gets some popcorn and waits for faux outrage and accusations of scaremongering by a puppet of the UK government from the resident tartan tinfoil hat brigade
It wouldnt matter. Some of the more vociferous Yes supporters here have already stated that they dont mind Scots jobs going in shipyards, Rosyth, Faslane or the insurance and Banking industries as long as Scotland is independent.
As long as were living in the Socialist Republic of Neo Scotia they dont seem to mind.
Those 'costumes' are truly dreadfull. As an athlete Id be embarrassed to wear the things, it's just seems to,portray us as mired in some sort of Bigadoon image of ourselves.
Yup, appealing to cultural stereotypes. Or confusing them. The menswear isn't even a kilt, it's a pleated skirt.
I'll answer a few of your points
The question of Head of State is an important part of the debate. Is Scotland going to be a Republic or a Consitutional Monarchy? The white paper states the latter. My point is that its another tie to a country Scotland would be leaving.
An independent Scotland will be ending the political union, not the Union of Crowns.
The white paper states that Salmond wants no border, but if Scotland doesn't enter the EU and if the immigration policy differs too greatly between England and Scotland a border would have to be placed. An open border is another tie to the UK that the Yes campaign want to keep
I don't see the point of closing the border but if the UK wants to do so, it's up to them. It would seem a little petty to me.
Salmond and the SNP are far more conservative that you would like to believe - and an independant Scotland would be centre right due to a fiscal policy of a permantly Tory England and a race to the bottom caused by competition. This feeds into the hands of multinational corperations like Newscorp who will play Scotland and UK against each other, cutting taxes for the rich and making people in both countries poorer. Why do you think people like Murdoch support Independance? Why do you think the EU was created?
Yeah well, I'm neither SNP or a leftie. That said, these are blanket statements.
Salmond is trying to sell the Scottish people a lie. Nonsense that he hopes to hide through nationalism. Any criticism of the Yes campaign is slander and scaremongering. He insists that our small country of 5 million would be on an even playing field in terms of negotiations with England who would already control so much before negotations had started. Claims that Scotland would demand England to create wind farms or demand the EU too let Scotland refuse English students are just hilarious.
THE row over UK naval shipbuilding in an independent Scotland has reignited after the chairman of defence giant BAE Systems said the company could resume construction at Portsmouth.
Sir Roger Carr said a return to building warships on the south coast was feasible and would depend on decisions by the UK Government. In a BBC interview broadcast yesterday he said there was "no evidence" the Government would abandon its preference for commissioning complex Royal Navy ships from UK yards.
Last year BAE Systems announced it was to end shipbuilding at Portsmouth and concentrate its operations on the Clyde. The company plans to build the MoD's new frigates, the Type 26, at Scotstoun, investing £200million in the yard for the project.
But, asked about a switch to Portsmouth, if UK ministers ordered it Sir Roger said: "Everything is feasible. It is only a matter of time, money and skills.
He added that BAE would "respond to the customer's needs".
An independent Scotland will be ending the political union, not the Union of Crowns.
I don't see the point of closing the border but if the UK wants to do so, it's up to them. It would seem a little petty to me.
Yeah well, I'm neither SNP or a leftie. That said, these are blanket statements.
Don't you want to get that control back?
1. An Independent Scotland needs a head of state, unlike you some people don't want to keep the monarchy
2. England would not close the border because of 'pettiness', it would potentially close the border due to different immigration policies.
3. You can call them what you like. In the last 50 years when a smaller state breaks from a larger state, espeically from one that would be permantantly right wing would lead to the other country having to be more right wing in order to compete for same investments. This doesn't help the working class of Scotland., it helps the likes of Rupert Murdoch who funnily enough supports independence.
4. You misunderstand me. I am saying that the UK goverment would have a huge amount of power over Scotland in negotiations, as evidenced by my above points. After the reading the white paper you can clearly see that Salmond doesn't want actual independence, He wants maximum devolution with the ability to call it Scotland.
2. England would not close the border because of 'pettiness', it would potentially close the border due to different immigration policies.
Ireland & Northern Ireland (UK) have slightly different immigration policies but NO border posts & as long as common travel area (OR failing that EU membership) remains same will be true at border with Scotland
1. An Independent Scotland needs a head of state, unlike you some people don't want to keep the monarchy
Personally I think the monarchy are a waste of oxygen but that's a whole different ball game. I'm not sure what you mean by needs a head of state. Isn't a Prime Minister or First Minister enough?
2. England would not close the border because of 'pettiness', it would potentially close the border due to different immigration policies.
I guess it's a case of wait and see. When push comes to shove, I don't think they would rush out to close the border.
3. You can call them what you like. In the last 50 years when a smaller state breaks from a larger state, espeically from one that would be permantantly right wing would lead to the other country having to be more right wing in order to compete for same investments. This doesn't help the working class of Scotland., it helps the likes of Rupert Murdoch who funnily enough supports independence.
