Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Scottish Independence yea or nay

Options
13567…55

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    DarkyHughes wrote: »
    So you think the Nazi's were justified in annexing Czechoslovakia, Austria & the Rhineland (which together is a couple of more million than in the North) because it had large majorities of Germans in them. Hmmmmm interesting.
    Would they have been if they were on the same island?


  • Options
    #63
    DarkyHughes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,393 ✭✭✭DarkyHughes


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Would they have been if they were on the same island?

    Well these are the age old questions that have plagued professors of linguists for centuries now.

    I mean there was nothing wrong with Slovakia or Austria, the Northern Ireland state however was described a by a British conservative MP (forget his name he's in that Pete Taylor series Provos) as a form of Tyranny.

    Must really p!ss you guys that Republicans finally did get some say in how the North should be governed huh?


  • Options
    #64
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    DarkyHughes wrote: »
    Well these are the age old questions that have plagued professors of linguists for centuries now.
    Nah. I doubt that any professors of any description were ever stupid enough to believe that simply being an island conferred any automatic obligation to nationhood.

    So are you going to address that point, or would you prefer to underline your inability to defend your convictions a little longer?


  • Options
    #65
    DarkyHughes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,393 ✭✭✭DarkyHughes


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Nah. I doubt that any professors of any description were ever stupid enough to believe that simply being an island conferred any automatic obligation to nationhood.

    So are you going to address that point, or would you prefer to underline your inability to defend your convictions a little longer?

    Well if the majority of the people on that island want to be a nation than yes.

    I wonder do they threat the rest of the citizens of the UK in England , Scotland & Wales like this?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU1WN7-u7ZE


    I doubt it very much because Britain has always itself regarded all of Ireland as foreign & a colonial position.

    And Britain has been trying to get of the North since the 70's if you read the 71 & 72 cabinet papers you'll see that.


  • Options
    #66
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    DarkyHughes wrote: »
    Well if the majority of the people on that island want to be a nation than yes.
    And what does that have to do with being an island? Couldn't one argue the same that majority of the people on the peninsula of Iberia wanted to be a nation? What you actually said was:
    DarkyHughes wrote: »
    No, I believe Ireland the island should be one country & Britain the island should be one countrie.
    Didn't see anything about majorities in that post. Or self-determination. Just islands.

    So, what's the big deal with being an island? It's not about self-determination, because you don't need an island for that. How about a straight answer?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Richard
    Registered Users Posts: 2,439 ✭✭✭Richard


    DarkyHughes wrote: »
    Well if the majority of the people on that island want to be a nation than yes.

    Does that apply to continents too? If the majority of the population on North America wanted to be one country should they be one country? Even if tbe majority if Mexicans and Canadians didn't?
    I doubt it very much because Britain has always itself regarded all of Ireland as foreign & a colonial position.

    If that was the case then there wouldn't have been Irish constituencies at Westminster.
    And Britain has been trying to get of the North since the 70's if you read the 71 & 72 cabinet papers you'll see that.
    Obviously people in the British government will have had that view but certainly the current government don't seem to want to rid themselves of NI. Also the UK Labour Party ditched it's "Irish Unity by consent" policy some years ago.


  • Options
    #68
    Richard
    Registered Users Posts: 2,439 ✭✭✭Richard


    DarkyHughes wrote: »
    So you think the Nazi's were justified in annexing Czechoslovakia, Austria & the Rhineland (which together is a couple of more million than in the North) because it had large majorities of Germans in them. Hmmmmm interesting.
    He obviously doesn't think that.
    If the UK annexed part of Donegal or the republic of Ireland annexed Derry city, both would be wrong.

    If there was a United Ireland (brought about by consent) then the UK re-annexed NI that's be wrong too.

    But NI rejecting a United Ireland is nothing like the Nazis invading Czechoslovakia. Obviously.


  • Options
    #69
    tbradman
    Registered Users Posts: 69 ✭✭tbradman


    This thread started as an interesting question from bpb101 about the forthcoming Scottish referendum.

    It has now descended into an Irish version of Godwin’s law about a united 32 county Ireland, and as such is now quite worthless (apologies to the OP). I call on the moderators to close this thread.

    I have also noticed a distinct lack of ability to analyse an event in another country (Scotland, Ukraine, Gaza, Israel, etc) without referencing it to Irish history and how unfair it all turned out. If people want to talk about a 32 county Ireland, could they please start a separate thread and leave discussions on foreign affairs to those who are interested in it?


  • Options
    #70
    Bepolite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,737 ✭✭✭Bepolite


    It's interesting to note that Scotland voted for the Union after all that had gone before it in part due to the fact that it had essentially had a massive banking collapse and was broke.

    I remeber thread here talking about were we too poor to go it alone and the myriad of threads about us paying to HM Treasury in relation to shopping across the border.

