds .... and hearts.

It matters to Scotland because it makes up a huge proportion of the self generated income. It matters far less to rUK which not only is 9 times the size but also has a far more diverse economy.

Its Scotland's oil whether we stay in the union or not. Yet their are huge implications for it so it is rightly been discussed.

Everyone jokes that, hell, its almost like oil is a bad thing.

Well take a look at Africa. African countries are rich, rich in commodities yet they are subject to huge inequalities due to it. Huge swings in revenue, boom or bust. In the boom years its often wasted and everyone thinks it will go on forever, in the bust years no one bails them out unlike countries like Greece and Ireland.

I'd rather have industry which creates the same revenue & jobs as commodities yet isn't a commodity itself. No shadow of doubt.

[Sin é]

Secretfly you keep banging on about nationalism.... That's what Putin is evoking now when he invaded Crimea and is causing havoc in Eastern Ukraine. It's what Hitler used too.

Nationalism is a dangerous and destructive force in general in my opinion. As I said before - nationalism and divisions generally go hand in hand.

Nationalism is singing the anthem as the athletes prepare to entertain down a 100 metre racetrack at the Olympics.  Nationalism is everywhere.  You just see it in certain places that stick in your teeth, Beshocked.  A toothpick is what you need to remove that niggle

Putin's invasion of the Crimea has nothing got to do with nationalism.

Scottish nationalism is about being able to self-determine.

Really?

What do you think his invasion of Crimea was about then?

It was most definitely about nationalism.

Nope - its about control of the Black Sea (an ice free port) where Russia keep their fleet.

[SecretFly]

dude. the post ww1 draw-up of the middle east was before oil was discovered in the middle east. so that canard dont fly. the british were very responsible for where the lines were drawn on the map, but it was nothing to do with oil then.

see what i did there with that British thing? Because it was as likely to be scots, welsh and NI soldiers and diplomats who did the map-enabling in the Middle East.

The British, even then - and other enterprising Empires - knew more than enough about geology in the period to have a good idea where oil might be found. You believe the idea that all they wanted was influence over sand and camels and I'll believe science was further along the path to enlightenment post WW1 than you seem to believe, 0019

The British thing?  Let's see.......... the Welsh, the English, the Irish and the............................... there's the devils!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  It was the bloomin' Scots that sniffed out the oil in the middle east with those miserly nose hairs of theirs!  You're right all along, 0019.  It's the Scots that horde oil for themselves, just like the Dwarves horde gold in the Mines of Moria

[fa0019]

As for the Falklands... what do you expect, Britain reacted as any country would had one of their possessions, a collection of their people been invaded. Any country would have reacted the same.. the USA, France, Japan, China, Belgium the lot. Some may have not but not because they didn't want to, because they couldn't. The fact is whether or not Argentina (not even a country in 1830) had rights over the land or not, the people who had lived in the islands for more than 150 years did not want it from a democratic standpoint... their was no breaking up of the island to build their case like the Irish partition etc.

I don't expect anything.  Why should I expect anything?  Nationalism is Nationalism.  I'm simply saying there are those who want to use it as exclusively the preserve of 'separatists' and 'seditionists' and there are those who see Nationalism as a definition of Nationhood everywhere.

There are some that would say that we came to the Falklands rescue because Maggie wanted to win an election... you could also say that her failure to protect her people would have meant electoral disaster. When your brother is hurt, you pick them up. Its a natural human reaction.

If you saw a woman being assaulted in the street would you not come to her aid? Of course you would. Maybe you know her, maybe you hate her... but would you let some chap slap her around... again, of course you wouldn't especially if she's family.

Would you get away out of that - while Maggie's pr was about saving her people, the real British interest was the UK staking a claim to any natural resources there.  

We had a few tussles with Maggie & Co over a few rocks in the sea as well that had nothing got to do with 'saving her people'.

And 30 years on... how much natural resources have been extracted?

Would the British public have forgiven her had she said, ah well take them and the people... oh and that British Marines garrison in jail, yeah please send them back.

The UK govt. had no choice but to act.

The advice from the military and indeed the Americans was that it would end in disaster for the british. She still went.

To say she was in line for Oil rights is a joke. The british had been there since 1830. maybe had they started drilling and extracting from 1983 onwards you'd have a point. Yet its the same as it always has been. The people are farmers, fisherman no more no less.

She was future proofing.

A company called Falkland Gas & Oil (headquartered in London) claim that there is 60 billion barrels (not gallons) of oil in their oilfields off the coast of the Falklands.

Maggie had been in power 3 years. The garrison had been there longer. British subjects had been there for 150 years. Tell me, had she not gone, had their been no oil, or even a hint of oil.... how would she have looked had she simply allowed Argentina to enslave our people (however few their were) and imprison our soldiers?

She would have been given the boot the second she said to Argentina... keep it.

[beshocked]

Secretfly you keep banging on about nationalism.... That's what Putin is evoking now when he invaded Crimea and is causing havoc in Eastern Ukraine. It's what Hitler used too.

Nationalism is a dangerous and destructive force in general in my opinion. As I said before - nationalism and divisions generally go hand in hand.

Nationalism is singing the anthem as the athletes prepare to entertain down a 100 metre racetrack at the Olympics.  Nationalism is everywhere.  You just see it in certain places that stick in your teeth, Beshocked.  A toothpick is what you need to remove that niggle

Putin's invasion of the Crimea has nothing got to do with nationalism.

