The end of the UK?
We'll take a cup o' kindness
Reply
Worse. After the flag raising he'll retire in triumph and be able to blame whatever happens on whoever has to sweep up the mess
Quote:
It has also emerged that Salmond ditched his initial plan for a referendum on the 700th anniversary of Scotland's victory over England at the Battle of Bannockburn after someone pointed out that it was pathetic.


LOL :D
CraigGrannell wrote:
Kern wrote:
Quote:
What bugs me, and I probably should write a longer post on this, is that I've never been sure what the SNP mean by 'independence'.

They want the same as Ireland, essentially: to be rid of the English and to then jump headlong into the warm bosom of the EU. And then they'll instead be fucked by the Germans and the French, but won't be part of a country large enough to potentially fight back a little. I think it's all going to go swimmingly.


When you say "They want the same as Ireland", I assume you actually mean Northern Ireland, as Eire got rid of the English a century or so back? Either way, it's hardly accurate; there is a substantial, (indeed majority?) Unionist community within Northern Ireland who are fiercely pro-UK.

Your sentiments, however - probably entirely incidentally - are correct, as recent history very clearly shows. (Amusing to read the pro-Federal EU comments above of only a year ago). Thank heavens we've got a "fuckwit Tory(tm)" who's prepared to fight our corner against said Germans and French, eh; if it'd been Cleggy, he would've signed everything including the kitchen sink away with said Germans and French laughing all the way to the bank? (As for what Miliband would or would not have done, your guess is as good as mine, as indeed most of his Parliamentary Party who don't know either. See also 'Labour economic strategy').
Miliband really needs to get control. Of those nostrils.
Captain Caveman wrote:
(As for what Miliband would or would not have done, your guess is as good as mine, as indeed most of his Parliamentary Party who don't know either. See also 'Labour economic strategy').

I believe that is "complain about what the conservatives do and say they'd be better.
Very true guys, on both counts! :)

Anyway, as regards Scotland and the Scottish, the whole thing is a mystery to me. I can say absolutely, and without any shred of doubt, that the Scots (and I have known many) are quite the most friendly, hospitable, straight-talking and down to earth people on the planet. I love Scotland; it's my kind of place.

However, as others have noted, start talking about 'the English' in a political context and it often all goes a bit curly? To my mind, this Union of nations has greatly benefited the Scots, in economic terms, as well as the English too, undoubtedly. Why break up a good thing? We've seen what happens to the small nation states of the EU - they get totally shafted, and that's going to get even worse before it gets better (i.e. post disintegration of the Euro, as long predicted by fuckwit Eurosceptics like me).

Even the 'independence' that's on the table seems pretty academic; there would still be universal use of Sterling, many shared services of governance and many public sector jobs would be lost to the North of England. Listening to Nick Robinson's R4 programme yesterday evening, the pro-SNP spokesman was tying himself in any manner of knots about what independence would actually entail, let alone the 'devomax' third option that the desperate SNP are trying to muddy the waters with, presumably because they know full well they are likely to lose a straight 'yes-no' referendum that they actually hold a mandate for.

It's all very :attitude:
I think we should let them fuck off for a few years and see how they fare. it'd be both interesting and entertaining, for sure.
MaliA wrote:
I think we should let them fuck off for a few years and see how they fare. it'd be both interesting and entertaining, for sure.


I feel the same way. Could always quickly move to England if it all goes wrong.
kalmar wrote:
MaliA wrote:
I think we should let them fuck off for a few years and see how they fare. it'd be both interesting and entertaining, for sure.


I feel the same way. Could always quickly move to England if it all goes wrong.

Uh-uh-uh. You choose it, you stick with it. I'm expecting strict border controls.
Captain Caveman wrote:
Even the 'independence' that's on the table seems pretty academic; there would still be universal use of Sterling, many shared services of governance and many public sector jobs would be lost to the North of England. Listening to Nick Robinson's R4 programme yesterday evening, the pro-SNP spokesman was tying himself in any manner of knots about what independence would actually entail, let alone the 'devomax' third option that the desperate SNP are trying to muddy the waters with, presumably because they know full well they are likely to lose a straight 'yes-no' referendum that they actually hold a mandate for.
Hmm. Couldn't all your arguments for a still-in-the-Union Scotland be used, by extension, to argue for the principles behind a federal Europe? And in contrast, couldn't your arguments against a federal Europe be used to make the case for an independent Scotland? Nations are either better off as a part of something bigger, or they aren't, it seems to me.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Nations are either better off as a part of something bigger, or they aren't, it seems to me.


