The Mod-Sanctioned Scottish Referendum Megathread

[Arkolon]

How many days left, again?

[The Nihilistic view]

If the British government wanted to keep Scotland, it wouldn't hold a referendum now, would it.

if the british government didn't want to keep scotland, it wouldn't be campaigning for staying in the union, would it?

The British Government is not campaigning for the No side at the moment. That would be illegal under the purdah rules.

[The Nihilistic view]

How many days left, again?

It's on the 18th.

[The Scientific States]

How many days left, again?

Ten more days. The Better Together campaign needs to work harder if they want the people of Scotland to vote no, sinc the Yes Campaign is gaining more and more ground by day.

[Arkolon]

How many days left, again?

It's on the 18th.

What are the polls saying?

[Kingdoms of Cal]

Note:England is not exactly a tropical paradise.

Devon is, there are palms and ferns and a bit of sun!

There are palms in logan botanical gardens in dumfries and galoway, South East of Scotland. Thank you gulf stream.

[The Scientific States]

It's on the 18th.

What are the polls saying?

For months, polls gave the no campaign a major advantage. But, in recent weeks, the polls have been extremely close, and Yes Campaign has a slight advantage thanks to a recent debate and lackluster campaigning from the No Campaign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_po ... ndum,_2014

[Kingdoms of Cal]

Why does Britain wanna keep Scotland is it to keep their controlled areas or for tax revenue

If the British government wanted to keep Scotland, it wouldn't hold a referendum now, would it.

Because they figured they couldn't loose.

Best give the jocks a vote and shut them up, not like they might vote to go...bluff called...With luck.

[Na h-Alba Nuadh]

The British Government is not campaigning for the No side at the moment. That would be illegal under the purdah rules.

And of course it isn't the Westminster government which has just promised new powers to the Scottish Parliament now, because of course that would be against the purdah rules. Instead it just so happens to be the came people who make up the Westminster government, in their capacities as members of political parties not as government members.

Of course, THIS time they will stand by their promises unlike when Lord Douglas-Home said exactly the same in 1979...

[Na h-Alba Nuadh]

Independence for Bradford! Vote Galloway, 2015!

You joke but where will this lead? Independence for the Shetlands, because only they have a real claim to the oil, independence for London as a city state, London has all the money, ect. Personally, I don't like British nationalism, (NO side) nor Scottish nationalism, (yes) or any nationalism, eg, Ukrainian or Russian. And both nationalism's are pro-Nato, pro-Monarchy, ect.

Shetland would actually have its national waters as an enclave within Scotlands national waters, so it would only have a very small amount of the oil. Of course the Shetland government would have a strong negotiating position regarding the existing extraction infrastructure located there,up to the cost of Scotland rebuilding it elsewhere.

However, independence for London could well have stopped the independence for Scotland movement dead in its tracks - except the city-state would lose all the cash it's been extracting from the rest of the island so London seeking that would be the proverbial turkeys voting for Christmas (and the rest of the UK isn't permitted to unilaterally eject it under international law). The option for federalism of the UK would also have ended the Scottish independence movement, but on the other hand, if Westminster had had the sense to federalise in the 1900's there would still be a British Empire!

[Jinwoy]

You joke but where will this lead? Independence for the Shetlands, because only they have a real claim to the oil, independence for London as a city state, London has all the money, ect. Personally, I don't like British nationalism, (NO side) nor Scottish nationalism, (yes) or any nationalism, eg, Ukrainian or Russian. And both nationalism's are pro-Nato, pro-Monarchy, ect.

Shetland would actually have its national waters as an enclave within Scotlands national waters, so it would only have a very small amount of the oil. Of course the Shetland government would have a strong negotiating position regarding the existing extraction infrastructure located there,up to the cost of Scotland rebuilding it elsewhere.

However, independence for London could well have stopped the independence for Scotland movement dead in its tracks - except the city-state would lose all the cash it's been extracting from the rest of the island so London seeking that would be the proverbial turkeys voting for Christmas (and the rest of the UK isn't permitted to unilaterally eject it under international law). The option for federalism of the UK would also have ended the Scottish independence movement, but on the other hand, if Westminster had had the sense to federalise in the 1900's there would still be a British Empire!