Scottish nationalism is about being able to self-determine.

Really?

What do you think his invasion of Crimea was about then?

It was most definitely about nationalism.

Nope - its about access to the Black Sea (an ice free port) where Russia keep their fleet.

So you don't think it was anything to do with the 58% of Crimean's being ethnically Russian and identifying themselves as Russian?

You really are naive if you think it's got nothing to do with nationalism. Nationalism was at the heart of it.

Yet again the problems in eastern Ukraine are to do with them feeling that they belong to the nation of Russia.

It's a not so subtle attempt to rebuild the Russian empire one step at the time - using nationalism as an excuse. Putin also has the backing of the Russia because of a nationalist pride.

[Sin é]

scotland isnt even self-sufficient in the ingredients it needs to make whisky!

England isn't self sufficient in the ingredients it needs to make money  

Plastic that is...which comes from oil. Oops!  Sorry Salmond.... sensitive topic.

This boobie-for-tatting game could absolutley last a lifetime.  

The revenues Scotland gets from oil would be about 15%. Oil taxation contributes about 1% to the UK currently. Hardly something which is going to break the union.

Well it's setting itself to -maybe - break this Union!...?  Nobody ever stops talking about it - YES or NO.  
What it is worth,
what it ain't worth,
why some people want to get greedy with it even though its allegedly worth so little.  
How long it'll last,
when it'll run out,
who needs to mind it,
who needs to change an offical residence but keep pumping it,
Why it's selfish of some people to want it all for themselves.

I've heard all that and more so far in the debate.  For something that has such an insignificant impact, it certainly has an impact on minds .... and hearts.

It matters to Scotland because it makes up a huge proportion of the self generated income. It matters far less to rUK which not only is 9 times the size but also has a far more diverse economy.

Its Scotland's oil whether we stay in the union or not. Yet their are huge implications for it so it is rightly been discussed.

Everyone jokes that, hell, its almost like oil is a bad thing.

Well take a look at Africa. African countries are rich, rich in commodities yet they are subject to huge inequalities due to it. Huge swings in revenue, boom or bust. In the boom years its often wasted and everyone thinks it will go on forever, in the bust years no one bails them out unlike countries like Greece and Ireland.

I'd rather have industry which creates the same revenue & jobs as commodities yet isn't a commodity itself. No shadow of doubt.

And what will the rUK economy be running on - water? Who are you going to buy your oil from - the arabs?

Scotland has a well educated population with plenty of experience at running empires

[fa0019]

dude. the post ww1 draw-up of the middle east was before oil was discovered in the middle east. so that canard dont fly. the british were very responsible for where the lines were drawn on the map, but it was nothing to do with oil then.

see what i did there with that British thing? Because it was as likely to be scots, welsh and NI soldiers and diplomats who did the map-enabling in the Middle East.

The British, even then - and other enterprising Empires - knew more than enough about geology in the period to have a good idea where oil might be found. You believe the idea that all they wanted was influence over sand and camels and I'll believe science was further along the path to enlightenment post WW1 than you seem to believe, 0019

The British thing?  Let's see.......... the Welsh, the English, the Irish and the............................... there's the devils!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  It was the bloomin' Scots that sniffed out the oil in the middle east with those miserly nose hairs of theirs!  You're right all along, 0019.  It's the Scots that horde oil for themselves, just like the Dwarves horde gold in the Mines of Moria

Its not about hoarding... but we as a family of nations share. We share our food collectively, collectively for the greater good.

Its about knowing that we have been in their debt for 250 years and once oil is gone we will be in the debt again, yet it was fine when the shoe was on the other foot, now we have a temporary surplus... oh no, that's for me alone.

rUK will hardly care or experience a downturn in their fortunes because of a loss of NS oil. But the lack of grace for the last 300 years is not great. This isn't Scotland, but the SNP, the SNP thinking its their's and no one else's. IT was discovered by BP, a UK govt. company at the time. All the sunk costs were paid for by the UK govt. Salmond simply wants the profits not the historical costs. Ah now that you are profitable... can I make a claim please... like all those parasitic long lost parents who come out of the woodwork the minute their son/daughter becomes famous and selling their story for their own pocket.

[Sin é]

Secretfly you keep banging on about nationalism.... That's what Putin is evoking now when he invaded Crimea and is causing havoc in Eastern Ukraine. It's what Hitler used too.

Nationalism is a dangerous and destructive force in general in my opinion. As I said before - nationalism and divisions generally go hand in hand.

Nationalism is singing the anthem as the athletes prepare to entertain down a 100 metre racetrack at the Olympics.  Nationalism is everywhere.  You just see it in certain places that stick in your teeth, Beshocked.  A toothpick is what you need to remove that niggle

Putin's invasion of the Crimea has nothing got to do with nationalism.

Scottish nationalism is about being able to self-determine.

Really?

What do you think his invasion of Crimea was about then?

It was most definitely about nationalism.

Nope - its about access to the Black Sea (an ice free port) where Russia keep their fleet.

So you don't think it was anything to do with the 58% of Crimean's being ethnically Russian and identifying themselves as Russian?

You really are naive if you think it's got nothing to do with nationalism. Nationalism was at the heart of it.

Yet again the problems in eastern Ukraine are to do with them feeling that they belong to the nation of Russia.

It's a not so subtle attempt to rebuild the Russian empire one step at the time - using nationalism as an excuse. Putin also has the backing of the Russia because of a nationalist pride.

