Scottish Independence yea or nay

serfboard wrote: »

...Is there a minimum turnout level required?

nope, just a straight majority of votes.

I will be voting Yes and the No side will win. 90 minute patriots is a very apt description

Sand wrote: »

Probably more realistic than any other plan for a united Ireland.

I hate to admit it as a republican, but we're now an independent country. I would not be against joining a true economic partnership with the UK. I'm not saying I'd join the UK necessarily though.

Berserker wrote: »

A refreshing piece of realism from a republican. I too can see us going into economic partnership with the UK within the next decade or so. We are massively reliant on each other trade wise as is and that relationship is only going to get stronger as time progresses. Scotland, as part of the UK, will be a very important part of that partnership. I think the idea of independence will be put to bed for a few generations after the vote in September.

In many ways (without getting into a discussion on the North) I see Irish Republicanism as having been a major success. We were successful in gaining our independence and I would not suggest for a second giving that up. I just see that we now have a choice as to whether to take our success and act like a real, grown up country - making decisions that benefit this nation rather than cutting our nose off to spite our face.

We need to be prepared to react to Scotland leaving the UK and/or the UK leaving the EU; we need to know exactly what we, as a nation, will do in those circumstances. It's not enough to do the usual wait and see.

The no vote will win, IMO. What's independence to economic security? The Scots will put their pound before the notion of governing themselves, simple as. The economy is all that matters to most people. Cameron et al have frightened most people away from independence. Any transition can be painful and the voters will not be prepared to risk it.

There has already been massive scare stories from the no side. It is laughable how they are being swallowed by folk who are otherwise seem sensible

Lemming wrote: »

You mean about pandas and alien invasions?

Out of interest, what are considered to be these massive scare stories?

Things along the lines of the BBC disappearing (as if by forcefield at the border)
Peoples savings or pensions in UK banks disappearing.
Having to revert to barter as a mechanism of commerce....

And so forth.

Lemming wrote: »

You mean about pandas and alien invasions?

Out of interest, what are considered to be these massive scare stories?

Uncle Fred won't be able to visit his niece in England as he would need a passport and he does not have one

Checkpoints and border controls on the M74/M6

Scotland is too small to be independent

The RBS crash would have bankrupted Scotland

Natural resources will have no affect on an independent Scotland

An independent Scotland would be cataclysmic for the west and threaten global stability

The start up costs of an independent Scotland would sink the economy

Scotland cannot keep using the pound if they are independent

People would have to drive on the other side of the road

etc etc

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2013/03/19/top-10-unionist-myths-debunked-banned-then-re-debunked/

I'm a bit bemused by some of the arguments being treated seriously as scaremongering by the Yes side. There's a couple of bonafide home truths that have been raised in the list below, and again I find it a bit dishonest that a genuine concern is being peddled as scare mongering all because it's "killing Salmond's buzz".

Anyway ... I'll address the serious points; anything not addressed is just bullsh*t to be ignored as idiocy being taken seriously by idiots.

comongethappy wrote: »

Things along the lines of the BBC disappearing (as if by forcefield at the border)
Peoples savings or pensions in UK banks disappearing.
Having to revert to barter as a mechanism of commerce....

The BBC, being the UK state, and state-funded broadcaster would have to relocate any tangible amounts of staff and equipment out of Scotland that are based there, other than "foreign correspondants" or the like. But broadcasting could still be received because .. well ... not to put too fine a point on it, it's a bit difficult to stop radio-waves without actively jamming them. Whether or not broadcast signals would be well received the further north one would travel is a technical matter, if the BBC no longer cater to the Scottish region. All of the above is common sense and stating the obvious.

The pensions pot is a real concern however, and would be down to details on what would be negotiated out of any ceding from the union. But generally speaking, the pension fund is funded greatly by today's workers and as has been pointed out, Scotland has a higher than average older demographic than the rest of the UK which means less younger workers covering a larger older population. Again, that isn't scare mongering; it's common sense to point that out.

People's savings is a matter for bank negotiation, but I would imagine that only deposits above a certain size would be at risk, like what was done for banks during the crisis of guaruanteeing any deposits below £100,000 or whatever it was. Neither side can really comment other than to state that it's an unknown.


Out of curiosity? Who mentioned the barter thing and more importantly, in what context was it said? Because that one is up there with Pandas and Alien invasions in how not to be taken seriously.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Uncle Fred won't be able to visit his niece in England as he would need a passport and he does not have one

Checkpoints and border controls on the M74/M6

Short of a dire collapse in economic negotiations, Scotland is looking at a common travel area agreement like what Ireland has. But I would expect to see import/export restrictions around the movement of certain types of goods; i.e. explosives, animal types.

I would also expect to see tighter ITAR restrictions applied to the Scottish state security apparatus when trying to acquire any shiny new military hardware from North America with Scotland not being a member of NATO.

Scotland is too small to be independent

The RBS crash would have bankrupted Scotland

Natural resources will have no affect on an independent Scotland

RBS dragging Scotland down? Not so implausible at all given what happened to both Iceland & Ireland. But academic because RBS was saved by the UK (including Scotland).

As for natural resources; hard one to call really and all depends on what happens with regards the oil companies as most of them would not be headquartered in Scotland, meaning the rump of profits go elsewhere unless Salmond is planning to do an Argentina move and seize company hardware and oil in storage. Scotland would still benefit, just not in the manner or extent that Norway benefits (with its nationalised ownership) as Salmond talked up at the last debate.

An independent Scotland would be cataclysmic for the west and threaten global stability

The start up costs of an independent Scotland would sink the economy

Scotland cannot keep using the pound if they are independent

People would have to drive on the other side of the road

etc etc

The pound ... Scotland could keep using the pound, the point being that they would have no control over it; much like all those Latin American countries using the US dollar.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2013/03/19/top-10-unionist-myths-debunked-banned-then-re-debunked/

I'm pretty sure that there's a rule against comment-by-video-link on this forum.

So care to actually comment instead being lazy?

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Lazy? you should come to Scotland to listen to the BT campaign for the text book definition of lazy

I've been hearing it all for years Dub; some of my immediate family and most of my relations live in Scotland, but thanks for the arrogant condescension.