Minus India. And Africa. And Oceania.

[Glasgia]

Shetland would actually have its national waters as an enclave within Scotlands national waters, so it would only have a very small amount of the oil. Of course the Shetland government would have a strong negotiating position regarding the existing extraction infrastructure located there,up to the cost of Scotland rebuilding it elsewhere.

However, independence for London could well have stopped the independence for Scotland movement dead in its tracks - except the city-state would lose all the cash it's been extracting from the rest of the island so London seeking that would be the proverbial turkeys voting for Christmas (and the rest of the UK isn't permitted to unilaterally eject it under international law). The option for federalism of the UK would also have ended the Scottish independence movement, but on the other hand, if Westminster had had the sense to federalise in the 1900's there would still be a British Empire!

Minus India. And Africa. And Oceania.

I think his point is that India, Australia, New Zealand and other parts of the British Empire would have had more incentive to stay if they had been federalised. I doubt that'd be true for India, which is such a massive nation for any other government to cater for, but perhaps he'd be right with the more "Anglicised" colonies such as the Aussies and Kiwis.

[The Nihilistic view]

Minus India. And Africa. And Oceania.

I think his point is that India, Australia, New Zealand and other parts of the British Empire would have had more incentive to stay if they had been federalised. I doubt that'd be true for India, which is such a massive nation for any other government to cater for, but perhaps he'd be right with the more "Anglicised" colonies such as the Aussies and Kiwis.

They were federalised. That's what Dominion status and then Commonwealth realm was. Even before that in the 1800's Canada, Australia and New Zealand had home rule. There is only one possible step on from Dominion/realm status and that is full independence which is what they did in the 70s and 80s by severing the last constitutional links to the British Government. Most of those nations were dominions before even WW1

So his point is a complete non starter. The British Government was federalising in the 1850s 50 years before he reckons if they did it it would have saved the Empire. You can't get more federalised without being independent.

[Kingdoms of Cal]

We have ukip and the libdems working together, Gordon Brown (ex labor PM) backing the tories....policy speaking scotland has gone threw the looking glass.

[Parti Ouvrier]

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/imageF ... ottish.jpg
^The Socialist Opportunists Party.

[Kingdoms of Cal]

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/imageFiles/Image/2014/2419/sw2419scottish.jpg
^The Socialist Opportunists Party.

The RIC will rip them a new one after indy, they were no, but now yes...no point in getting in a fight now.

[The Nihilistic view]

What were you saying...........

I'll take 2-1 against Germany, better than I'll take a loss against the Swiss - Oh wait, that hasn't happened... Yet.

Better get myself off down to Bradford.............

Anyway it's mainly because they are a massive boring passionless bunch of bell shands. Did I mention how boring they are to watch?

Don't worry, I know. I watched the Norway match purely so I wasn't stranded when my mates would inevitably bring it up. Aside from a local lad getting his debut, which I'll allow the internet paedophiles to keep guessing at, then they were actually quite keen to avoid talking about that performance.

Result, it's still 0-0. Just turned over to check the score in time to catch the England fans having a bit of a monarchist union sing song.

[Olivaero]

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/imageFiles/Image/2014/2419/sw2419scottish.jpg
^The Socialist Opportunists Party.

Didn't you know? A Petrostate and nationalism are the true way to spread socialism throughout the world!

[Alyakia]

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/imageFiles/Image/2014/2419/sw2419scottish.jpg
^The Socialist Opportunists Party.

Didn't you know? A Petrostate and nationalism are the true way to spread socialism throughout the world!

perhaps we could have some form of nationalism and socialism. hmm.

[The British Galactic Empire]

The whole referendum is absurd and a threat to the whole British system of government...which is already far too "americanized"

Britain is not supposed to be a democracy, let alone a direct one. Yes, the United Kingdom has representation: and that is excellent, people should have a say in government, but government cannot be based on immediate populist whims. Previously the house of lords served as a counter-balance to populism, the same with the monarch, but both have lost all their real power and now there is no barrier to stop cheap populism and treason.