Yep, Putin empire building - his real reason is controlling the Black Sea. Russia is trying to do what England did through the ages. Colonise.

[fa0019]

scotland isnt even self-sufficient in the ingredients it needs to make whisky!

England isn't self sufficient in the ingredients it needs to make money  

Plastic that is...which comes from oil. Oops!  Sorry Salmond.... sensitive topic.

This boobie-for-tatting game could absolutley last a lifetime.  

The revenues Scotland gets from oil would be about 15%. Oil taxation contributes about 1% to the UK currently. Hardly something which is going to break the union.

Well it's setting itself to -maybe - break this Union!...?  Nobody ever stops talking about it - YES or NO.  
What it is worth,
what it ain't worth,
why some people want to get greedy with it even though its allegedly worth so little.  
How long it'll last,
when it'll run out,
who needs to mind it,
who needs to change an offical residence but keep pumping it,
Why it's selfish of some people to want it all for themselves.

I've heard all that and more so far in the debate.  For something that has such an insignificant impact, it certainly has an impact on minds .... and hearts.

It matters to Scotland because it makes up a huge proportion of the self generated income. It matters far less to rUK which not only is 9 times the size but also has a far more diverse economy.

Its Scotland's oil whether we stay in the union or not. Yet their are huge implications for it so it is rightly been discussed.

Everyone jokes that, hell, its almost like oil is a bad thing.

Well take a look at Africa. African countries are rich, rich in commodities yet they are subject to huge inequalities due to it. Huge swings in revenue, boom or bust. In the boom years its often wasted and everyone thinks it will go on forever, in the bust years no one bails them out unlike countries like Greece and Ireland.

I'd rather have industry which creates the same revenue & jobs as commodities yet isn't a commodity itself. No shadow of doubt.

And what will the rUK economy be running on - water? Who are you going to buy your oil from - the arabs?

Scotland has a well educated population with plenty of experience at running empires

So you are saying that rUK can only buy from Scotland?

Oil is oil. You don't get charged premiums for buying it from one country or the next (excluding grade value).  In fact downstream as a energy market (the conversion of oil into petrol etc) is on the way down in Europe.. too expensive and easier to do it in other nations and ship to Europe.

Its why so many firms have closed down operations in Europe over the last decade.

[fa0019]

Secretfly you keep banging on about nationalism.... That's what Putin is evoking now when he invaded Crimea and is causing havoc in Eastern Ukraine. It's what Hitler used too.

Nationalism is a dangerous and destructive force in general in my opinion. As I said before - nationalism and divisions generally go hand in hand.

Nationalism is singing the anthem as the athletes prepare to entertain down a 100 metre racetrack at the Olympics.  Nationalism is everywhere.  You just see it in certain places that stick in your teeth, Beshocked.  A toothpick is what you need to remove that niggle

Putin's invasion of the Crimea has nothing got to do with nationalism.

Scottish nationalism is about being able to self-determine.

Really?

What do you think his invasion of Crimea was about then?

It was most definitely about nationalism.

Nope - its about access to the Black Sea (an ice free port) where Russia keep their fleet.

So you don't think it was anything to do with the 58% of Crimean's being ethnically Russian and identifying themselves as Russian?

You really are naive if you think it's got nothing to do with nationalism. Nationalism was at the heart of it.

Yet again the problems in eastern Ukraine are to do with them feeling that they belong to the nation of Russia.

It's a not so subtle attempt to rebuild the Russian empire one step at the time - using nationalism as an excuse. Putin also has the backing of the Russia because of a nationalist pride.

Yep, Putin empire building - his real reason is controlling the Black Sea. Russia is trying to do what England did through the ages. Colonise.

Britain my dear boy, Britain.

[beshocked]

Secretfly you keep banging on about nationalism.... That's what Putin is evoking now when he invaded Crimea and is causing havoc in Eastern Ukraine. It's what Hitler used too.

Nationalism is a dangerous and destructive force in general in my opinion. As I said before - nationalism and divisions generally go hand in hand.

Nationalism is singing the anthem as the athletes prepare to entertain down a 100 metre racetrack at the Olympics.  Nationalism is everywhere.  You just see it in certain places that stick in your teeth, Beshocked.  A toothpick is what you need to remove that niggle

Putin's invasion of the Crimea has nothing got to do with nationalism.

Scottish nationalism is about being able to self-determine.

Really?

What do you think his invasion of Crimea was about then?

It was most definitely about nationalism.

Nope - its about access to the Black Sea (an ice free port) where Russia keep their fleet.

So you don't think it was anything to do with the 58% of Crimean's being ethnically Russian and identifying themselves as Russian?

You really are naive if you think it's got nothing to do with nationalism. Nationalism was at the heart of it.

Yet again the problems in eastern Ukraine are to do with them feeling that they belong to the nation of Russia.

It's a not so subtle attempt to rebuild the Russian empire one step at the time - using nationalism as an excuse. Putin also has the backing of the Russia because of a nationalist pride.

Yep, Putin empire building - his real reason is controlling the Black Sea. Russia is trying to do what England did through the ages. Colonise.

So are you going to retract your statement about it having nothing to do with nationalism?

Oh so now we get it to it - your rabid anti English stance is out in the open. You keep it under the surface - let it all out.

It was Britain, not solely England but don't let that get in the way....

[fa0019]

Lets not judge the actions of those 150 years ago on today's standards.

