OT-Scottish independence vote-

[Lewis Moon]

Originally Posted by Llewellyn

But he was born in the US. You're welcome to have him

No thankyou.

[Llewellyn]

Originally Posted by Lewis Moon

No thankyou.

Please take him back, we'll even chuck Rusty Crowe into the deal

[sg8357]

Originally Posted by Ahneida Ride

Even if the gained independence, would they escape the boot of a
private central Feudal Preserve?

Nationalism is so 19th Century, back to our feudal future!
Every clan should have the right of self determination.

In related news, French claims to the English throne would
have been back in play if Scotland had seceded.
The Saxe-Coburg-Gothas are boring as hell, bring back the Bourbons.

[Neil]

It was interesting to watch this as it developed, half of my family is Scottish and I've a fair number of Scottish friends to get opinions from.

As a general (but by no means total) guide the more educated and travelled Scotts thought that independence would be very unwise.

Those whom the system has let down and that have (in their eyes) nothing to lose were strongly in favour.

I really hope that Cameron, Clegg and Milliband will stick to their promises- but I don't trust any of them to so do.

I think a federal UK would be something to aspire to, but the old power structures are entrenched, and we'll see a continued drive to destroy the welfare system and access to education, and no attempt to drive prosperity out of London into the rest of the country.

[1X10]

My wife is due to arrive back from Glasgow today so I will get an update on the "mood"....

I think a bit of fear mongering in regards to the currency and banking situation played a bit into it, but probably justified...no thanks to that ex pat Mr Carney @ the Bank of Englannd

[rileystylee]

Scots are generally very anti-English (apart from the loads of them that live in England).
No one in England is that bothered about the scots to be honest or whether they're part of the UK or not.

It's funny that the most vocal of Scottish people or those whose ancestors were from Scotland don't actually live there anymore.

see you jimmie

[djg]

Originally Posted by Llewellyn

But he was born in the US. You're welcome to have him

Thanks for nothin'

Anti-semitic, racist, misogynist idiot scumbag with money to burn. Not a bad actor, I admit, but is there some sort of actor shortage in California? I don't think so.

If we send him back down under, could we get, like, half a six pack of fosters?

[Llewellyn]

Originally Posted by djg

Thanks for nothin'

Anti-semitic, racist, misogynist idiot scumbag with money to burn. Not a bad actor, I admit, but is there some sort of actor shortage in California? I don't think so.

If we send him back down under, could we get, like, half a six pack of fosters?

Hmmmm, not sure who'd be getting the worst deal out of that

[witcombusa]

Originally Posted by Llewellyn

Hmmmm, not sure who'd be getting the worst deal out of that

I'd of gone for a slab of VB myself...

[Bruce K]

I'd settle for a couple of kangaroo steaks if you please....



BK

[vqdriver]

Hehe

[bikingshearer]

Originally Posted by Llewellyn

Hmmmm, not sure who'd be getting the worst deal out of that

You Aussies would. There's no law against just tossing the Fosters in the trash.

[Ahneida Ride]

Originally Posted by sg8357

Nationalism is so 19th Century, back to our feudal future!
Every clan should have the right of self determination.

Sure beats the NWO. One Thought, One Concept, One Big Brother.

[cdn_bacon]

Given to me by en Englishman of course...

[jimoots]

It strikes me as those for independence are not particularly engaged in the political process, or unaware of the economics of it all. More so, they seem to be voting with their hearts... out of pride, loyalty, or some other emotion.

I caught a pretty neat article on the whole situation in The Economist last week. As is typical of The Economist, it's measured and sensible. Even though Scotland voted 'no', it still is worth reading if you want to be informed about the situation.

Have quoted below in case it is behind a paywall.

Link: http://www.economist.com/news/leader...ntry-it-leaves

Originally Posted by The Economist

UK RIP?

SCHOOLCHILDREN once imagined their place in the world, with its complex networks and allegiances, by writing elaborate postal addresses. British youngsters began with their street and town (London or Manchester, Edinburgh or Cardiff), followed by England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland; then came the United Kingdom (and after that Europe, the World, the Universe…). They understood that the UK, and all its collective trials and achievements—the industrial revolution, the Empire, victory over the Nazis, the welfare state—were as much a part of their patrimony as the Scottish Highlands or English cricket. They knew, instinctively, that these concentric rings of identity were complementary, not opposed.

At least, they used to. After the referendum on Scottish independence on September 18th, one of those layers—the UK—may cease to exist, at least in the form recognisable since the Act of Union three centuries ago. As the vote nears, Scotland’s nationalists have caught up with the unionist No camp in the opinion polls, and even edged ahead (see article). More and more Scots are deciding that the UK, which their soldiers, statesmen, philosophers and businessmen have done so much to build and ornament, does not cradle their Scottishness but smothers it. This great multinational state could be undone in a single day, by a poll in which just 7% of its citizens will participate. That outcome, once unthinkable, would be bad for Scotland and tragic for what remained of the UK.

