Alex Salmond and Independence

[Cheesy]

How do you think America goes on then, 51 states, each the size of a country, majority bigger than Scotland all don't get the president they voted. Other than Texas, you don't get them wanting independence from the United States - As someone else pointed out above, it's how a democracy works.

What i find ironic is Scotland is its own nation now, just as England is, yet what Salmond wants is to leave the British Union but is quite happy to join another in the European Union and let all Scotlands decisions be made from Brussels rather than Westminster, also Salmond wants to share the UK pound/have security of UK's defense and a few other things but not contribute anything towards this.

To me it seems like Salmond has his own agenda towards Westminister and as managed to somehow con the Scottish people into having this referendum, voting on a 'false' independence you think you are going to have.

If the 51 US states want independence, they can feel free to go for it.

Ultimately though, "that's how it is" is a shite argument to put against Yes voters, because we agree. That's exactly how it is. And it's exactly what we want to change.

What's your alternative, then? Should we, as a country, be forever bound to a union that was made 300 years ago, because, tough luck, we don't get the government we vote for, and only have a minimal impact? If we want to leave, then we will. If you don't like that, blame your own government for giving us a referendum. The fact is that saying "tough luck, that's how it is" simply isn't going to cut it anymore.

You mean the same EU that the UK is currently in? If Scots would rather we didn't join the EU, an anti-EU party, one hopefully not as racist as UKIP, could feel free to share their own views and try to gain support in a democratic Scotland. If they gained enough support, Scotland could have their own EU referendum (presuming we're in the EU), and decide ourselves whether or not we want to be in it. This referendum isn't about Salmond.

The last part is insulting, because it assumes we're all brainless, dribbling morons who have just blindly followed Salmond like sheep because we're all supposedly imbeciles who don't have the power to think for ourselves.

 

[ThierryHenry]

Fantastic poll on the Guardian website today;


The first comment from someone is simply;



http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/poll/2014/sep/08/new-royal-baby-save-union-scotland

Feck off Guardian.

 

[adexkola]

No one ever got around to fully satisfying the big elephant in the room, Scotland's potential status in the EU, and the formulation of a solid monetary/fiscal policy.

I think more should be done regarding Scotland's marginalization in the Union, but I think this is a bad way to go about it. Is Westminster bound by the results of a referendum?

 

[NoWinNoFee]

The last part is insulting, because it assumes we're all brainless, dribbling morons who have just blindly followed Salmond like sheep because we're all supposedly imbeciles who don't have the power to think for ourselves.

I'm not going to comment on all the rest, but why is the last part insulting? It's me stating a fact, Alex Salmond is the leader of the SNP, the SNP and him are the ones who orchestrated all this and are still orchestrating right now, hence him being the face of the 'yes' campaign and debating on tv.

What else didn't you like what i have to say, that he has an agenda towards Westminster/England? Look at his tweet today:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Duchess-Cambridge-expecting-second-child.html

How many Scots/English knew of William and Kate's Scottish titles? Him waving the St Andrews Cross behind David Cameron at Wimbeldon during an Andy Murray game:-

The guy is a loon with an agenda and i for one hope the majority of Scotland don't fall for it.

 

[Cheesy]

I'm not going to comment on all the rest, but why is the last part insulting? It's me stating a fact, Alex Salmond is the leader of the SNP, the SNP and him are the ones who orchestrated all this and are still orchestrating right now, hence him being the face of the 'yes' campaign and debating on tv.

What else didn't you like what i have to say, that he has an agenda towards Westminster/England? Look at his tweet today:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Duchess-Cambridge-expecting-second-child.html

How many Scots/English knew of William and Kate's Scottish titles? Him waving the St Andrews Cross at Wimbeldon behind David Cameron during an Andy Murray game:-

The guy is a loon with an agenda and i for one hope the majority of Scotland don't fall for it.

But you're assuming we're all just voting Yes because we mindlessly believe everything we say. As for agendas I don't think anyone can comment on that when we're seeing Westminster's latest stunts in regards to sudden new powers.

Alex Salmond is the most recognisable figure of the main independence party, yet it's not just the SNP. A Yes vote is not a vote for Alex Salmond, and many now realise this. I know plenty of people who are voting Yes and can't stand the man.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

I'm not going to comment on all the rest, but why is the last part insulting? It's me stating a fact, Alex Salmond is the leader of the SNP, the SNP and him are the ones who orchestrated all this and are still orchestrating right now, hence him being the face of the 'yes' campaign and debating on tv.

