Alex Salmond and Independence

You may say that I am applying my own political agenda to this issue, which we have never seen Team Brian GB do ever, but this all came about because the Scottish do not feel that Westminster represents them. It really is that simple.

2010: Scotland votes just one Conservative into parliament, votes 41 Labour MPs. Conservatives gain power, Labour do not even get to be part of the coalition.

2011: Scotland votes a majority of SNP members into their devolved parliament, and now we have this thread.


If we had a fair political system, the Conservatives would (probably) not be in power, Scotland would feel more represented, England would realise how Liberal it is, and how few fecking Conservatives there are, and Labour wouldn't have become corrupted like it is now (from its roots I mean).
 
rcoobc said:
You may say that I am applying my own political agenda to this issue, which we have never seen Team Brian GB do ever, but this all came about because the Scottish do not feel that Westminster represents them. It really is that simple.
Click to expand...


What have I done?
 
This is exactly what I said would happen, Westminster gets accused of bullying, more Scots want freedom. They should just leave them to it, and if by some crazy chance they vote yes, then sort out the details later, and have a second referendum if need be.

First referendum - Do you want to start going down to road of separation?

Second referendum - Do you want to leave to UK under these teams?

The Unionest parties have lost the argument, now we must wait on the vote.

Team Brian GB said:
What have I done?
Click to expand...

Nothing :lol: Your just extremely articulate and well versed (as it where) which makes it very hard to argue against you if an opposing view point is held.
 
I thought you were having a go but in actual fact were complimenting me, right then...

With regard to Westminster getting involved it is working - out of the blue the PM over the weekend brings up Salmond's referendum plans and members of the cabinet talk about it all week, and just like that, Salmond announces a late 2014 date when he was said to favour a much later date.

I think he has been caught out by thinking that nobody would dare challenge him on the referendum details or timings which if true is a mistake on his part as Cameron seems to like a challenge - coalition with the Lib Dems, agreeing to an AV referendum, bringing the world around on Libya, telling the EU to take their treaty and jog on etc.
 
I think it is a mistake. Its such a lose-lose situation.

1) The Unionists force Salmond to make several concessions on the referendum, Salmond then says they are interfering with the rights of Scotland/makes a big fuss and SNP support grows.
2) The Unionists force Salmost to make many concessions on the referendum, to the point of it being pointless. The Unionist parties have interfered with Scottish politics and the SNP support grows a lot.
3) Salmond wins the argument, and the SNP keep their referendum when they want it to be, date, type etc. SNP has won a victory over Westiminster and goes to Scotland a hero.

It's so pointless, and the Union parties had so long to come up with a plan. Let them have their referendum whenever they want, however they want, but let them no that a yes victory would only start a long drawn out process and another referendum would be needed down the line. So easy.
 
I think you are putting too much weight on people thinking Salmond is being pushed around, on the contrary he is seen as a very capable figure and is so.

Essentially I think separatist support will go down for pretty simple reasons, the SNP's whole raison d'etre is to support Scottish independence - for years and years they have been talking about it, they have been running Scotland since 2007 and since last year in the majority. They have been the only people arguing this case meaningfully with nobody really opposing them yet majority support still eludes them.

However this week that changed, it is no longer a one-sided debate but the SNP versus all of the other major parties of the United Kingdom. This week it has been the Prime Minister and various members of the cabinet though a specific vehicle to campaign for a no vote is being created which it is thought will be lead by Alistair Darling though there is no shortage of candidates. On top of the debate no longer being one-sided the SNP will come under scrutiny for the first time, they will have to give real details, they will have to give their plans for the economy, for foreign relations, for issues of citizenship etc.

If they didn't have majority support when they were the only people making the argument and nobody was calling them on it then I don't give them much chance when they are coming under challenge.
 
They shouldn't pass any referendum, its the one in 20 years time I'm worried about to be honest.

The worst thing will be an SNP with power to talk about leaving for the next 2 decades, and with the UK political system not likely to change, the conservatives unlikely to lose power any time soon, and the European project poorly viewed in England, 20 years time could see a brand new Scotland
 
Labour are at a generational low north and south of the border but that will not continue forever, especially north of it. One of their prominent Westminster MPs should have challenged for the labour leadership in Scotland as opposed to all going to London at the first opportunity.
 
rcoobc said:
I imagine a historian would come up with a list like this:

1) Recent independence. Scotland joined with England only in 1707.
2) A separate Legal and Educational system throughout the whole of its history
3) A National Identity towards Scotland. This might sound like a cop-out, but the feeling is as important as any other. Do the Scottish people feel Scottish than British, you imagine so. Do your fellow Yorkshireman feel more Yorkshireish or English? If so you might have a case.
4) Sports teams. Some EU person remarked that Sports lines are becoming the only times you see political boundaries, and whilst this isn't true you see what they are getting at. Catalonia, which is not recognised by FIFA, has a manager and players, and arranges friendlies with the likes of Argentina. Scotland has a football team, does Yorkshire? You want Yorkshire to be a country, arrange a friendly against another Nation.
5) A language. Apparently they still have people who speak Scottish Gaelic, any Yorkshire speakers?
6) Wars. Lots of historical boundaries between Scotland and England. It could be argued there are many between Yorkshire and Lancashire too, so perhaps you have more of a claim than most.
7) Films, media, songs, anthems etc.