The damage a split would do
The rump of Britain would be diminished in every international forum: why should anyone heed a country whose own people shun it? Since Britain broadly stands for free trade and the maintenance of international order, this would be bad for the world. Its status as a nuclear power would be doubtful: the country’s nuclear submarines are based in a Scottish loch and could not be moved quickly. Britain would also be more likely to leave the European Union, since Scots are better disposed to Europe than are the English (and are less likely to vote for the Conservatives, who are promising a Euro-referendum if they win next year’s general election). The prospect of a British exit from the EU would scare investors much more than a possible Scottish exit from Britain (see article).

The people of Scotland alone will decide the future of Britain, and they are not obliged to worry about what becomes of the state they would leave. But—perhaps not surprisingly, given the endurance and success of the union, imperilled though it is—Scots’ own interests, and the rest of Britain’s, coincide.

At the heart of the nationalist campaign is the claim that Scotland would be a more prosperous and more equal country if it went solo. It is rich in oil and inherently decent, say the nationalists, but impoverished by a government in Westminster that has also imposed callous policies. They blame successive British governments for almost every ill that has befallen Scotland, from the decline of manufacturing industry to ill-health to the high price of sending parcels in the Highlands. Alex Salmond, Scotland’s nationalist leader, is broad in his recrimination: Labour and the Tories are of a piece, he suggests, in their disregard for Scotland.

But Scotland’s relative economic decline is the result not of southern neglect but of the shift of manufacturing and shipping to Asia. If Westminster has not reversed all the deleterious effects of globalisation and technology, that is because to do so is impossible. The nationalists know this, which is why, sotto voce, they would continue many of Westminster’s policies. Instead they make much of minor adjustments, such as abolishing the “bedroom tax”, a recent measure designed to nudge people out of too-large social housing. To break up a country over such small, recent annoyances would be nuts.

The nationalists’ economics are also flawed. Scotland would not, in fact, be richer alone. The taxes that would flow to it from the North Sea would roughly compensate for the extra cost of its lavish state, which would no longer be funded by Westminster (last year spending was some £1,300 per person higher in Scotland than elsewhere in Britain). But oil revenues are erratic. They would have earned Scotland £11.5 billion in 2008-09 but only £5.5 billion in 2012-13. If an independent state were to smooth these fluctuations by setting up an oil fund, it would have less cash to spend now. In any case, the oil is gradually running out. In order to maintain state spending after it is gone, taxes would have to rise. And a crunch might come much sooner. Foreign investors and big businesses that mostly serve English customers could well move south.

Westminster has ruled out a currency union (see article)—correctly, given that the nationalists propose a deficit-widening fiscal splurge and that the assets of Scottish banks are an alarming 12 times the country’s GDP. It might relent, but only if Scotland agrees to such strict oversight that independence ends up meaning little. The nationalists say that kinks over currency and the like could be worked out amicably—that it would not be in Britain’s interests to antagonise its new northern neighbour, particularly since (they hint darkly) Scotland could refuse to take on its share of the national debt. They are far too sanguine. If Scotland goes, the rest of Britain will be furious, both at the Scots and at their own leaders, who will be impelled to drive a hard bargain.

Mr Salmond is on stronger ground when he argues that if Scotland does not leave Britain it might be dragged out of the EU against its will. This is indeed a danger, but in going independent Scotland would swap the possibility of an EU exit for a certain future as a small, vulnerable country. Its best hope of remaining influential is to stay put, and fight the Eurosceptics.

A lot to lose
In the end the referendum will turn not on calculations of taxes and oil revenue, but on identity and power. The idea that Scots can shape their own destiny, both at the referendum and afterwards, is exhilarating. Yet Scotland already controls many of its own affairs (even if Mr Salmond’s Scottish National Party, which runs the devolved government and is driving the Yes campaign, has not done much with its powers so far). Moreover, as Westminster politicians of all stripes have hastily made clear, if Scotland votes No, the devolved administration will soon get so much clout that the practical difference between staying in the union and leaving it will narrow. That would also lead to the distribution of power away from Westminster and to other bits of Britain, which should have happened long ago.

So by staying in, Scots will not just save the union but enhance it, as they have for 300 years. For the UK, with all its triumphs and eccentricities, belongs to Scots as much as it does to the English—even if increasing numbers of them seem ready to disown that glorious, hard-earned heritage, and to simplify their identities by stripping out one of those concentric rings. That goes against both the spirit of this fluid century—in which most people have multiple identities, whether of place, ethnicity or religion—and the evidence of the preceding three. For all its tensions and rivalries, and sometimes because of them, the history of the union shows that the Scots, Welsh, English and Northern Irish are stronger, more tolerant and more imaginative together than they would be apart.