What else didn't you like what i have to say, that he has an agenda towards Westminster/England? Look at his tweet today:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Duchess-Cambridge-expecting-second-child.html

How many Scots/English knew of William and Kate's Scottish titles? Him waving the St Andrews Cross at Wimbeldon behind David Cameron watching Andy Murray:-

How is Salmond calling the Royals by their Scottish titles an agenda against the English? Unless you think that the Royal family should only be addressed as English. Salmond has no issue with the Royal family - in fact the Yes Campaign's official policy so far has been to keep the monarchy.

And that would be Andy Murray - Scotsman? It wasn't the only Scottish flag on show that day, just like there were plenty of Union flags too. I don't hear you complaining whenever an English sportsperson gets represented by the St George.

You're not stating facts. You're stating your opinions and telling us that they're facts.

 

[Will Absolute]

If the 51 US states want independence, they can feel free to go for it.

Ultimately though, "that's how it is" is a shite argument to put against Yes voters, because we agree. That's exactly how it is. And it's exactly what we want to change.

What's your alternative, then? Should we, as a country, be forever bound to a union that was made 300 years ago, because, tough luck, we don't get the government we vote for, and only have a minimal impact? If we want to leave, then we will. If you don't like that, blame your own government for giving us a referendum. The fact is that saying "tough luck, that's how it is" simply isn't going to cut it anymore.

You mean the same EU that the UK is currently in? If Scots would rather we didn't join the EU, an anti-EU party, one hopefully not as racist as UKIP, could feel free to share their own views and try to gain support in a democratic Scotland. If they gained enough support, Scotland could have their own EU referendum (presuming we're in the EU), and decide ourselves whether or not we want to be in it. This referendum isn't about Salmond.

The last part is insulting, because it assumes we're all brainless, dribbling morons who have just blindly followed Salmond like sheep because we're all supposedly imbeciles who don't have the power to think for ourselves.

That didn't work out so well in 1860.

It's a sign of progress, I guess, that after all the blood that's been shed over the English/Scottish border, it's fate is now being determined at the ballot box.

 

[Cheesy]

That didn't work out so well in 1860.

It's a sign of progress, I guess, that after all the blood that's been shed over the English/Scottish border, it's fate is now being determined at the ballot box.

Agreed, and it's why the one or two cases of violence have been pissing me off lately.

 

[Ubik]

But you're assuming we're all just voting Yes because we mindlessly believe everything we say. As for agendas I don't think anyone can comment on that when we're seeing Westminster's latest stunts in regards to sudden new powers.

Alex Salmond is the most recognisable figure of the main independence party, yet it's not just the SNP. A Yes vote is not a vote for Alex Salmond, and many now realise this. I know plenty of people who are voting Yes and can't stand the man.

I also think this attitude of "if you were smart you'd vote no" is so incredibly self-harming for the no vote that it's not surprising that the vote for independence has caught up so much. The Scottish people weren't conned into any referendum, they voted for a majority Nationalist government using an electoral system designed not to produce majorities. It would have been absurd not to have a vote on it.

 

[rednev]

No one ever got around to fully satisfying the big elephant in the room, Scotland's potential status in the EU, and the formulation of a solid monetary/fiscal policy.

I think more should be done regarding Scotland's marginalization in the Union, but I think this is a bad way to go about it. Is Westminster bound by the results of a referendum?

Not legally, but the Prime Minister and the three main parties agreed to it so it would be unthinkable for Westminster to deny Scotland independence if that's what they vote for. There would be mass outbreaks of violence on the streets if such a thing were to happen.

 

[adexkola]

Not legally, but the Prime Minister and the three main parties agreed to it so it would be unthinkable for Westminster to deny Scotland independence if that's what they vote for. There would be mass outbreaks of violence on the streets if such a thing were to happen.

Ah, I had no idea. They must have assumed the referendum had no chance of passing.

 

[rednev]

What's the view on whether or not Cameron would have to resign as PM if Scotland votes for independence?

He's denying that his position is under threat, which is utterly laughable. The political shit storm that would follow a Yes vote would be enormous, and Cameron would overnight become the PM who lost the Union. I wouldn't give him 48 hours.

 

[Cheesy]

I also think this attitude of "if you were smart you'd vote no" is so incredibly self-harming for the no vote that it's not surprising that the vote for independence has caught up so much. The Scottish people weren't conned into any referendum, they voted for a majority Nationalist government using an electoral system designed not to produce majorities. It would have been absurd not to have a vote on it.