Should you be judged by the actions of your ancestors? Perhaps one of them was a criminal??? Should you be in prison for their crimes?

Britain did a lot of bad things.. but they also did a lot of good things and I'd argue the good things outweigh the bad.

Many things we can have regrets about. A lot of good things which we can be very proud of.

[Sin é]

To say she was in line for Oil rights is a joke. The british had been there since 1830. maybe had they started drilling and extracting from 1983 onwards you'd have a point. Yet its the same as it always has been. The people are farmers, fisherman no more no less.

According to The Economist Seismic data about the Falklands oil & gas go back as far as the 1950s.

Some interesting conditions about how the 'farmers & fishermen' have laid down about drilling rights off the coast of

THE promise of offshore-oil riches has dangled over the Falkland Islands for years. Seismic data go back as far as the 1950s; exploratory wells were drilled in 1998. With just 2,563 residents, a multibillion-dollar oil industry would make the Falklands one of the richest communities on earth. The local Falkland Islands Government (FIG) has already crafted its own fiscal policy to collect a 9% royalty on petroleum that is eventually extracted and a 26% corporation tax on future licensees. The FIG is planning to channel revenues into a sovereign-wealth fund, modelled on Norway’s.

I doubt if Argentina would have given them such a good deal as they have got from far-a-way Britain.

[RuggerRadge2611]

It's not an easy choice to make. I guess that's why some people are voting with their hearts and others with their heads.

Having family from all over the UK (a dad from Wales, 2 Uncles and an Aunt from England and all their sons daughters and my neices and nephews) the decision is made much harder.

Lets just pretend for one minute everything Salmond promises comes to pass, we become Rich, Wealthy etc.


Years from now, my Godson who lives in Hull or my Nephew who lives in Sheffield or my Pensionable Aunty who lives in Newcastle could ask me the question:

"Why did you leave us behind? Why did you take all the wealth and natural resources with you and abandon the rest of us?"

What am I supposed to say?

Tough toleys? It was my Right? We were under the oppression of Westminster for too long?

This is where the Nationalist argument breaks down. I want a fairer society with oppertunities for all, not just those who live in Scotland.

[fa0019]

To say she was in line for Oil rights is a joke. The british had been there since 1830. maybe had they started drilling and extracting from 1983 onwards you'd have a point. Yet its the same as it always has been. The people are farmers, fisherman no more no less.

According to The Economist Seismic data about the Falklands oil & gas go back as far as the 1950s.

Some interesting conditions about how the 'farmers & fishermen' have laid down about drilling rights off the coast of

THE promise of offshore-oil riches has dangled over the Falkland Islands for years. Seismic data go back as far as the 1950s; exploratory wells were drilled in 1998. With just 2,563 residents, a multibillion-dollar oil industry would make the Falklands one of the richest communities on earth. The local Falkland Islands Government (FIG) has already crafted its own fiscal policy to collect a 9% royalty on petroleum that is eventually extracted and a 26% corporation tax on future licensees. The FIG is planning to channel revenues into a sovereign-wealth fund, modelled on Norway’s.

I doubt if Argentina would have given them such a good deal as they have got from far-a-way Britain.

Yet how much has been drilled. Nothing. The conflict ended over 30 years ago.

You hold your view that Maggie only intervened due to oil..... please tell me what do you think the people would have thought had she let a british colony, 3000 british citizens and a garrison of british marines to be invaded, taken over and transferred to another sovereign state.

Do you think the people would have just passed it off? If so I don't think you know British people very well.

[Sin é]

Secretfly you keep banging on about nationalism.... That's what Putin is evoking now when he invaded Crimea and is causing havoc in Eastern Ukraine. It's what Hitler used too.

Nationalism is a dangerous and destructive force in general in my opinion. As I said before - nationalism and divisions generally go hand in hand.

Nationalism is singing the anthem as the athletes prepare to entertain down a 100 metre racetrack at the Olympics.  Nationalism is everywhere.  You just see it in certain places that stick in your teeth, Beshocked.  A toothpick is what you need to remove that niggle

Putin's invasion of the Crimea has nothing got to do with nationalism.

Scottish nationalism is about being able to self-determine.

Really?

What do you think his invasion of Crimea was about then?

It was most definitely about nationalism.

Nope - its about access to the Black Sea (an ice free port) where Russia keep their fleet.

So you don't think it was anything to do with the 58% of Crimean's being ethnically Russian and identifying themselves as Russian?

You really are naive if you think it's got nothing to do with nationalism. Nationalism was at the heart of it.

Yet again the problems in eastern Ukraine are to do with them feeling that they belong to the nation of Russia.

It's a not so subtle attempt to rebuild the Russian empire one step at the time - using nationalism as an excuse. Putin also has the backing of the Russia because of a nationalist pride.

Yep, Putin empire building - his real reason is controlling the Black Sea. Russia is trying to do what England did through the ages. Colonise.

So are you going to retract your statement about it having nothing to do with nationalism?

Oh so now we get it to it - your rabid anti English stance is out in the open. You keep it under the surface - let it all out.

It was Britain, not solely England but don't let that get in the way....

The Crimea is some sort of engineered people movement that will never work. What has happened in The Crimea/Ukraine, Tibet is wrong. Look at Northern Ireland and thats after 400 years.

If I'm anti anything, I'm anti imperialism. I respect the right to self-determine.