We can become extremely flippant about this, because the idea of what is and isn't a country is not an easy one. If a country is decided by the highest level of elected governmental representation (which is usually the definition of a country), then the EU is a country, the nations its greater constituents, in a manner of speaking. Ask a Scotsman what the difference is between Scotland and an English country, and see what answer you get back.
Click to expand...

I was asking about the difference between six million people in Yorkshire voting mostly Labour and getting a conservative govt and six million people in Scotland doing effectively the same. There isn't any difference. Scotland has had referendum in the past and decided to stay in the union. Thems the breaks.

Scotland is already at an advantage over the majority of people living in the UK. I have had this discussion before I don't like special interest groups having their special interests constitutionally advanced be that national assembly or Mayors with unitary authorities. It works against the interests of the majority of people who live in the UK who don't get the same level of attention to their needs.
 
Team Brian GB said:
Labour are at a generational low north and south of the border but that will not continue forever, especially north of it. One of their prominent Westminster MPs should have challenged for the labour leadership in Scotland as opposed to all going to London at the first opportunity.
Click to expand...

That's a good point. There are some big Labour figures that aren't shy of alluding to their Scottishness when it suits them, maybe one of them should prove it at home.

As for a referendum, considering Scots opinion seems reasonably split, then it could be that the result will depend on how they feel they are being treated between now and 2014. If this means they start to get more preferential treatment from the Cameron government, and the temptation will be there, then his highlighting of the issue may not have been such a good idea.
 
711 said:
That's a good point. There are some big Labour figures that aren't shy of alluding to their Scottishness when it suits them, maybe one of them should prove it at home.

As for a referendum, considering Scots opinion seems reasonably split, then it could be that the result will depend on how they feel they are being treated between now and 2014. If this means they start to get more preferential treatment from the Cameron government, and the temptation will be there, then his highlighting of the issue may not have been such a good idea.
Click to expand...

May just be me but I can't believe how strongly people feel about the U.K. comes down to what 'treats' politicians will give them with their own taxes. Whoever sits in Downing Street I'm equally as happy to be considered English and British. The idea that nothing matters except what you're given, not history, not tradition, nothing only the financial benefits...man no wonder our country can't compete with the rising powers of the East. We're just waiting to be bought off. The EU may as well just promise us a whole host of bribes in exchange for a country called Europe and be done with it.
 
#07 said:
May just be me but I can't believe how strongly people feel about the U.K. comes down to what 'treats' politicians will give them with their own taxes. Whoever sits in Downing Street I'm equally as happy to be considered English and British. The idea that nothing matters except what you're given, not history, not tradition, nothing only the financial benefits...man no wonder our country can't compete with the rising powers of the East. We're just waiting to be bought off. The EU may as well just promise us a whole host of bribes in exchange for a country called Europe and be done with it.
Click to expand...

I quite agree, but I'm afraid many voters do put their own pockets first. There are folk on here that seem to see the issue as almost wholly an economic one.

Interesting though, the definite Scots nationalists would, like you, put their feelings of nationhood first, that's why they want what they do, but it's the undecided that will win a referendum.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
I was asking about the difference between six million people in Yorkshire voting mostly Labour and getting a conservative govt and six million people in Scotland doing effectively the same. There isn't any difference. Scotland has had referendum in the past and decided to stay in the union. Thems the breaks.

Scotland is already at an advantage over the majority of people living in the UK. I have had this discussion before I don't like special interest groups having their special interests constitutionally advanced be that national assembly or Mayors with unitary authorities. It works against the interests of the majority of people who live in the UK who don't get the same level of attention to their needs.
Click to expand...

So to you Scotland is just a "special interest group." This isn't an argument for you to have with me, but with a Scotsman, but I imagine they would disagree that they are more than a jumped up county.

Do you think we should play as Great Britain in Football?
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
spinoza.

Yes the scots could just do all that but would it be a good idea to do so? I understand that the UK can't stop an Independent Scotland (or any other country) from using Sterling; it is a currency if you hold the paper it has worth. I can't understand why it would be a good idea to try. If the newly independent Scotland was as is likely running a deficit it would be more expensive to borrow.
Click to expand...