That said, Scotland should only be allowed to leave if the westminster parliament accepted it. Scotland accepted the union when the Scottish parliament voted for it, now its parliament needs to vote for it to leave: and its parliament is the westminster one, as per the acts of union, not that ridiculous thing in Holyrood.
Why? because England, Wales and Northern Ireland are also part of the Union and they have a right not to accept a unilateral Scottish secession. In fact not even the US would accept this way of doing things since unilateral secession is ilegal!

Parliament should oust Cameron, and have the army arrest that traitor Salmond.

[The Nihilistic view]

The whole referendum is absurd and a threat to the whole British system of government...which is already far too "americanized"

Britain is not supposed to be a democracy, let alone a direct one. Yes, the United Kingdom has representation: and that is excellent, people should have a say in government, but government cannot be based on immediate populist whims. Previously the house of lords served as a counter-balance to populism, the same with the monarch, but both have lost all their real power and now there is no barrier to stop cheap populism and treason.

That said, Scotland should only be allowed to leave if the westminster parliament accepted it. Scotland accepted the union when the Scottish parliament voted for it, now its parliament needs to vote for it to leave: and its parliament is the westminster one, as per the acts of union, not that ridiculous thing in Holyrood.
Why? because England, Wales and Northern Ireland are also part of the Union and they have a right not to accept a unilateral Scottish secession. In fact not even the US would accept this way of doing things since unilateral secession is ilegal!

Parliament should oust Cameron, and have the army arrest that traitor Salmond.

That part I do agree with.

[Alyakia]

The whole referendum is absurd and a threat to the whole British system of government...which is already far too "americanized"

Britain is not supposed to be a democracy, let alone a direct one. Yes, the United Kingdom has representation: and that is excellent, people should have a say in government, but government cannot be based on immediate populist whims. Previously the house of lords served as a counter-balance to populism, the same with the monarch, but both have lost all their real power and now there is no barrier to stop cheap populism and treason.

That said, Scotland should only be allowed to leave if the westminster parliament accepted it. Scotland accepted the union when the Scottish parliament voted for it, now its parliament needs to vote for it to leave: and its parliament is the westminster one, as per the acts of union, not that ridiculous thing in Holyrood.
Why? because England, Wales and Northern Ireland are also part of the Union and they have a right not to accept a unilateral Scottish secession. In fact not even the US would accept this way of doing things since unilateral secession is ilegal!

Parliament should oust Cameron, and have the army arrest that traitor Salmond.

do you think the UK should leave the EU? if so, do you think the rest of the union should accept he UKs unilateral leaving? especially since there is no procedure for leaving? just trying to figure out how you work here. also thank you for admitting you literally hate democracy, since we're going american style.

[Alyakia]

The whole referendum is absurd and a threat to the whole British system of government...which is already far too "americanized"

Britain is not supposed to be a democracy, let alone a direct one. Yes, the United Kingdom has representation: and that is excellent, people should have a say in government, but government cannot be based on immediate populist whims. Previously the house of lords served as a counter-balance to populism, the same with the monarch, but both have lost all their real power and now there is no barrier to stop cheap populism and treason.

That said, Scotland should only be allowed to leave if the westminster parliament accepted it. Scotland accepted the union when the Scottish parliament voted for it, now its parliament needs to vote for it to leave: and its parliament is the westminster one, as per the acts of union, not that ridiculous thing in Holyrood.
Why? because England, Wales and Northern Ireland are also part of the Union and they have a right not to accept a unilateral Scottish secession. In fact not even the US would accept this way of doing things since unilateral secession is ilegal!

Parliament should oust Cameron, and have the army arrest that traitor Salmond.

That part I do agree with.

i too support using the army to crush democratic movements. furthermore,

[Greater Mackonia]

A disastrous failure in Realpolitik.

[The Nihilistic view]

That part I do agree with.

i too support using the army to crush democratic movements. furthermore,

Derp. The SNP does not stand for the Salmond Nation Party.