[PenfroPete]

LORD - it is not sorted, the negoitations have not begun. The issue is the UK Govt hasn't said what it's standpoint on any of these negotiations is because, with justification, they are worried that it would give out the message that they are already preparing for the handover

People do release that 26 March 2016 is the date for independence if there is a YES vote don't they ? It's not 19th September 2014

What negotiations ? There are NO negotiations, Westminster have said that Scotland WILL NOT GET the sterling, weather this is a bluff or not I do not know, but they have not said they will negotiate with the new iScotland, that is what the YES campaigners are saying, the truth is the YES party has no idea what they are going to do going forward and the Scottish public should be told this.

Ok, I'm going to try one last time. It's like any negotiations, you start from opposing viewpoints and end somewhere along the way to the middle  

1) Click on the link (this is to the UK GOVERNMENT WEBSITE) - their hook line is Simpler, clearer, faster

https://www.gov.uk/government/topical-events/scottish-independence-referendum/about

2) Scroll down, about half way. On the right hand side you'll see paragraph title "What happens if there is a yes vote?"

3) Read and digest
"If a majority of those who vote want Scotland to be independent then Scotland would become an independent country after a process of negotiations. Following the negotiations Scotland would leave the United Kingdom and become a new and separate state."

[Sin é]

To say she was in line for Oil rights is a joke. The british had been there since 1830. maybe had they started drilling and extracting from 1983 onwards you'd have a point. Yet its the same as it always has been. The people are farmers, fisherman no more no less.

According to The Economist Seismic data about the Falklands oil & gas go back as far as the 1950s.

Some interesting conditions about how the 'farmers & fishermen' have laid down about drilling rights off the coast of

THE promise of offshore-oil riches has dangled over the Falkland Islands for years. Seismic data go back as far as the 1950s; exploratory wells were drilled in 1998. With just 2,563 residents, a multibillion-dollar oil industry would make the Falklands one of the richest communities on earth. The local Falkland Islands Government (FIG) has already crafted its own fiscal policy to collect a 9% royalty on petroleum that is eventually extracted and a 26% corporation tax on future licensees. The FIG is planning to channel revenues into a sovereign-wealth fund, modelled on Norway’s.

I doubt if Argentina would have given them such a good deal as they have got from far-a-way Britain.

Yet how much has been drilled. Nothing. The conflict ended over 30 years ago.

You hold your view that Maggie only intervened due to oil..... please tell me what do you think the people would have thought had she let a british colony, 3000 british citizens and a garrison of british marines to be invaded, taken over and transferred to another sovereign state.

Do you think the people would have just passed it off? If so I don't think you know British people very well.

I bet if the Falklands were Argentinian, they would be producing oil now.

Handy for rUK now that they do have oil fields elsewhere now that they have only 40 years or so left with Scottish oil.

[fa0019]

It's not an easy choice to make. I guess that's why some people are voting with their hearts and others with their heads.

Having family from all over the UK (a dad from Wales, 2 Uncles and an Aunt from England and all their sons daughters and my neices and nephews) the decision is made much harder.

Lets just pretend for one minute everything Salmond promises comes to pass, we become Rich, Wealthy etc.


Years from now, my Godson who lives in Hull or my Nephew who lives in Sheffield or my Pensionable Aunty who lives in Newcastle could ask me the question:

"Why did you leave us behind? Why did you take all the wealth and natural resources with you and abandon the rest of us?"

What am I supposed to say?

Tough toleys? It was my Right? We were under the oppression of Westminster for too long?

This is where the Nationalist argument breaks down. I want a fairer society with oppertunities for all, not just those who live in Scotland.

Its because we are a family.

When I lived in the UK by my departure I was paying enough tax to fund an entire family on benefits after all my own costs were subtracted. Be it Scotland, England, N.Ireland or Wales I did not care. There were people out there to help my family when their chips were down many many years ago, in the good, in the bad we all chip in.

Some may not agree with me. That does not matter, that's how I felt then, that's how I feel now and I think their are many scots, maybe even a majority which feel the same way, touch wood. If not, god speed.

[fa0019]

To say she was in line for Oil rights is a joke. The british had been there since 1830. maybe had they started drilling and extracting from 1983 onwards you'd have a point. Yet its the same as it always has been. The people are farmers, fisherman no more no less.

According to The Economist Seismic data about the Falklands oil & gas go back as far as the 1950s.

Some interesting conditions about how the 'farmers & fishermen' have laid down about drilling rights off the coast of

THE promise of offshore-oil riches has dangled over the Falkland Islands for years. Seismic data go back as far as the 1950s; exploratory wells were drilled in 1998. With just 2,563 residents, a multibillion-dollar oil industry would make the Falklands one of the richest communities on earth. The local Falkland Islands Government (FIG) has already crafted its own fiscal policy to collect a 9% royalty on petroleum that is eventually extracted and a 26% corporation tax on future licensees. The FIG is planning to channel revenues into a sovereign-wealth fund, modelled on Norway’s.

I doubt if Argentina would have given them such a good deal as they have got from far-a-way Britain.

Yet how much has been drilled. Nothing. The conflict ended over 30 years ago.

You hold your view that Maggie only intervened due to oil..... please tell me what do you think the people would have thought had she let a british colony, 3000 british citizens and a garrison of british marines to be invaded, taken over and transferred to another sovereign state.

Do you think the people would have just passed it off? If so I don't think you know British people very well.

I bet if the Falklands were Argentinian, they would be producing oil now.

