The Mod-Sanctioned Scottish Referendum Megathread

[Jinwoy]

According to the UK press if Scotland secedes Russia will invade it. How much is that likely to happen if Scotland secedes?

source
highly unlikely/practically improbable

[Pesda]

So can you tell us, without exaggerating, what are the many benefits of the Union?

Not being bankrupt and taken over by someone else. Becoming a power on the world stage with an extremely small population. Have so much greater economic benefits, like having actual money to do stuff. More stability, politically and economically.

Why would an independent Scotland go bankrupt? Who would take over an independent Scotland, and why would they? How is Scotland currently a power on the world stage? Why do you think that an independent Scotland wouldn't have actual money to do stuff with? Why would an independent Scotland be less politically and economically stable?

What aren't the benefits of being in a union? Where has Scotland come into a disadvantage from the union signing in contemporary society? Why split off possibly the best political marriage in the world over silly, childish nationalistic matters?

What aren't the benefits? The bedroom tax, poll tax, Iraq war, and austerity come to mind.

Do you even know the history behind the union signing?

My historical knowledge, or lack of knowledge, is irrelevant.

[Kxcd]

I won't be able to get used to a world where Britain and Scotland are no longer the same thing.
Alba and England and Cymraeg and Northern Ireland, one and inseparable, together forever!

[Pesda]

I won't be able to get used to a world where Britain and Scotland are no longer the same thing.
Alba and England and Cymraeg and Northern Ireland, one and inseparable, together forever!

*Cymru

[Slavonian kingdom]

According to the UK press if Scotland secedes Russia will invade it. How much is that likely to happen if Scotland secedes?

source
highly unlikely/practically improbable

http://www.businessinsider.com/scottish ... ion-2014-8

This news is probably a result of the EU intelligence service to discrediz the UK side.

[Jinwoy]

Not being bankrupt and taken over by someone else. Becoming a power on the world stage with an extremely small population. Have so much greater economic benefits, like having actual money to do stuff. More stability, politically and economically.

Why would an independent Scotland go bankrupt? Who would take over an independent Scotland, and why would they? How is Scotland currently a power on the world stage? Why do you think that an independent Scotland wouldn't have actual money to do stuff with? Why would an independent Scotland be less politically and economically stable?

What aren't the benefits of being in a union? Where has Scotland come into a disadvantage from the union signing in contemporary society? Why split off possibly the best political marriage in the world over silly, childish nationalistic matters?

What aren't the benefits? The bedroom tax, poll tax, Iraq war, and austerity come to mind.

Do you even know the history behind the union signing?

My historical knowledge, or lack of knowledge, is irrelevant.

Because then you'd know why I say "bankrupt" :|
and why I say Scotland was a power on the world stage while in union with England :\
and why I say Scotland is better off being a part of the union - politically and financially :/

[Manchovia]

To all those saying that the fact that Scottish oil has been sold rather than invested, or that gold has been sold by short-sighted politicians etc., and using this as an argument for independence, I would say that, while with the benefit of hindsight Scottish politicians can say what they would have done, it is very likely that they would have followed the same route as England. After all, Gordon Brown is a Scottish politician, and would almost certainly have become the Prime Minister of an independent Scotland.

While it's nice to think about things with hindsight, it is to late to build a nation such as Scotland, which would have very high levels of public spending, on a source such as oil. Oil is far too volatile, and it is running out. In oft-quoted Norway they know this, and they are worried about it.

A vote for independence shouldn't just be about whether you believe Alex Salmond when he says he will magically improve the Scottish Health Service, or magically increase the size of your pension. It is going to be having ramifications far into the future, and, to vote Yes, I would argue that a responsible citizen must be sure that it is best for their children, or their grandchildren, or their great-grandchildren. The list goes on, and I do not believe that Alex Salmond's plans would guarantee a brighter future, which is why I believe that we are Better Together.

[Briwen]

don't worry sxotland can make it on her own, there are many rich small countries. She is probably better of leaving the sinking ship.

[Bentus]

I saw an interesting show on the BBC looking into whether Scotland would be richer or poorer if it were independent (I think this is it, can't be sure with no iplayer over here). The conclusion at the end was what interested me. Whilst apparently Scotland would pay something like an additional .5% interest or similar compared to a unified UK, and the currency problem is an issue, the difference is going to be pretty imperceptible in all likelihood. So, the reporter declares that the Scots shouldn't decide based upon economics, simply because there's no serious difference to individuals whether they're part of the UK or independent.

[Pesda]

Why would an independent Scotland go bankrupt? Who would take over an independent Scotland, and why would they? How is Scotland currently a power on the world stage? Why do you think that an independent Scotland wouldn't have actual money to do stuff with? Why would an independent Scotland be less politically and economically stable?What aren't the benefits? The bedroom tax, poll tax, Iraq war, and austerity come to mind.
My historical knowledge, or lack of knowledge, is irrelevant.