Alex Salmond thinks it won't be a big deficit. I reckon he's wrong, but not with great conviction.

It's a good idea to keep sterling if Scotland wants a quick transition and avoid the bother of having to build up market credibility in its own financial management. It can take years to do this, although it's almost always worth taking the effort. But then Salmond may well only be in power for less time than it takes to see the payback.
 
rcoobc said:
So to you Scotland is just a "special interest group." This isn't an argument for you to have with me, but with a Scotsman, but I imagine they would disagree that they are more than a jumped up county.
Do you think we should play as Great Britain in Football?
Click to expand...

All I have said is that for example the six million people who live in Yorkshire should have as much say and attention paid to them and their part of the country as the six million who live in Scotland. The Scottish parliament is a special interest group, looking after its interested party the Scots.

The rest is all your own vernacular and we are playing as Britain in the Olympic Games.
 
Scrumpet said:
A poll across the whole of the UK is pretty pointless and it admits that the Scotland only results are from a 'much smaller sample'. In fact the only convincing thing in that article is when it references a more thorough YouGov poll, which begs the question, why on earth did they even bother carrying out this one?
Click to expand...

as pointless as a poll carried out to see how "scottish" the "scottish people" feel when carried out in Edinburgh...
 
FranklyVulgar said:
as pointless as a poll carried out to see how "scottish" the "scottish people" feel when carried out in Edinburgh...
Click to expand...

How is that pointless? We get asked questions how English do you feel and how British do you feel all the time in polls.
 
If Scotland got independence wouldn't England/Wales be Conservative-ruled for the forseeable future?
 
A CLEAR majority of people in Scotland now back independence, according to an exclusive poll for the Sunday Express.

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Poll: Now 51% back independence

David Cameron's interference on the issue of Scottish independence has backfired by boosting support for a break from the Union, Alex Salmond has claimed.

A Sunday Express poll suggested for the first time since the SNP came to power that a majority of people (51%) back independence, and the Scottish first minister said Cameron's "dictatorial" intervention had won people over to his cause.

"I think that some of that increase in support for independence is a reaction against the sort of dictatorial line we've been getting from some of the pronouncements from Downing Street," said Salmond.
Click to expand...

Scottish independence cause helped by David Cameron, says Alex Salmond | Politics | The Guardian

So essentially everything I have said has come to pass. Cameron is a dickhead.
 
The majority of Sunday Express readers still think Diana's alive. Pointless paper for pointless people.
 
Nearco said:
The majority of Sunday Express readers still think Diana's alive. Pointless paper for pointless people.
Click to expand...

True. But:

Carried out on Thursday and Friday, the poll is the first to use the exact wording of the question proposed by the Scottish Government, which opponents claim is “loaded and biased”.

The result is undoubtedly a stark warning for supporters of the Union and last night led to renewed calls for the third, Devo Max, option to be added to the ballot paper. It comes just days after Mr Salmond launched his consultation on the referendum before a worldwide audience at Edinburgh Castle.
Click to expand...

We shall see.
 
711 said:
This mirrors my own experience. I'm English, but with some Scots heritage, and my head says if I did have a vote to vote against.

It's the arrogance and the bollocks of the anti-brigade that's been persuading me the other way, including those on here.
Click to expand...

It isn't arrogance to say Scottish independence is poorly thought through and that they would be at the mercy of England not screwing them over in separating.
 
711 said:
Classic.
Click to expand...

How exactly is that arrogant? Only if you are deluded.

If England forces Scotland out of Sterling they are screwed, if England strips the 800,000 Scots of British citizenship and domicile who live in England they are screwed as is what normally happens in such situations, if England insisted on a manned border with customs enforcement Scotland is screwed, if England kept RBS Scotland would be screwed.


Need I continue? How the realities of such an eventuality can be described as arrogance is beyond me - are you Alex Salmond?
 
Team Brian GB said:
How exactly is that arrogant? Only if you are deluded.

If England forces Scotland out of Sterling they are screwed, if England strips the 800,000 Scots of British citizenship and domicile who live in England they are screwed as is what normally happens in such situations, if England insisted on a manned border with customs enforcement Scotland is screwed, if England kept RBS Scotland would be screwed.


Need I continue? How the realities of such an eventuality can be described as arrogance is beyond me - are you Alex Salmond?
Click to expand...

Scotland would still be a part of the EU, so this things won't be done. As for the currency, they will have the choice of the joining the eurozone.
 
sonymobby said:
Scotland would still be a part of the EU, so this things won't be done. As for the currency, they will have the choice of the joining the eurozone.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't satisfy the terms of the accquis communautaire so it wouldn't.