Handy for rUK now that they do have oil fields elsewhere now that they have only 40 years or so left with Scottish oil.

2 questions then Sine.

Argentina own the area all around it so why can't they drill there?

And again....

what would have happened had Maggie said sorry chaps you are on your own?

[LordDowlais]

LORD - it is not sorted, the negoitations have not begun. The issue is the UK Govt hasn't said what it's standpoint on any of these negotiations is because, with justification, they are worried that it would give out the message that they are already preparing for the handover

People do release that 26 March 2016 is the date for independence if there is a YES vote don't they ? It's not 19th September 2014

What negotiations ? There are NO negotiations, Westminster have said that Scotland WILL NOT GET the sterling, weather this is a bluff or not I do not know, but they have not said they will negotiate with the new iScotland, that is what the YES campaigners are saying, the truth is the YES party has no idea what they are going to do going forward and the Scottish public should be told this.

Ok, I'm going to try one last time. It's like any negotiations, you start from opposing viewpoints and end somewhere along the way to the middle  

1) Click on the link (this is to the UK GOVERNMENT WEBSITE) - their hook line is Simpler, clearer, faster

https://www.gov.uk/government/topical-events/scottish-independence-referendum/about

2) Scroll down, about half way. On the right hand side you'll see paragraph title "What happens if there is a yes vote?"

3) Read and digest
"If a majority of those who vote want Scotland to be independent then Scotland would become an independent country after a process of negotiations. Following the negotiations Scotland would leave the United Kingdom and become a new and separate state."

But in not one part of that does it say anything about negotiating the sterling, Westminster has come out numerous times and they have said SCOTLAND WILL NOT GET THE BRITISH POUND, that is not a negotiation, they might negotiate a lot of other things, like the oil and trade and the debt but they have said that they are not having the pound. They have not even skirted around with the notion, it was a solid NO, so why people are thinking that Scotland will get sterling is beyond me, they must think that Westminster is bluffing and the YES party are ready to call them on it, if so they better have a good plan if it backfires, but nobody seems to know what that plan is.

[fa0019]

PS - Also Sine.

We handed full control to Canada, Australia, South Africa full well knowing that these countries had massive deposits of diamonds, oil, coal, uranium etc. We did so without a fight.

We handed back India, the jewel of the crown without a fight.

We handed back much of Africa without a fight.

We handed back Hong Kong after we built it from a tin pot bush island of nothing to a blazing metropolis, the tiger of Asia. Without a fight.

Why the Falklands different???

The difference was, and why our intervention in any other colony of similar circumstance is that the people of those nations majority wise wanted it. The Falkland islanders didn't and still don't. Its pure demographics anyhow. Argentina if they were as crafty as Maradona I don't see why they couldn't cozy up to the Falklands... make them feel special, send over families to live there... and then BOOM, they have a demographic majority and the Falklands are returned. Its only 3000 people afterall.

[SecretFly]

BTW, has Cameron or Salmond quoted any of us yet????

We're waiting guys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We ain't giving our bestest advice just for the fun of it! We want ourselves in the History books, mates! - as the one voice that swung a Nation!!!!!

OH God, I'm loving what I'm going to buy with all me autobiography money!

[beshocked]

Secretfly you keep banging on about nationalism.... That's what Putin is evoking now when he invaded Crimea and is causing havoc in Eastern Ukraine. It's what Hitler used too.

Nationalism is a dangerous and destructive force in general in my opinion. As I said before - nationalism and divisions generally go hand in hand.

Nationalism is singing the anthem as the athletes prepare to entertain down a 100 metre racetrack at the Olympics.  Nationalism is everywhere.  You just see it in certain places that stick in your teeth, Beshocked.  A toothpick is what you need to remove that niggle

Putin's invasion of the Crimea has nothing got to do with nationalism.

Scottish nationalism is about being able to self-determine.

Really?

What do you think his invasion of Crimea was about then?

It was most definitely about nationalism.

Nope - its about access to the Black Sea (an ice free port) where Russia keep their fleet.

So you don't think it was anything to do with the 58% of Crimean's being ethnically Russian and identifying themselves as Russian?

You really are naive if you think it's got nothing to do with nationalism. Nationalism was at the heart of it.

Yet again the problems in eastern Ukraine are to do with them feeling that they belong to the nation of Russia.

It's a not so subtle attempt to rebuild the Russian empire one step at the time - using nationalism as an excuse. Putin also has the backing of the Russia because of a nationalist pride.

Yep, Putin empire building - his real reason is controlling the Black Sea. Russia is trying to do what England did through the ages. Colonise.

So are you going to retract your statement about it having nothing to do with nationalism?

Oh so now we get it to it - your rabid anti English stance is out in the open. You keep it under the surface - let it all out.

It was Britain, not solely England but don't let that get in the way....

The Crimea is some sort of engineered people movement that will never work. What has happened in The Crimea/Ukraine, Tibet is wrong. Look at Northern Ireland and thats after 400 years.

If I'm anti anything, I'm anti imperialism. I respect the right to self-determine.

Crimea situation is nationalism at work. You seem to think it isn't which is odd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014

Crimeans had their own referendum.

[HammerofThunor]

I'm sure the Scots appreciate all the interest in their affairs, although it's a shame they've been marginalised in their own thread (there is some deep meaning there somewhere).