Why would England be permanently right wing? I remember back in the 80s and early 90s when everyone thought the tories would be in power forever. It just never pans out that way. You know, by your logic I could argue that if Scotland stays in the union they will be under a permanent right wing government anyway. And one that they didn't vote for.
4. You misunderstand me. I am saying that the UK goverment would have a huge amount of power over Scotland in negotiations, as evidenced by my above points. After the reading the white paper you can clearly see that Salmond doesn't want actual independence, He wants maximum devolution with the ability to call it Scotland.
I'm not sure why your points give the UK a huge amount of power over Scotland in negotiations. Do you think the UK would be out to screw us over? I'm sure there was some kind of agreement that said the split would be a bit more amicable than you're making out.
Personally I think the monarchy are a waste of oxygen but that's a whole different ball game. I'm not sure what you mean by needs a head of state. Isn't a Prime Minister or First Minister enough?
A country needs a head of state and a Prime Minister cannot be head of state, he's head of the goverment - if Scotland becomes a republic it would have a president and if it remained a constitutional monarchy the Queen would be head of state.
I guess it's a case of wait and see. When push comes to shove, I don't think they would rush out to close the border.
I would prefer not to 'wait and see', the decision is too important for that. I'd prefer to go with what seems the logical outcome in which a border would be required due to the immigration policy outlined in the White Paper.
Why would England be permanently right wing? I remember back in the 80s and early 90s when everyone thought the tories would be in power forever. It just never pans out that way. You know, by your logic I could argue that if Scotland stays in the union they will be under a permanent right wing government anyway. And one that they didn't vote for.
Ignoring your illogical statement the reason that a right wing Tory goverment being near permanant is due to Labour losing the 40 or so seats it gets from Scotland and making it near impossible to win a full parlament
I'm not sure why your points give the UK a huge amount of power over Scotland in negotiations. Do you think the UK would be out to screw us over? I'm sure there was some kind of agreement that said the split would be a bit more amicable than you're making out.
Feel free to read my previous posts from a page or so back in which I explain that in negotiations the UK will have a huge advantage over Scotland.
Your sure of nothing, your hoping that things will turn out okay without any logical arguement. Your hoping that the UK will give the Scotland that just seperated from it a really good deal in terms of negotitations, which I, and the vast majority of analysts believe it wouldn't, seeing as it already holds 90% of the bargaining chips
Ignoring your illogical statement the reason that a right wing Tory goverment being near permanant is due to Labour losing the 40 or so seats it gets from Scotland and making it near impossible to win a full parlament
whilst I agree at this point in time with a close election being on the horizon next year that the loss of the Scottish seats could have a bearing on the NEXT government but there have actually only been two previous occasions where labour won a majority in a UK general election where they would failed to have done so without the Scottish seats. so its hardly impossible.
and even if it was true that Scotland becoming independent would "doom" the rest of the UK to a tory government for the foreseeable future that is not, nor should it be, a factor in whether someone votes for Scotland to become independent. the referendum is about whats best for Scotland not about what might happen in the UK after, and I say that as a NO supporter.
and even if it was true that Scotland becoming independent would "doom" the rest of the UK to a tory government for the foreseeable future that is not, nor should it be, a factor in whether someone votes for Scotland to become independent. the referendum is about whats best for Scotland not about what might happen in the UK after, and I say that as a NO supporter.
You see very ignorant for someone debating this topic on a forum - Have you read the white paper or the news in the past year?
Firstly I'm not sure the rest of the UK would be doomed by a Tory goverment, they would be elected after all.
The reason a Tory England affects an independant Scotland is because we live in a global world in which nations affect eachother. A right wing England would force an Independant Scotland too abandon it's plan off high public spending/low taxation ect because it would be in constant compeittion with it. You can't build a socialist utopia right next door to a tory England without major buisness abandoning our small nation of 5 million for the much larger one of 60 million who are offering far more insentives.
This does nothing for working class people in an independant Scotland or the UK.
Take a look at the link if my explantation was poor, I've been up a while.
You see very ignorant for someone debating this topic on a forum - Have you read the white paper or the news in the past year?
Firstly I'm not sure the rest of the UK would be doomed by a Tory goverment, they would be elected after all.
The reason a Tory England affects an independant Scotland is because we live in a global world in which nations affect eachother. A right wing England would force an Independant Scotland too abandon it's plan off high public spending/low taxation ect because it would be in constant compeittion with it. You can't build a socialist utopia right next door to a tory England without major buisness abandoning our small nation of 5 million for the much larger one of 60 million who are offering far more insentives.
This does nothing for working class people in an independant Scotland or the UK.
Take a look at the link if my explantation was poor, I've been up a while.
A right wing England would force an Independant Scotland too abandon it's plan off high public spending/low taxation ect because it would be in constant compeittion with it.