    There really isn't anything new under the Sun is there. :pac:


  • Options
    #71
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    tbradman wrote: »
    It has now descended into an Irish version of Godwin’s law about a united 32 county Ireland, and as such is now quite worthless (apologies to the OP).
    Has it become about a united 32 county Ireland? For me it's about what constitutes a nation, any nation, and the daft criteria for this some come up with because it supports whatever ideology they follow and how they run away from any kind of critical analysis of said criteria.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users Posts: 17,029 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Our voting cards came today, hopefully it will be a high turnout. The polls at the weekend showed the gap narrowing even after the inept display from Salmond debating Darling on STV


  • Options
    #73
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users Posts: 17,029 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    tbradman wrote: »
    This thread started as an interesting question from bpb101 about the forthcoming Scottish referendum.

    It has now descended into an Irish version of Godwin’s law about a united 32 county Ireland, and as such is now quite worthless (apologies to the OP). I call on the moderators to close this thread.

    I have also noticed a distinct lack of ability to analyse an event in another country (Scotland, Ukraine, Gaza, Israel, etc) without referencing it to Irish history and how unfair it all turned out. If people want to talk about a 32 county Ireland, could they please start a separate thread and leave discussions on foreign affairs to those who are interested in it?

    As someone in Australia, what is the Australian Prime Minister like? He came out with some crackers on the Scottish referendum recently

    http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/9598-australian-pms-enemies-of-freedom-comments-slammed-as-offensive-to-scots


  • Options
    #74
    bpb101
    Registered Users Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭bpb101


    tbradman wrote: »
    This thread started as an interesting question from bpb101 about the forthcoming Scottish referendum.

    It has now descended into an Irish version of Godwin’s law about a united 32 county Ireland, and as such is now quite worthless (apologies to the OP). I call on the moderators to close this thread.

    I have also noticed a distinct lack of ability to analyse an event in another country (Scotland, Ukraine, Gaza, Israel, etc) without referencing it to Irish history and how unfair it all turned out. If people want to talk about a 32 county Ireland, could they please start a separate thread and leave discussions on foreign affairs to those who are interested in it?


    yea , its got a bit out of control. i cant even follow it. there even talk about nazis .

    lads this was a simple thread about do you thinks the Scots will have the ba**s to go Independence and if so , what % will say its a good idea.

    please lads, keep it on topic. not trying to back seat mod here, but this isent a 32 county Ireland thread nor a thread about the past but rather the pros and cons of Independence for Scotland and wheater the pros will outweigh the cons for 50.01% of Scottish people over the age of 16

    moving on. question. What impact will the 16 and 17 years olds being allowed to vote have on the outcome. And do you think they will have a high turn out(i know there is no way to officially know )


  • Options
    #75
    tbradman
    Registered Users Posts: 69 ✭✭tbradman


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Has it become about a united 32 county Ireland? For me it's about what constitutes a nation, any nation, and the daft criteria for this some come up with because it supports whatever ideology they follow and how they run away from any kind of critical analysis of said criteria.

    Well the original thread was about Scottish nationhood or lack of... However some people seem unable to view or discuss anything outside of Ireland without referencing it to Ireland. In the process they tend to derail the whole debate. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with discussing Irish or any countries nationhood, but can't we have a separate thread for it? And lets keep the Nazis out of the debate too.


  • Options
    #76
    tbradman
    Registered Users Posts: 69 ✭✭tbradman


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    As someone in Australia, what is the Australian Prime Minister like? He came out with some crackers on the Scottish referendum recently

    Well before I answer, I have to be honest and say that I have no respect for Tony Abbott and to answer your question would take an entirely new thread! He makes George Bush look like a genius. His comments about "friends of justice and freedom" were greeted with bafflement in the press and I have yet to see any attempt at explaining them.

    Google "28 second silence" to see another of his bizarre gaff's on YouTube.


  • Options
    #77
    tbradman
    Registered Users Posts: 69 ✭✭tbradman


    bpb101 wrote: »
    yea , its got a bit out of control. i cant even follow it. there even talk about nazis .

    lads this was a simple thread about do you thinks the Scots will have the ba**s to go Independence and if so , what % will say its a good idea.

    please lads, keep it on topic. not trying to back seat mod here, but this isent a 32 county Ireland thread nor a thread about the past but rather the pros and cons of Independence for Scotland and wheater the pros will outweigh the cons for 50.01% of Scottish people over the age of 16

    moving on. question. What impact will the 16 and 17 years olds being allowed to vote have on the outcome. And do you think they will have a high turn out(i know there is no way to officially know )


    Well I had said it would be a No by 60%/40%. But I didn't realise that 16 and 17 year olds would be able to vote...

    In most elections I think the 18 - 25 year age group tends to have the lowest turnout. But with 16-17 year olds still living at home and possibly being encouraged to vote at school, it could throw a wildcard into the vote. Obviously what they hear their parents say will have a lot of influence, but I'm still going to with a No vote, but maybe a lot closer than 60/40...