Yeah, the BT campaign has been arrogantly run with the assumption that we'd shut up and do what we were told. If they'd had a well run campaign, they wouldn't be in this position at all. Things like "I'm voting No because I love my family" is the sort of stuff they're coming out with now. As if anyone who dare vote Yes is an axe wielding murderer who cares about no one. I still think they'll probably edge it, but if Yes sneak it then BT have really blown it.

 

[MoneyMay]

TNS has released their Scottish independence survey (27th August - 4th September) which can be found here. A 6% swing from No to Yes: 38% Yes; 39% No.

Edit -

 

[ThierryHenry]

What's the view on whether or not Cameron would have to resign as PM if Scotland votes for independence?

He's denying that his position is under threat, which is utterly laughable. The political shit storm that would follow a Yes vote would be enormous, and Cameron would overnight become the PM who lost the Union. I wouldn't give him 48 hours.

He'd have to go, but a) he'd never say that, and b) if that consequence was confirmed before the election it would twist some voters into seeing it as a referendum on Cameron and the Conservatives. Wouldn't be helpful for anyone.

 

[Kyonn]

What? Why would that happen

Because the UK is one unified country. Don't you think other ethnic and regional minorities such as the Basque or Catalans would love to have their on football team but Fifa doesn't allow it. It's completely unfair. The only reason SCotland is allowed to have their own team is because it existed before Fifa came into being.

 

[Man Utd Mrs]

What happens if it's a 50/50 split ?

 

[NoWinNoFee]

What happens if it's a 50/50 split ?

I would guess a re-vote. What's concerning about these early polls though is a nation that's so divided, i just hope it all ends in friendly terms either way and we see no ugly scenes afterwards.

I must admit i do have my concerns long term though if Scotland do vote to leave the UK, what happens after 2 years it starts going tits up? As said there will still be near half of Scotland who wanted to remain in the UK and these people will certainly make their voices heard with calls to rejoin the UK and can't see Britain welcoming Scotland back with open arms.

Could end up a Ukraine/Northern Ireland all over again.

 

[Ubik]

I'm guessing it's done on votes not percentages, so if one side nicks it by a handful of them then that result carries.

 

[Man Utd Mrs]

I'm guessing it's done on votes not percentages, so if one side nicks it by a handful of them then that result carries.

Ah right - It isn't really fair, is it ?

 

[Man Utd Mrs]

I would guess a re-vote. What's concerning about these early polls though is a nation that's so divided, i just hope it all ends in friendly terms either way and we see no ugly scenes afterwards.

I must admit i do have my concerns long term though if Scotland do vote to leave the UK, what happens after 2 years it starts going tits up? As said there will still be near half of Scotland who wanted to remain in the UK and these people will certainly make their voices heard with calls to rejoin the UK and can't see Britain welcoming Scotland back with open arms.

Could end up a Ukraine/Northern Ireland all over again.

Yes, it's a bit concerning really.

 

[#07]

I would guess a re-vote. What's concerning about these early polls though is a nation that's so divided, i just hope it all ends in friendly terms either way and we see no ugly scenes afterwards.

I must admit i do have my concerns long term though if Scotland do vote to leave the UK, what happens after 2 years it starts going tits up? As said there will still be near half of Scotland who wanted to remain in the UK and these people will certainly make their voices heard with calls to rejoin the UK and can't see Britain welcoming Scotland back with open arms.

Could end up a Ukraine/Northern Ireland all over again.

Be interested to see what the mood of the crowd is like next time Rangers play at Ibrox.

To me, the success of a 'yes' campaign is a reflection of something I've felt for a long time: As a society we have failed to create a compelling idea of what it means to be British.

The arguments of the 'no' campaign, while true, are all technocratic. The British (and commonwealth citizens who joined them) in the trenches didn't go there because they were afraid Kaiser Vilhelm would take the pound away. I think Scotland leaving the U.K. will be a disaster. There are so many hidden costs that haven't shown up yet that if it does happen we will all feel poorer afterwards. Just think about how much money we still owe the rest of the world. Any uncertainty over who will be paying that back will rock our economy like Mike Tyson's right hand, and that's just for starters. Yet, my feeling is you don't build a country on technocratic arguments like the impossibility of central bank in a foreign country, the Bank of England, being lender of last resort for Scottish banks.