I for one, and every person I know, will not be bitter towards Scotland (no more than they already are ). The history will still be there. Radge, if your Godson is still in Hull, and I am as well, send him round to me when he's grown up and I'll set him right. If he's growing up in Yorkshire he'll have a good strong identity anyway and with the calls for local governance here I'm sure he'll understand.

Any Englishman affronted by the sheer moxy of Scottish people to leave the Union need a slap. I don't care if we're worse off, they have the right to make this decision and to live with it. Plenty of world economies grew rich of slavery or explotation, so should they stay? No, we get rid of them where we can (or at least shift explotation to those poor countries no-one really seems to care about). This country grew on the backs of working people all over, in shocking conditions. We gave rights, introduced safety standards, increased wages to fair levels...any the work goes to the countries where they don't worry about that sort of thing. Does that mean it was the wrong thing to do? I wouldn't say so. Clearly an over done example but the principle is the same.

There is one issue here, and that is whether Scottish people (however they are classed) want to be in an independent country. They may decide that based on 'facts' or emotion. Personally I think 99% are doing it on emotion and will twist the facts to meet it. And there is nothing wrong with that. The economic state of Scotland or rUK or the world is always subject to change. Maybe they're find a whole load more oil, maybe it'll run out sooner, maybe someone will invent something that makes oil redudant, maybe that person is Scottish. Voting with your heart is the way to do it my opinion.

[fa0019]

BTW, has Cameron or Salmond quoted any of us yet????  

We're waiting guys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  We ain't giving our bestest advice just for the fun of it!  We want ourselves in the History books, mates! - as the one voice that swung a Nation!!!!!

OH God, I'm loving what I'm going to buy with all me autobiography money!

Can see the headlines now.... Trevor Brennan "Cameron you owe me 50MM euros for saving the union.... now hand it over wee fella".

Not saying you are or are anything like Trevor but if you were you may have a chance of getting it... you don't mess with Trevor!!

[HammerofThunor]

Crimea situation is nationalism at work.  You seem to think it isn't which is odd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014

Crimeans had their own referendum.

The referendum run by the armed militants? The one rushed through with no safe guards? What exactly is that supposed to be an example of? It's meaningless in the wider world, which is why it was ignored.

[SecretFly]

BTW, has Cameron or Salmond quoted any of us yet????  

We're waiting guys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  We ain't giving our bestest advice just for the fun of it!  We want ourselves in the History books, mates! - as the one voice that swung a Nation!!!!!

OH God, I'm loving what I'm going to buy with all me autobiography money!

Can see the headlines now.... Trevor Brennan "Cameron you owe me 50MM euros for saving the union.... now hand it over wee fella".

Not saying you are or are anything like Trevor but if you were you may have a chance of getting it... you don't mess with Trevor!!

I'm getting paid in OIL!!! I'm firmly in the Salmond camp as he's promised to pay me in jars of blackstuff. Maybe he's cheating me and it's only going to be Guinness but I'm willing to get drunk on the hopes that it might be more.

[PenfroPete]

MANAGEMENT - there's absolutely no way, never, not ever, ever, ever there'll be a pay rise or more family friendly working hours /practices this year

UNION REPS - Oh, OK sorry to have troubled you, there'll be no negotiations

[fa0019]

I'm sure the Scots appreciate all the interest in their affairs, although it's a shame they've been marginalised in their own thread (there is some deep meaning there somewhere).

I for one, and every person I know, will not be bitter towards Scotland (no more than they already are ).  The history will still be there. Radge, if your Godson is still in Hull, and I am as well, send him round to me when he's grown up and I'll set him right.  If he's growing up in Yorkshire he'll have a good strong identity anyway and with the calls for local governance here I'm sure he'll understand.

Any Englishman affronted by the sheer moxy of Scottish people to leave the Union need a slap. I don't care if we're worse off, they have the right to make this decision and to live with it. Plenty of world economies grew rich of slavery or explotation, so should they stay? No, we get rid of them where we can (or at least shift explotation to those poor countries no-one really seems to care about). This country grew on the backs of working people all over, in shocking conditions. We gave rights, introduced safety standards, increased wages to fair levels...any the work goes to the countries where they don't worry about that sort of thing.  Does that mean it was the wrong thing to do? I wouldn't say so.  Clearly an over done example but the principle is the same.

There is one issue here, and that is whether Scottish people (however they are classed) want to be in an independent country.  They may decide that based on 'facts' or emotion. Personally I think 99% are doing it on emotion and will twist the facts to meet it. And there is nothing wrong with that. The economic state of Scotland or rUK or the world is always subject to change. Maybe they're find a whole load more oil, maybe it'll run out sooner, maybe someone will invent something that makes oil redudant, maybe that person is Scottish.  Voting with your heart is the way to do it my opinion.

As long as those who vote with their heart acknowledge its a vote at whatever cost. People must know the consequences.

Salmond is akin to Sean Penn in Team America (amended for forum purposes)

Last year I went to Scotland. Before the UK showed up, it was a happy place. They had flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles.

[LordDowlais]

 Voting with your heart is the way to do it my opinion.

I would not say that is the right way, although I agree with the rest of what you have written, the thing is Alex Salmon and the rest of his YES party have pulled on the HEART strings of a lot of Scottish people, I love Scotland, it's a great place to visit, and the people living there are a very welcoming and warm race of people, they deserve the truth in what is being peddled to them, and the YES campaign is so full of holes you would not beleive it, but as I have said earlier, best of luck, which ever way it goes.