Disagree. Scotland has always been part of the UK, for as long as we've had anything resembling a financial system, government, or industry. It's easier to keep together something already integrated than it is to force together things that aren't at all integrated.

Disagreeing with your argument there, not the outcome. I'm in favour of a federal Europe, I just think the road to it will be long and painful.
Craster wrote:
Disagree. Scotland has always been part of the UK, for as long as we've had anything resembling a financial system, government, or industry. It's easier to keep together something already integrated than it is to force together things that aren't at all integrated.
Oh, sure, the process part is different -- I don't disagree about that. I was more thinking of the desirability of the end goal in both cases.
Craster wrote:
I'm in favour of a federal Europe, I just think the road to it will be long and painful.

And probably won't involve us, sadly.
Hmm, well in brief terms Doc, I really don't think there's a parallel between the centuries-old union of England and Scotland - two small adjoining nations on the same island, with huge cultural similarities, shared histories and language, similar economic status and so on - and the unprecedented, proposed federal union of a whole myriad of grossly disparate states, with grossly disproportionate economic status, massively differing cultures, languages and all the rest? I just don't see the two being in any way comparable.

In any event, as we have seen only too clearly these last few months, it is politically impossible. The 'donor' states - those who would perpetually have to pay out for the excesses, or even just the prudent continued operation of predominantly small, southern EU states like Greece, Portugal, Ireland etc., not to mention Spain and Italy - would simply not wear it politically. I believe the German people would be on the streets. It's just not going to happen; regardless of whether or not it is considered desirable, it is politically unattainable. The sooner the EU muppets face up to this basic reality and thus the folly of their idiotic common currency that is crippling the entire world now, the better.
myp wrote:
Uh-uh-uh. You choose it, you stick with it. I'm expecting strict border controls.

As long as that includes keeping the angry chip-on-shoulder Scots that now live in England down there too.
ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:
myp wrote:
Uh-uh-uh. You choose it, you stick with it. I'm expecting strict border controls.

As long as that includes keeping the angry chip-on-shoulder Scots that now live in England down there too.

:attitude:
Perhaps the City of Bath should be its own nation state? :D
Captain Caveman wrote:
Hmm, well in brief terms Doc, I really don't think there's a parallel between the centuries-old union of England and Scotland - two small adjoining nations with huge cultural similarities, shared histories and language, similar economic status and so on - and the unprecedented, proposed federal union of a whole myriad of grossly disparate states, with grossly disproportionate economic status, massively differing cultures, languages and all the rest? I just don't see the two being in any way comparable.
Well, perhaps. I don't have strong feelings here (I'd certainly not support Welsh independence, if that helps). But let me continue my thinking aloud:

Scotland and England had rather less of a shared culture when the Union was formed than they do today, right? They'd been in an actual war a few centuries before; which shouldn't have counted but seems to weigh heavily on the Scottish subconscious to the current day.

For the "shared language" argument, you've clearly never spoken to Wullie, or indeed any of my Scottish relatives!

And as for the "unprecedented" union of a "grossly disparate states", the United States of America would like to disagree.
Captain Caveman wrote:
Perhaps the City of Bath should be its own nation state? :D

Bath is a lovely place though. Perhaps cordon off the one grotty little flat therein that wants to be its own nation state and see how it fares economically.
ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:
Captain Caveman wrote:
Perhaps the City of Bath should be its own nation state? :D

Bath is a lovely place though. Perhaps cordon off the one grotty little flat therein that wants to be its own nation state and see how it fares economically.

Main export: glue
Main import: sweets
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Scotland and England had rather less of a shared culture when the Union was formed than they do today, right? They'd been in an actual war a few centuries before; which shouldn't have counted but seems to weigh heavily on the Scottish subconscious to the current day.


I'd heard that France and Germany had been involved an an actual war, too. A fair bit less than a few centuries before, too.
I really don't think there's any parallel with the USA either mate. Again in very brief terms (sorry), at the time of this union, the individual states were in effect fledgling, pioneer, new nation states where anything is possible, with a largely common language, whereas of course the European states are the absolute converse. Also, what was possible in 1789 with a fraction of today's global population, technology and all the rest, is not necessarily the case for 2012, anyway.

