• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Scotland to Vote on Independence

WakeForestRanger

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
22,959
Reaction score
1,169
"The Scottish National Party, which has long campaigned for an independent Scotland, won a majority of seats at the Scottish Parliament in elections in 2011 and vowed to hold a referendum on independence within the next five years. But on constitutional issues, such as a break-up of the U.K., London insists it retains the final say.

By offering Scots a binding vote provided it is held soon, the U.K. government is hoping to win the case for maintaining the union."


Link


Scotland seceding would weaken our strongest ally on the world stage.
 
Bring it, UK:

william%20wallace.bmp
 
This sounds like Quebec. Give them a vote that they'll lose so that the talk dies down for another 2-3 decades. Most right-thinking Scots wouldn't vote to buck the UK in this economic environment.
 
This sounds like Quebec. Give them a vote that they'll lose so that the talk dies down for another 2-3 decades. Most right-thinking Scots wouldn't vote to buck the UK in this economic environment.

I think the current polling is something like 54% in favor of staying in the UK with 32% wanting independence and the rest undecided. So it doesn't look like Scotland would vote to break away at least if the election were held now. I guess that's why the supporters are trying to lower the voting age and time the vote to coincide with the anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn in 2014.

I've actually seen credit given the movie Braveheart for helping the independence movement gain the support that it has.

If they do vote to break away, Scotland says they will want their own army and navy as well as the majority of the rights to the North Sea oil fields.
 
I hear prostitutes say the same thing. Some things are greater than money.
 
If they can't be independent in time to field a soccer team in the 2012 Olympics, there's really no point for them. I'm not sure exactly of the general view in Scotland, but Northern Ireland wants nothing to do with independence. Their economy blows and they would quickly become way worse off. I'd imagine the same is true in Scotland.
 
I've been following this rather closely (I read The Economist religiously and obviously they had a lot of coverage). Scots made the right decision IMO. They were being fed a load of rainbows and unicorns by the independence party. It was kind of like the inverse opposite of a Paul Ryan budget -the Alex Salmond budget was all "we're going to lower taxes, give everybody more free stuff, spend all the oil money to do it, and then make rosy predictions about future oil money and claim we'll use that for a Norwegian-style rainy day fund". He had 2+2 adding up to about 11. If they had seceded it would have been bad not only for the UK, but also a blow to NATO and a favor to Russia.
 
What was European acceptance going to be had the vote been "yes?" I read that Spain was not high on it since they will be facing several independence initiatives themselves.
 
I've been following this rather closely (I read The Economist religiously and obviously they had a lot of coverage). Scots made the right decision IMO. They were being fed a load of rainbows and unicorns by the independence party. It was kind of like the inverse opposite of a Paul Ryan budget -the Alex Salmond budget was all "we're going to lower taxes, give everybody more free stuff, spend all the oil money to do it, and then make rosy predictions about future oil money and claim we'll use that for a Norwegian-style rainy day fund". He had 2+2 adding up to about 11. If they had seceded it would have been bad not only for the UK, but also a blow to NATO and a favor to Russia.

My associate is in northern England and much of his family lives in Scotland. Secession sounded good, but the reality is there are a lot more negatives than positives.
 
I've been following this rather closely (I read The Economist religiously and obviously they had a lot of coverage). Scots made the right decision IMO. They were being fed a load of rainbows and unicorns by the independence party. It was kind of like the inverse opposite of a Paul Ryan budget -the Alex Salmond budget was all "we're going to lower taxes, give everybody more free stuff, spend all the oil money to do it, and then make rosy predictions about future oil money and claim we'll use that for a Norwegian-style rainy day fund". He had 2+2 adding up to about 11. If they had seceded it would have been bad not only for the UK, but also a blow to NATO and a favor to Russia.


Yeah a lot of the Independence rhetoric hinged upon Scotland having 100% control of the oil reserves off shore of Scotland. The current use agreement passed by the UK would give them about a 7%control (commensurate with the %population of the UK). Most likely they would settle somewhere in the middle, but nowhere near the revenue the independence party would need to make good on its structure
 
Jesus, the world's love affair with the Brits is sad, pathetic, and disgusting. It's especially tiresome in Americans given our very existence as a country was not so long ago created as the result of two very major wars with them. Sometimes doing the right thing comes at a price. The Scots voted democratically and made their choice. That's that.
 
Once again voters demonstrate that they prefer the devil they know to the one they don't. Too many uncertainties in independence.

In the long run though, independence movements, or at least significant autonomy ones, will be a fact of life in Europe. Interestingly enough, the existence of the European Union will provide unintended and certainly unwilling assistance for these. Get used to it EU.
 
Back
Top