[PenfroPete]

I'm sure the Scots appreciate all the interest in their affairs, although it's a shame they've been marginalised in their own thread (there is some deep meaning there somewhere).

I for one, and every person I know, will not be bitter towards Scotland (no more than they already are ).  The history will still be there. Radge, if your Godson is still in Hull, and I am as well, send him round to me when he's grown up and I'll set him right.  If he's growing up in Yorkshire he'll have a good strong identity anyway and with the calls for local governance here I'm sure he'll understand.

Any Englishman affronted by the sheer moxy of Scottish people to leave the Union need a slap. I don't care if we're worse off, they have the right to make this decision and to live with it. Plenty of world economies grew rich of slavery or explotation, so should they stay? No, we get rid of them where we can (or at least shift explotation to those poor countries no-one really seems to care about). This country grew on the backs of working people all over, in shocking conditions. We gave rights, introduced safety standards, increased wages to fair levels...any the work goes to the countries where they don't worry about that sort of thing.  Does that mean it was the wrong thing to do? I wouldn't say so.  Clearly an over done example but the principle is the same.

There is one issue here, and that is whether Scottish people (however they are classed) want to be in an independent country.  They may decide that based on 'facts' or emotion. Personally I think 99% are doing it on emotion and will twist the facts to meet it. And there is nothing wrong with that. The economic state of Scotland or rUK or the world is always subject to change. Maybe they're find a whole load more oil, maybe it'll run out sooner, maybe someone will invent something that makes oil redudant, maybe that person is Scottish.  Voting with your heart is the way to do it my opinion.

               have a (or several)

[SecretFly]

Last year I went to Scotland. Before the UK showed up, it was a happy place. They had flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles.

You sure that's not Homer's quote about Holland or some of the other cliche heavy countries he and his family visited over the years?

[Notch]

I'm sure the Scots appreciate all the interest in their affairs, although it's a shame they've been marginalised in their own thread (there is some deep meaning there somewhere).

I for one, and every person I know, will not be bitter towards Scotland (no more than they already are ).  The history will still be there. Radge, if your Godson is still in Hull, and I am as well, send him round to me when he's grown up and I'll set him right.  If he's growing up in Yorkshire he'll have a good strong identity anyway and with the calls for local governance here I'm sure he'll understand.

Any Englishman affronted by the sheer moxy of Scottish people to leave the Union need a slap. I don't care if we're worse off, they have the right to make this decision and to live with it. Plenty of world economies grew rich of slavery or explotation, so should they stay? No, we get rid of them where we can (or at least shift explotation to those poor countries no-one really seems to care about). This country grew on the backs of working people all over, in shocking conditions. We gave rights, introduced safety standards, increased wages to fair levels...any the work goes to the countries where they don't worry about that sort of thing.  Does that mean it was the wrong thing to do? I wouldn't say so.  Clearly an over done example but the principle is the same.

There is one issue here, and that is whether Scottish people (however they are classed) want to be in an independent country.  They may decide that based on 'facts' or emotion. Personally I think 99% are doing it on emotion and will twist the facts to meet it. And there is nothing wrong with that. The economic state of Scotland or rUK or the world is always subject to change. Maybe they're find a whole load more oil, maybe it'll run out sooner, maybe someone will invent something that makes oil redudant, maybe that person is Scottish.  Voting with your heart is the way to do it my opinion.

I absolutely think this is the best and fairest comment on a rather fractious and sometimes disillusioning thread.

[LordDowlais]

MANAGEMENT - there's absolutely no way, never, not ever, ever, ever there'll be a pay rise or more family friendly working hours /practices this year

UNION REPS - Oh, OK sorry to have troubled you, there'll be no negotiations

This is not about trade unions getting equal rights for their workers, this is about another country allowing another use their currency, it's a little different from getting an extra tea break and 3.5% on your hourly pay.

[RuggerRadge2611]

I'm sure the Scots appreciate all the interest in their affairs, although it's a shame they've been marginalised in their own thread (there is some deep meaning there somewhere).

I for one, and every person I know, will not be bitter towards Scotland (no more than they already are ).  The history will still be there. Radge, if your Godson is still in Hull, and I am as well, send him round to me when he's grown up and I'll set him right.  If he's growing up in Yorkshire he'll have a good strong identity anyway and with the calls for local governance here I'm sure he'll understand.

Any Englishman affronted by the sheer moxy of Scottish people to leave the Union need a slap. I don't care if we're worse off, they have the right to make this decision and to live with it. Plenty of world economies grew rich of slavery or explotation, so should they stay? No, we get rid of them where we can (or at least shift explotation to those poor countries no-one really seems to care about). This country grew on the backs of working people all over, in shocking conditions. We gave rights, introduced safety standards, increased wages to fair levels...any the work goes to the countries where they don't worry about that sort of thing.  Does that mean it was the wrong thing to do? I wouldn't say so.  Clearly an over done example but the principle is the same.

There is one issue here, and that is whether Scottish people (however they are classed) want to be in an independent country.  They may decide that based on 'facts' or emotion. Personally I think 99% are doing it on emotion and will twist the facts to meet it. And there is nothing wrong with that. The economic state of Scotland or rUK or the world is always subject to change. Maybe they're find a whole load more oil, maybe it'll run out sooner, maybe someone will invent something that makes oil redudant, maybe that person is Scottish.  Voting with your heart is the way to do it my opinion.

Great input Hammer.

[Sponsored content]