I really just don't see any similarities at all and therefore, any parallels to be drawn are, in my view, highly dubious, to say the least.
Oh I'm talking in entirely generic terms myp, although I suppose if you were seeking an example that fit the criteria you could probably readily find one ;)
Mimi wrote:
Most people don't care, but those that do seem to really care to a scary level.


There's a similar thing in North Wales. I used to have to visit customer sites and it was very common for them to hear an English accent and immediately switch from speaking English to Welsh and become rude and obnoxious.

I always found it more fun to wind them up further by being polite and friendly in return.
That's when you switch to your pigeon welsh and call them a bunch of xenophobic twats.

In my time I've been told the North is worse than the South for that, and vice versa. When I first voted at 18 in what was then my local village, the twatty staff at the polling station refused to speak to us in English. Defeats the object when you can understand the Welsh and then reply in English anyway.
Kern wrote:
Do our North British friends have any views on their First Minister's announcement?
:shrug:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
For the "shared language" argument, you've clearly never spoken to Wullie, or indeed any of my Scottish relatives!
Heh, most counties up here don't share a language. Even <15 miles down the road in Sooth Ayrshire they use pure funny words :)
Wullie wrote:
Heh, most counties up here don't share a language. Even <15 miles down the road in Sooth Ayrshire they use pure funny words :)


Ken.
kalmar wrote:
Wullie wrote:
Heh, most counties up here don't share a language. Even <15 miles down the road in Sooth Ayrshire they use pure funny words :)


Ken.

Ged.
Captain Caveman wrote:
When you say "They want the same as Ireland", I assume you actually mean Northern Ireland, as Eire got rid of the English a century or so back?

No, I mean—albeit in a much shorter period—they [the SNP] essentially want what eventually happened over many decades with Ireland: break away from the UK and join the EU. From everything I've read in the Scottish press, that appears to be the goal, and not even in the long term. Northern Ireland will, I suspect, not be hugely affected by Scotland going its own way; and even Wales seems reasonably happy with the status quo these days. And, as others have said, I'm sure the SNP would happily blame the English for an independent Scotland's problems until, say, about 2150.

I've a feeling the referendum's going to either be an AV-style 'surprise' (i.e. early positive polling leading to a collapse/disaster for those in favour) or an absolute knife-edge 50/50 battle, with some appallingly dirty and misleading politics. Actually, we'll get the dirty politics regardless…

Quote:
Thank heavens we've got a "fuckwit Tory(tm)" who's prepared to fight our corner against said Germans and French, eh

What he did ended up being right, albeit for largely the wrong reasons. But for every 'win' I'd say the Tories have had from my point of view, there are tons of things they're doing which will rip the heart from this country, not least butchering the NHS, removing benefits from those who need them, hammering the BBC (although I'm well aware that's also a Labour goal), maintaining a vaguely bonkers energy policy, not reigning in the banks, letting massive corps get away without paying tax, and so on. But that's the nature of this country's politics—we lurch from one extreme to the other. And the all too regular disgusting capitulation of the Lib Dems suggests they aren't in the long-term any kind of moderating force for these extremes, which is a pity as they could have been. (The LDs voting with the whip on the NHS bill, even in the Lords, was really the final confirmation on that.)

Also, aggravating the Scots is a curious means of getting them to remain a part of the UK. Polling already suggests a four per cent rise for independence, and it'll be interesting to see if that sticks, or if it's just a short-term gain from the subject being thrust into the spotlight again. But then I suspect the Tories would be thrilled if the Scots buggered off. Combine that with the boundary changes and we have Tory governments well into the future. The LDs would be even more screwed than they're going to be in 2015, and Lab would also be in serious trouble.

Still, Cavey, we at least agree on the idea of a federal Europe. I can't see that working at all, and I just don't see what the end game is. Even now, we're essentially seeing Germany saying "do what we say, or we'll fuck you", France being the plucky sidekick, and everyone else falling into line. (Cameron, sadly, somewhat messed up there, in that he could with better tactics have got roughly the same result he did—getting the UK a little out of the mess—and bringing along a fairly large number of 'allies', not least the Scandinavian countries, which don't really like Germany's vision for the EU either, and also constitutionally in many cases cannot follow the current plan either. But in the end, he created a unit of 'everyone else'. A pity.)
And here's the Scottish Government's consultation paper on how they plan to run their referendum. I watched the statement and questions on BBC Parliament tonight - apparently if the Scots vote yes they will be entering the land of milk and honey.