And they most certainly would not have a choice of joining the Eurozone, Germany who is having to spend hundreds of billions underwriting whole swathes of the Eurozone is not going to stand idly by and except into the ranks a country with a banking balance sheet worth ten times its own GDP, meaning Germany ultimately would have to underwrite that as well.
 
There's just been a woman on telly threatening to move her business if the Scots vote for independence.

Leaving aside the arrogance of that, as it seems a difficult concept to grasp, Salmond merely said 'Yeah, she threatened she would if we won the Assembly election as well - she didn't.'
 
711 said:
There's just been a woman on telly threatening to move her business if the Scots vote for independence.

Leaving aside the arrogance of that, as it seems a difficult concept to grasp, Salmond merely said 'Yeah, she threatened she would if we won the Assembly election as well - she didn't.'
Click to expand...

Seriously, what is your definition of arrogance? How can a woman who is considering the future of her business because of political, sovereignty and economic circumstances potentially changing be considered as arrogance? Most businesses of any significance in Scotland will have to consider the same thing, it would be foolish of them not to.
 
Team Brian GB said:
Seriously, what is your definition of arrogance? How can a woman who is considering the future of her business because of political, sovereignty and economic circumstances potentially changing be considered as arrogance? Most businesses of any significance in Scotland will have to consider the same thing, it would be foolish of them not to.
Click to expand...

Of course she should consider the future of her business. To repeatedly make public claims that she is so important that everyone else must bow their opinion to hers has, in my own humble opinion, more than touch of arrogance.

Some dictionary definitions of arrogance that may help: exaggerated self-opinion, conceitedness, contemptuousness, disdainfulness, egotism, haughtiness, hubris, overbearance, pomposity, scornfulness, sellf-importance.
 
Of course its arrogant. She has every right to reconsider the location of her business. She would be a shit businesswomen if she didn't. However, to air the view, as if it should change a political decision based on a democratic wish by the people, is arrogant. Clearly has a high opinion of herself and her business.
 
Team Brian GB said:
How exactly is that arrogant? Only if you are deluded.

If England forces Scotland out of Sterling they are screwed, if England strips the 800,000 Scots of British citizenship and domicile who live in England they are screwed as is what normally happens in such situations, if England insisted on a manned border with customs enforcement Scotland is screwed, if England kept RBS Scotland would be screwed.


Need I continue? How the realities of such an eventuality can be described as arrogance is beyond me - are you Alex Salmond?
Click to expand...

There would be absolutely zero chance of that happening.
 
Team Brian GB said:
It wouldn't satisfy the terms of the accquis communautaire so it wouldn't.

And they most certainly would not have a choice of joining the Eurozone, Germany who is having to spend hundreds of billions underwriting whole swathes of the Eurozone is not going to stand idly by and except into the ranks a country with a banking balance sheet worth ten times its own GDP, meaning Germany ultimately would have to underwrite that as well.
Click to expand...

Do you have a source with a definitive answer on the issue of EU membership? If yes, I'd like to know. Also by choice, I don't mean adopting the currency immediately but after going through the necessary criteria.

So the amount of screwing that the rest of Britain will be able to inflict on Scotland will depend on the issue of EU membership.
 
rednev said:
There would be absolutely zero chance of that happening.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, when countries historically have split their citizenship has changed to that of the country of their birth.
 
Has it not occurred to Salmond that if he needs to recruit the votes of 16 year old kids that have no life experience or understanding of politics to swing the referendum his way............then it might be a shit idea.
 
Jimy_Hills_Chin said:
Has it not occurred to Salmond that if he needs to recruit the votes of 16 year old kids that have no life experience or understanding of politics to swing the referendum his way............then it might be a shit idea?
Click to expand...

What I find hilarious about the whole process is that he for some bizarre reason is trying to shut the electoral commission out of the equation which makes his referendum unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
 
Team Brian GB said:
On the contrary, when countries historically have split their citizenship has changed to that of the country of their birth.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, the exact opposite of that happened when Ireland broke away from the UK.

And if the British govt was willing to extend citizenship to Irish people, surely they would offer the same to Scottish people?

Btw, all of this tough talk and fear-mongering is only going to drive Scottish people away from the union. There are plenty of really good reasons why they should remain in the union. Make those arguments.

Airing the view that they're a gang of pussies and wouldn't last a second in the real world is not exactly going to get them on side. You wouldn't like anyone talking down to you, or telling you that England couldn't survive on its own. So why do the same to the Scots? Serves no purpose, except to leave proud people with no other option than to dig their heels in and try to prove you wrong. If that's the only option you are giving them, don't be surprised when they take it.

100 years ago, Ireland was given only one option and they took it.
Same thing could happen here, albeit without the violence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.