A country is built on emotional, sentimental and intangible ties. What Alex Salmond has done is build a compelling, attractive and exciting vision of what it means to be Scottish and he's pushing that in the face of a bunch of grey politicians who have reduced what it means to be British to 'tolerance'. When you come up against someone like that, who challenges you to set out your vision, you gotta have something other than 'what's plan B'? If you reduce a state to a purely transactional relationship it will collapse. Honestly what does it matter to the people of Stockport what happens in Swansea? Or the people of Motherwell what happens in Milton Keynes? Yet, by and large, we're all happy to pay our taxes to a UK government which decides where in these isles to spend it. That is because we feel bonded to each other in a way that goes beyond just what can I get for myself or my family or my town or my county etc.

Scotland is being offered the choice of choosing its own destiny, doing something brave and exciting or...and that's the problem. We haven't justified the Union. We haven't said why its good to be British. We haven't spoken about what the British have achieved together. We haven't set out how much more we could do together in the future. We haven't set out the reasons why we should be proud to be British. We haven't given the Scottish people something they can grab hold of and feel good about for staying in the U.K.

Part of me feels we're seeing, a bit, of why ISIL is able to recruit Brits so easily. Our sense of ourselves as Britons is so weak, and so...uninspiring. We've taken 300 plus years of history and turned it into something that can barely move our own people to defend it. No wonder Scotland is on the verge of breaking away.

 

[Man Utd Mrs]

What DOES it mean to be Scottish ?

 

[Rudie]

Be interested to see what the mood of the crowd is like next time Rangers play at Ibrox.

To me, the success of a 'yes' campaign is a reflection of something I've felt for a long time: As a society we have failed to create a compelling idea of what it means to be British.

The arguments of the 'no' campaign, while true, are all technocratic. The British (and commonwealth citizens who joined them) in the trenches didn't go there because they were afraid Kaiser Vilhelm would take the pound away. I think Scotland leaving the U.K. will be a disaster. There are so many hidden costs that haven't shown up yet that if it does happen we will all feel poorer afterwards. Just think about how much money we still owe the rest of the world. Any uncertainty over who will be paying that back will rock our economy like Mike Tyson's right hand, and that's just for starters. Yet, my feeling is you don't build a country on technocratic arguments like the impossibility of central bank in a foreign country, the Bank of England, being lender of last resort for Scottish banks.

A country is built on emotional, sentimental and intangible ties. What Alex Salmond has done is build a compelling, attractive and exciting vision of what it means to be Scottish and he's pushing that in the face of a bunch of grey politicians who have reduced what it means to be British to 'tolerance'. When you come up against someone like that, who challenges you to set out your vision, you gotta have something other than 'what's plan B'? If you reduce a state to a purely transactional relationship it will collapse. Honestly what does it matter to the people of Stockport what happens in Swansea? Or the people of Motherwell what happens in Milton Keynes? Yet, by and large, we're all happy to pay our taxes to a UK government which decides where in these isles to spend it. That is because we feel bonded to each other in a way that goes beyond just what can I get for myself or my family or my town or my county etc.

Scotland is being offered the choice of choosing its own destiny, doing something brave and exciting or...and that's the problem. We haven't justified the Union. We haven't said why its good to be British. We haven't spoken about what the British have achieved together. We haven't set out how much more we could do together in the future. We haven't set out the reasons why we should be proud to be British. We haven't given the Scottish people something they can grab hold of and feel good about for staying in the U.K.

Part of me feels we're seeing, a bit, of why ISIL is able to recruit Brits so easily. Our sense of ourselves as Britons is so weak, and so...uninspiring. We've taken 300 plus years of history and turned it into something that can barely move our own people to defend it. No wonder Scotland is on the verge of breaking away.

Great post.

 

[#07]

 

[Scrumpet]

Ffs Asia, chill out.

 

[Jippy]

That poll tipping in favour of yes has certainly spooked the FX markets. Normura's 'cataclysmic' comment on the impact of independence in headlines on virtually every media outlet at the mo'. The referendum stuff is getting our website great traffic but am getting a bit bored of it.

 

[moses]

Fookin ill bred upstarts.

It's going to be very interesting. Great post earlier about the lack of certainity about Britishness. It's certainly taking a hammering in my lifetime in the liberal media.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Ffs Asia, chill out.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

What's with all of the folk going on about Britishness and national identity being the primary issue in this debate?

Britishness doesn't put food on the table, or keep you healthy, or do anything remotely supportive to every day life other than the occassional flush of pride. Celebrating Britishness happens as often as Americans remembering their Irish roots - it only happens once or twice a year and it usually coincides with external pressure from various avenues forcing the subject on you and saying "Love this! You must love this otherwise you're hollow inside!". It's artificial pride that's celebrated by those who have the convenience of not having to worry about how they're going to be able to pay all of their bills this month.