    By the way, will Scottish TV be showing the movie Braveheart before the vote? :)


  • Options
    #78
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    tbradman wrote: »
    Google "28 second silence" to see another of his bizarre gaff's on YouTube.
    I suddenly don't feel quite as embarrassed about Berlusconi.
    tbradman wrote: »
    By the way, will Scottish TV be showing the movie Braveheart before the vote? :)
    I see that this new series Outlander has also had a rather timely release.


  • Options
    #79
    bpb101
    Registered Users Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭bpb101


    tbradman wrote: »
    Well I had said it would be a No by 60%/40%. But I didn't realise that 16 and 17 year olds would be able to vote...

    In most elections I think the 18 - 25 year age group tends to have the lowest turnout. But with 16-17 year olds still living at home and possibly being encouraged to vote at school, it could throw a wildcard into the vote. Obviously what they hear their parents say will have a lot of influence, but I'm still going to with a No vote, but maybe a lot closer than 60/40...

    By the way, will Scottish TV be showing the movie Braveheart before the vote? :)


    haha.. yea 16 & 17 years olds can vote. i would say they might get a biggish turnout(below adv though). If you can all remember your parent used to go over and vote together( not always of course) but still. if the family car is going over the 16 and 17 might go with them. They will be though the ones more liberal.

    I would say older people and business people will be worried about pensions and their shops


  • Options
    #80
    OS119
    Registered Users Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    from recall the polling orgs think that the younger voters - the 16-18's the SNP we so keen to get voting - will vote no, possibly in greater numbers than the rest of the population.

    which, i will freely admit, is something of a surprise...

    youGov, and another who's name i forget, over the weekend published either a poll or or an Op-Ed that suggests they think the race is getting tighter, and that Yes may get a result by the skin of their teeth - not, it must be stated, because there are more 'yes' than 'no', but because 'yes's are more likely to vote.

    should be interesting...


  • Options
    #81
    GaelMise
    Registered Users Posts: 542 ✭✭✭GaelMise


    tbradman wrote: »
    I'm guessing it will be a No vote. After seeing a little bit of the Salmond/Darling debate, I felt Salmond was very weak.

    His insistence that Scotland could keep the Pound and at the same time be independent of London was a very major contradiction that even the "friendlies" in the audience rejected. I think Salmond has lost it for the Yes vote.

    Not really, we did it for quite a while after independance.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    bpb101
    Registered Users Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭bpb101


    GaelMise wrote: »
    Not really, we did it for quite a while after independance.
    What is for a lot of scots( from listening to debates) are worried about losing the pound. The UK are using this as a scare tactic. However if Scotland does become independent and gets the pound and does well for itself the welsh national party might gain some power


  • Options
    #83
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    bpb101 wrote: »
    What is for a lot of scots( from listening to debates) are worried about losing the pound. The UK are using this as a scare tactic. However if Scotland does become independent and gets the pound and does well for itself the welsh national party might gain some power

    It's not scare tactics, it's a simple fact, if they use sterling then they have their financial policies controlled by the bank of England.


  • Options
    #84
    bpb101
    Registered Users Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭bpb101


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    It's not scare tactics, it's a simple fact, if they use sterling then they have their financial policies controlled by the bank of England.

    No, they(uk ) are saying you can't use the pound if they aren't in the uk.


  • Options
    #85
    Lemming
    Registered Users Posts: 14,148 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    bpb101 wrote: »
    No, they(uk ) are saying you can't use the pound if they aren't in the uk.

    No, that's not what they've said. What they have actually said is that Scotland will have no say in governance of the pound Sterling, like latin american countries using the US dollar. Their economies (and by extension that of an independent Scotland if it choose to continue using Sterling) are at the mercy of another country.


  • Options
    #86
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users Posts: 17,029 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    The UK Government & Labour have said there will be no sterling union


  • Options
    #87
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    The UK Government & Labour have said there will be no sterling union

    It's not up to them.


  • Options
    #88
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users Posts: 17,029 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    It is in the event of independence although this all flies in the face of 'no negotiations before the referendum result' and the best interest of people of rUK if independence happens

    Scotland as an independent country can use sterling as their own currency but not a union with the rUK as it stands


  • Options
    #89
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Lemming wrote: »
    Their economies (and by extension that of an independent Scotland if it choose to continue using Sterling) are at the mercy of another country.
    Monetary policy, rather than economy. Another consequence of unilaterally adopting a currency is that you end up with a lot of tatty banknotes as anyone who's spent any time in places like Montenegro will testify.

    Thing is that an independent Scotland would have to reapply to join the EU and this would probably mean a requirement to adopt the Euro.

    Still can't see it all happening, on balance, though.


  • Options
    #90
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users Posts: 17,029 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Adam Smith Institute has issued a press release this morning saying An independent Scotland should use the pound without permission from rUK with an associated PDF report

    It is not established as fact that Scotland would have to reapply to join the EU


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    It is not established as fact that Scotland would have to reapply to join the EU
    Now, it's pretty much established to be fair.


Advertisement