Because then you'd know why I say "bankrupt" :|
and why I say Scotland was a power on the world stage while in union with England :\
and why I say Scotland is better off being a part of the union - politically and financially :/

Can you answer any of my questions?

[Jinwoy]

Because then you'd know why I say "bankrupt" :|
and why I say Scotland was a power on the world stage while in union with England :\
and why I say Scotland is better off being a part of the union - politically and financially :/

Can you answer any of my questions?

I pretty much did. You're just ignoring the answers.

[Pesda]

Can you answer any of my questions?

I pretty much did. You're just ignoring the answers.

How does

Because then you'd know why I say "bankrupt" :|
and why I say Scotland was a power on the world stage while in union with England :\
and why I say Scotland is better off being a part of the union - politically and financially :/

answer

Why would an independent Scotland go bankrupt? Who would take over an independent Scotland, and why would they? How is Scotland currently a power on the world stage? Why do you think that an independent Scotland wouldn't have actual money to do stuff with? Why would an independent Scotland be less politically and economically stable?

I wonder?

[Jinwoy]

I pretty much did. You're just ignoring the answers.

How does

Because then you'd know why I say "bankrupt" :|
and why I say Scotland was a power on the world stage while in union with England :\
and why I say Scotland is better off being a part of the union - politically and financially :/

answer

Why would an independent Scotland go bankrupt? Who would take over an independent Scotland, and why would they? How is Scotland currently a power on the world stage? Why do you think that an independent Scotland wouldn't have actual money to do stuff with? Why would an independent Scotland be less politically and economically stable?

I wonder?

My historical knowledge, or lack of knowledge, is irrelevant.

Oh dear oh no what is this I wonder. Since you obviously don't know the history, I explained part of it in earlier post.
This was my response to the above quote:

Because then you'd know why I say "bankrupt" :|
and why I say Scotland was a power on the world stage while in union with England :\
and why I say Scotland is better off being a part of the union - politically and financially :/

Whoops, you did it again. You played with my heart. Getting lost in the game. Oh baby, baby.

[Machtergreifung]

A vote for independence shouldn't just be about whether you believe Alex Salmond when he says he will magically improve the Scottish Health Service

Well, he sure can't be doing better than David "Privatize the NHS" Cameron's bid to make the NHS better...

The list goes on, and I do not believe that Alex Salmond's plans would guarantee a brighter future, which is why I believe that we are Better Together.

I think Alex Salmond's plans guarantee a brighter future than those of David Cameron. I think an independent Scottish government would guarantee a brighter future than a Britian switching between Blue Tories and Red Tories. I think an independent Scotland would lead to a fairer society.

Scotland won't suddenly become a land of milk and honey overnight, but a Yes vote isn't a vote for instant improvement: it would be a vote that shows a massive improvement fifty years down the line.

[The Nihilistic view]

I saw an interesting show on the BBC looking into whether Scotland would be richer or poorer if it were independent (I think this is it, can't be sure with no iplayer over here). The conclusion at the end was what interested me. Whilst apparently Scotland would pay something like an additional .5% interest or similar compared to a unified UK, and the currency problem is an issue, the difference is going to be pretty imperceptible in all likelihood. So, the reporter declares that the Scots shouldn't decide based upon economics, simply because there's no serious difference to individuals whether they're part of the UK or independent.

Personally I liked this one. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... for-the-uk

[Rutannia]

We're basically 17 days away from the biggest constitutional decision since the union formed, but my thoughts are turning to what happens in a NO vote, we've seen there are a minority of Scots in the YES camp who seem a little radicalised, you only have to look at the MP that got egged, people calling people who vote NO traitors and calling them unpatriotic, yes it's a minority but do they get more radicalised in the event of a NO and depending on the margin of the vote it shows that the union is under threat even if they vote NO.

[Machtergreifung]

We're basically 17 days away from the biggest constitutional decision since the union formed, but my thoughts are turning to what happens in a NO vote, we've seen there are a minority of Scots in the YES camp who seem a little radicalised, you only have to look at the MP that got egged, people calling people who vote NO traitors and calling them unpatriotic, yes it's a minority but do they get more radicalised in the event of a NO and depending on the margin of the vote it shows that the union is under threat even if they vote NO.

I think that in the event of a No vote, you'll see a real stigma against those who voted No ten or twenty years down the line.

[Marcurix]

We're basically 17 days away from the biggest constitutional decision since the union formed, but my thoughts are turning to what happens in a NO vote, we've seen there are a minority of Scots in the YES camp who seem a little radicalised, you only have to look at the MP that got egged, people calling people who vote NO traitors and calling them unpatriotic, yes it's a minority but do they get more radicalised in the event of a NO and depending on the margin of the vote it shows that the union is under threat even if they vote NO.

I think that in the event of a No vote, you'll see a real stigma against those who voted No ten or twenty years down the line.

and why is that?