The vote in Scotland has less to do with the theory of national identity and more to do with things that actually matter 99% of the time. my harsh reaction to a harsh action.

 

[nimic]

How do you think America goes on then, 50 states, each the size of a country, majority bigger than Scotland all don't get the president they voted.

Scotland has a larger population than a clear majority of US states. Also, they are states, not countries. Does this really need to be said?

 

[#07]

What's with all of the folk going on about Britishness and national identity being the primary issue in this debate?

Britishness doesn't put food on the table, or keep you healthy, or do anything remotely supportive to every day life other than the occassional flush of pride. Celebrating Britishness happens as often as Americans remembering their Irish roots - it only happens once or twice a year and it usually coincides with external pressure from various avenues forcing the subject on you and saying "Love this! You must love this otherwise you're hollow inside!". It's artificial pride that's celebrated by those who have the convenience of not having to worry about how they're going to be able to pay all of their bills this month.

The vote in Scotland has less to do with the theory of national identity and more to do with things that actually matter 99% of the time. my harsh reaction to a harsh action.

Historically actually the opposite has been true. The U.K. was held together mostly by working class pride. Peoples' sense of being part of something bigger. Its fairly easy to verify that pre-war Britain was a pretty harsh place to live in. No real social security, no publicly funded health system, and those people did the sort of flag waving you seem to be scorning a lot more than we do now. Historically speaking, for example, it was the unions in the Labour party who kept their feet on the ground and the middle class dreamers who saw themselves as citizens of the world and part of a giant socialist movement.

The vote in Scotland has everything to do with national identity. If the Scots actually felt British they'd be no more inclined to vote 'yes' than I would be inclined to demand an independent England.

 

[NoWinNoFee]

Scotland has a larger population than a clear majority of US states. Also, they are states, not countries. Does this really need to be said?

Scotland is effectively a state in the UK, just as the UK/France/Germany etc are effectively states in the European Union.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

Historically actually the opposite has been true. The U.K. was held together mostly by working class pride. Peoples' sense of being part of something bigger. Its fairly easy to verify that pre-war Britain was a pretty harsh place to live in. No real social security, no publicly funded health system, and those people did the sort of flag waving you seem to be scorning a lot more than we do now. Historically speaking, for example, it was the unions in the Labour party who kept their feet on the ground and the middle class dreamers who saw themselves as citizens of the world and part of a giant socialist movement.

The vote in Scotland has everything to do with national identity. If the Scots actually felt British they'd be no more inclined to vote 'yes' than I would be inclined to demand an independent England.

Historically Britain was also a global superpower, and that's changed as well.

The vote has more to do with life than it is national identity. You have to ask why Scots are voting Yes. You said there that if Scots felt British they'd be more inclined to vote "no", but you have to ask why the vote exists in the first place. The narrative from the Yes Campaign has not been about national identity, but as a reaction against Westminster politics. Those same politics that say that everything is good outside of the City, and up until a day ago were more than happy to promise nothing and continue to view the rest of the country outside of the South East from a very far distance.

But anyway, all that we're proving is your earlier point that Britishness as an identity isn't as strong nor as important as it once was. Therefore I'd argue that it doesn't sit at the top of many people's reasons to vote Yes or No. Or, at least, I'd hope not. But that's just my personal taste, and I don't fault anyone for thinking differently to me.

 

[#07]

Historically Britain was also a global superpower, and that's changed as well.

The vote has more to do with life than it is national identity. You have to ask why Scots are voting Yes. You said there that if Scots felt British they'd be more inclined to vote "no", but you have to ask why the vote exists in the first place. The narrative from the Yes Campaign has not been about national identity, but as a reaction against Westminster politics. Those same politics that say that everything is good outside of the City, and up until a day ago were more than happy to promise nothing and continue to view the rest of the country outside of the South East from a very far distance.

But anyway, all that we're proving is your earlier point that Britishness as an identity isn't as strong nor as important as it once was. Therefore I'd argue that it doesn't sit at the top of many people's reasons to vote Yes or No. Or, at least, I'd hope not. But that's just my personal taste, and I don't fault anyone for thinking differently to me.

I would not argue that it is top of anyone's reasons for wanting to leave the Union. However, my sense is that the weakening of a British identity has led us to point of the Union dissolving over time.