Would it be morally be wrong to take up temporary residence in Scotland in 2014 just to get on the electoral roll so a constitutional nerd can have the pleasure of voting 'no'?
The important question is: what would the UK be called after Scotland splits?
DavPaz wrote:
The important question is: what would the UK be called after Scotland splits?


Economically sound.
DavPaz wrote:
The important question is: what would the UK be called after Scotland splits?

The United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland (and some other places).
DavPaz wrote:
The important question is: what would the UK be called after Scotland splits?


Smug
This covers several issues nicely: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-16636325

Can't help but laugh at the notion of a 'Scottish Defence Force' and 'mobile brigade'. They might as well not bother. They're not going to be starting any wars and such a feeble effort offers no real defence or deterrent.
DavPaz wrote:
The important question is: what would the UK be called after Scotland splits?

"England".
ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:
This covers several issues nicely: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-16636325

Can't help but laugh at the notion of a 'Scottish Defence Force' and 'mobile brigade'. They might as well not bother. They're not going to be starting any wars and such a feeble effort offers no real defence or deterrent.



I think we should do Kern's idea first, and if that fails, your idea.
Kern wrote:
And here's the Scottish Government's consultation paper on how they plan to run their referendum. I watched the statement and questions on BBC Parliament tonight - apparently if the Scots vote yes they will be entering the land of milk and honey.

Would it be morally be wrong to take up temporary residence in Scotland in 2014 just to get on the electoral roll so a constitutional nerd can have the pleasure of voting 'no'?


A constitutional nerd, but a seccessionist! Dilemma!
ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:
This covers several issues nicely: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-16636325

Can't help but laugh at the notion of a 'Scottish Defence Force' and 'mobile brigade'. They might as well not bother. They're not going to be starting any wars and such a feeble effort offers no real defence or deterrent.


The Scots would be relieved that we probably couldn't point one of our tridents at Edinburgh or Glasgow without putting the border counties at risk of also getting caught up in the fallout.
Kern wrote:
ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:
This covers several issues nicely: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-16636325

Can't help but laugh at the notion of a 'Scottish Defence Force' and 'mobile brigade'. They might as well not bother. They're not going to be starting any wars and such a feeble effort offers no real defence or deterrent.


The Scots would be relieved that we probably couldn't point one of our tridents at Edinburgh or Glasgow without putting the border counties at risk of also getting caught up in the fallout.



HA!
Kern wrote:
ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:
This covers several issues nicely: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-16636325

Can't help but laugh at the notion of a 'Scottish Defence Force' and 'mobile brigade'. They might as well not bother. They're not going to be starting any wars and such a feeble effort offers no real defence or deterrent.


The Scots would be relieved that we probably couldn't point one of our tridents at Edinburgh or Glasgow without putting the border counties at risk of also getting caught up in the fallout.

Oh you want your tridents back? Come and get em!
Salmond wanting 16-17 year olds to vote is pretty obvious. He evidently thinks they're more impressionable, more easily duped into being fed a few bulletpointed benefits of scottish nationalism, and hopes it'll be enough to swing the balance.

It's putting the cart before the horse. The UK minimum age to vote is 18, bitch, if you want to lower it you can only do it afterwards.
Quite. Should 16/17-year-olds get the right to vote? Perhaps. Should we ignore existing legislation, including every single vote that happens in Scotland itself, for this one referendum? Er, no.

I really am interested to see how this all plays out. For every Scot I know who's having a Braveheart moment, there's at least one more who's freaking out about the idea of Scotland breaking away under the leadership of the SNP. It's a really odd and clearly massively divisive situation.
For what it's worth, as it currently stands, I'll be voting yes.
You know that you'll never get trains in the sky like that.
Gilly wrote:
For what it's worth, as it currently stands, I'll be voting yes.

Terrifying. I'll be voting no. In fact, I think I'd also vote no to devo-max because I wouldn't trust the SNP with a potato, let alone more aggressive control of the country's finances.
I might vote yes, just to see what happens.
Out of genuine interest, what do you think an independent Scotland can achieve which can't be done within the Union?
Kern wrote:
Out of genuine interest, what do you think an independent Scotland can achieve which can't be done within the Union?


I'm not living in Scotland so I dont have a vote - but the one thing that I would be tempted to vote yes for would be to get rid of the tory's

Historically (for at least my lifetime) the torys never get anywhere near a majority in Scotland (in fact they often come in 3rd or lower) and yet they govern the country and I dont see anything other than another Tory government in the UK for quite a while.
Page 2 of 41 [ 2008 posts ]