[Machtergreifung]

I think that in the event of a No vote, you'll see a real stigma against those who voted No ten or twenty years down the line.

and why is that?

The vote for independence is going to be the only chance we'll get for a long time to really improve the political system in Scotland and to change the political structure of the rest of the UK for the better.

Otherwise it's back to the old dominance of London and the south of England in politics and the marginalization of outlying regions. A Yes vote would force reform of voting in the rUK, and you'd see areas like the North of England get better representation.

[The Nihilistic view]

I think that in the event of a No vote, you'll see a real stigma against those who voted No ten or twenty years down the line.

and why is that?

Because some people can't accept the results of a democratic choice.

[Bentus]

I think that in the event of a No vote, you'll see a real stigma against those who voted No ten or twenty years down the line.

That would be terrible, and frankly give a poor representation of those who dish out the 'stigma'. Right or wrong, the choice of a democratic process has to be respected or else it doesn't function. Sure it can be possible to fix things down the line if the electorate's really globbed up, but by stigmatising people for voting simply for what they believe in you threaten to damage the legitimacy of the whole process.

I'm exaggerating here, so please nobody take offence, but I can't be the only one seeing the parallel with folks like the Taliban threatening people who vote in elections? In the end the vote gets shifted due to people being frightened of getting punished for letting their voices be heard O.o

Actually, random though. If something like this were the case - should a government make it known? On the one hand it could affect people's safety, but if voters knew that they were at personal threat then it could affect the vote itself. So would it not be better to keep it quiet? I'm not really talking about the referendum and getting a tad off topic, but meh.

[The Nihilistic view]

I think that in the event of a No vote, you'll see a real stigma against those who voted No ten or twenty years down the line.

That would be terrible, and frankly give a poor representation of those who dish out the 'stigma'. Right or wrong, the choice of a democratic process has to be respected or else it doesn't function. Sure it can be possible to fix things down the line if the electorate's really globbed up, but by stigmatising people for voting simply for what they believe in you threaten to damage the legitimacy of the whole process.

I'm exaggerating here, so please nobody take offence, but I can't be the only one seeing the parallel with folks like the Taliban threatening people who vote in elections? In the end the vote gets shifted due to people being frightened of getting punished for letting their voices be heard O.o

Actually, random though. If something like this were the case - should a government make it known? On the one hand it could affect people's safety, but if voters knew that they were at personal threat then it could affect the vote itself. So would it not be better to keep it quiet? I'm not really talking about the referendum and getting a tad off topic, but meh.

I would imagine if this was thought this was the case it would go before a judge who would determine whether the actions of attempted intimidation had undue influence over the result. If the Judge ruled that they had the results would be annulled or changed and those responsible would probably face an investigation and possibly trial.

[Rutannia]

We're basically 17 days away from the biggest constitutional decision since the union formed, but my thoughts are turning to what happens in a NO vote, we've seen there are a minority of Scots in the YES camp who seem a little radicalised, you only have to look at the MP that got egged, people calling people who vote NO traitors and calling them unpatriotic, yes it's a minority but do they get more radicalised in the event of a NO and depending on the margin of the vote it shows that the union is under threat even if they vote NO.

I think that in the event of a No vote, you'll see a real stigma against those who voted No ten or twenty years down the line.

However I saw a report saying that depending how close the vote is if Scotland votes NO we'll see a strengthened YES camp more determined to get independence.

and why is that?

The vote for independence is going to be the only chance we'll get for a long time to really improve the political system in Scotland and to change the political structure of the rest of the UK for the better.

Otherwise it's back to the old dominance of London and the south of England in politics and the marginalization of outlying regions. A Yes vote would force reform of voting in the rUK, and you'd see areas like the North of England get better representation.

I would like to see a Federal UK much like Germany, more power in local hands.

[Kaztropol]

there are already people, in the official yes campaign, organising and encouraging mobs to shout down their political opponents. Enough so that the first minister has had to intervene.

so on polling day, there's some risk of intimidation outside the polling stations.

if that's the case, then it would bring shame on Scotland.

[Pesda]

How does
answer
I wonder?

My historical knowledge, or lack of knowledge, is irrelevant.

Oh dear oh no what is this I wonder. Since you obviously don't know the history, I explained part of it in earlier post.
This was my response to the above quote:

Because then you'd know why I say "bankrupt" :|
and why I say Scotland was a power on the world stage while in union with England :\
and why I say Scotland is better off being a part of the union - politically and financially :/

Whoops, you did it again. You played with my heart. Getting lost in the game. Oh baby, baby.

Instead of commenting on my knowledge of history, can you answer these questions?

Why would an independent Scotland go bankrupt? Who would take over an independent Scotland, and why would they? How is Scotland currently a power on the world stage? Why do you think that an independent Scotland wouldn't have actual money to do stuff with? Why would an independent Scotland be less politically and economically stable?

"You would know if you knew history" is not an answer.