Its very easy to understand why the Scots would think to themselves 'why stay?', if you reduce the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the Union to what they get out of it. You could do the same thing with the Cornish though, and there are some genuine Celtic nationalists, but despite the fact the South West is one of the least wealthy parts of the country, you don't get the same push to breakaway.

At the end of the day if you reduce everything to economics no country would exist because all countries have richer and poorer parts, most are formed of regions that used to be totally distinct and usually even had different languages. There's something more than that keeping most countries together. When whatever that is, call it identity, common interest, whatever collapses, its very difficult for a country cannot remain intact. That was my point. We've let, over time, the glue that held the U.K. together get weak.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

I would not argue that it is top of anyone's reasons for wanting to leave the Union. However, my sense is that the weakening of a British identity has led us to point of the Union dissolving over time.

Its very easy to understand why the Scots would think to themselves 'why stay?', if you reduce the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the Union to what they get out of it. You could do the same thing with the Cornish though, and there are some genuine Celtic nationalists, but despite the fact the South West is one of the least wealthy parts of the country, you don't get the same push to breakaway.

At the end of the day if you reduce everything to economics no country would exist because all countries have richer and poorer parts, most are formed of regions that used to be totally distinct and usually even had different languages. There's something more than that keeping most countries together. When whatever that is, call it identity, common interest, whatever collapses, its very difficult for a country cannot remain intact. That was my point. We've let, over time, the glue that held the U.K. together get weak.

Well put. I get where you're coming from.

 

[Cheesy]

What's with all of the folk going on about Britishness and national identity being the primary issue in this debate?

Britishness doesn't put food on the table, or keep you healthy, or do anything remotely supportive to every day life other than the occassional flush of pride. Celebrating Britishness happens as often as Americans remembering their Irish roots - it only happens once or twice a year and it usually coincides with external pressure from various avenues forcing the subject on you and saying "Love this! You must love this otherwise you're hollow inside!". It's artificial pride that's celebrated by those who have the convenience of not having to worry about how they're going to be able to pay all of their bills this month.

The vote in Scotland has less to do with the theory of national identity and more to do with things that actually matter 99% of the time.

Spot on. This vote is not based largely on national pride, but more so on the concerns of what is happening in the UK. Increased austerity, more poverty resulting in foodbanks, all while we have a UK government represented by one MP here.

The problem with Britishness is that, ultimately, a large portion of Scots don't really identify with it. The UK is dominated by England. We don't hate England, but we don't particularly share English culture or ideals either. And really, what can the BT campaign really say about the union that props it up? The "we fought wars" argument has been largely shelved because Scots are tired of going into wars, of sending troops to die and housing weapons of mass destruction near our homes.

It's not based on being British like you say, but if you asked many Scots whether they identified as Scottish or British, there'd only be one winner. That's not as a major slight to the UK, either. It's just that many of us identify as being Scottish, but the English are more likely to identify themselves as British because they make up the majority of Britain.

The flag business outside Downing Street today sums this up, and it sums up why Westminster just doesn't get it, and never has throughout the whole debate. It's never been about flag waving, nor has it been about patriotism. It's about getting the governments we vote for in order to try and create a better future for ourselves.

 

[Man Utd Mrs]

Spot on. This vote is not based largely on national pride, but more so on the concerns of what is happening in the UK. Increased austerity, more poverty resulting in foodbanks, all while we have a UK government represented by one MP here.

The problem with Britishness is that, ultimately, a large portion of Scots don't really identify with it. The UK is dominated by England. We don't hate England, but we don't particularly share English culture or ideals either. And really, what can the BT campaign really say about the union that props it up? The "we fought wars" argument has been largely shelved because Scots are tired of going into wars, of sending troops to die and housing weapons of mass destruction near our homes.

It's not based on being British like you say, but if you asked many Scots whether they identified as Scottish or British, there'd only be one winner. That's not as a major slight to the UK, either. It's just that many of us identify as being Scottish, but the English are more likely to identify themselves as British because they make up the majority of Britain.

The flag business outside Downing Street today sums this up, and it sums up why Westminster just doesn't get it, and never has throughout the whole debate. It's never been about flag waving, nor has it been about patriotism. It's about getting the governments we vote for in order to try and create a better future for ourselves.

I read an interesting article today that states that less than 25% of Scots that were questioned consider themselves Scottish first. They consider themselves British ! That surprised me a bit.

I'll try to find the article and post it.

 

[Man Utd Mrs]

If the NO vote is returned and the Pound has dropped - who is the winner there ?

 

[Drifter]

They've got the big guns out now .The Queen herself.