Not necessarily - there are plenty of posters on this forum who proclaim that high public spending and low taxes are possible, this would be the ideal time for those that believe that to try that experiment.
You see very ignorant for someone debating this topic on a forum - Have you read the white paper or the news in the past year?
Firstly I'm not sure the rest of the UK would be doomed by a Tory goverment, they would be elected after all.
The reason a Tory England affects an independant Scotland is because we live in a global world in which nations affect eachother. A right wing England would force an Independant Scotland too abandon it's plan off high public spending/low taxation ect because it would be in constant compeittion with it. You can't build a socialist utopia right next door to a tory England without major buisness abandoning our small nation of 5 million for the much larger one of 60 million who are offering far more insentives.
This does nothing for working class people in an independant Scotland or the UK.
Take a look at the link if my explantation was poor, I've been up a while.
Surely a right wing rUK government would want to make companies move to socialist Scotland for a happier and more productive workforce?
Problem is a socialist government tends to spend a lot of money on social security and pensions etc. and therefore needs high taxes to pay for it all.
In which case companies will look at the tax regimes of adjoining countries with similar skills and education and guess what they will move to where they can maximise profit for shareholders - which is what they are about.
As far as i can recall Salmond is promising lots of "freebies" they will have to be paid for somehow.
Think Amazon - awful company for sure - but they provide work for those who generally have few skills and in a recession can get away with paying as little as possible. They go where they can get the best deal and as a multinational care nothing for the UK or Scotland and would simply walk away if the tax regime wasn't to their liking. And there are many more just like them.
"Actor David Hayman has claimed his play about Scottish independence has been banned in several areas of Scotland.
The Scots stage and screen star told the BBC several council-run theatres were not allowing his touring one-man production to be shown.
Mr Hayman, a supporter of Scottish independence, said he was being denied his "right of employment"."
Did he give any explanation behind the ban?
Is it because on the dates he wanted there were other things booked?
Did he want the venue cheaper or for free?
Was there a deposit asked for that he didnt want to pay?
If certain councils did not allow him to use their theatres then there will be independant halls that could be used if he was that desperate to get his message across.
Is it because on the dates he wanted there were other things booked?
Did he want the venue cheaper or for free?
Was there a deposit asked for that he didnt want to pay?
If certain councils did not allow him to use their theatres then there will be independant halls that could be used if he was that desperate to get his message across.
Comments
It wouldnt matter. Some of the more vociferous Yes supporters here have already stated that they dont mind Scots jobs going in shipyards, Rosyth, Faslane or the insurance and Banking industries as long as Scotland is independent.
As long as were living in the Socialist Republic of Neo Scotia they dont seem to mind.
Yup, appealing to cultural stereotypes. Or confusing them. The menswear isn't even a kilt, it's a pleated skirt.
I don't see the point of closing the border but if the UK wants to do so, it's up to them. It would seem a little petty to me.
Yeah well, I'm neither SNP or a leftie. That said, these are blanket statements.
Don't you want to get that control back?
No doubt there will be a stern letter and phone call from Bute house very soon to Sir Roger.
1. An Independent Scotland needs a head of state, unlike you some people don't want to keep the monarchy
2. England would not close the border because of 'pettiness', it would potentially close the border due to different immigration policies.
3. You can call them what you like. In the last 50 years when a smaller state breaks from a larger state, espeically from one that would be permantantly right wing would lead to the other country having to be more right wing in order to compete for same investments. This doesn't help the working class of Scotland., it helps the likes of Rupert Murdoch who funnily enough supports independence.
4. You misunderstand me. I am saying that the UK goverment would have a huge amount of power over Scotland in negotiations, as evidenced by my above points. After the reading the white paper you can clearly see that Salmond doesn't want actual independence, He wants maximum devolution with the ability to call it Scotland.
4.
That remark merely serves to prove you know nothing about shipbuilding in the UK.
I guess it's a case of wait and see. When push comes to shove, I don't think they would rush out to close the border.
Why would England be permanently right wing? I remember back in the 80s and early 90s when everyone thought the tories would be in power forever. It just never pans out that way. You know, by your logic I could argue that if Scotland stays in the union they will be under a permanent right wing government anyway. And one that they didn't vote for.
I'm not sure why your points give the UK a huge amount of power over Scotland in negotiations. Do you think the UK would be out to screw us over? I'm sure there was some kind of agreement that said the split would be a bit more amicable than you're making out.
Yet the real reasons behind the decline seem to have eluded you, strange.
A country needs a head of state and a Prime Minister cannot be head of state, he's head of the goverment - if Scotland becomes a republic it would have a president and if it remained a constitutional monarchy the Queen would be head of state.
I would prefer not to 'wait and see', the decision is too important for that. I'd prefer to go with what seems the logical outcome in which a border would be required due to the immigration policy outlined in the White Paper.
Ignoring your illogical statement the reason that a right wing Tory goverment being near permanant is due to Labour losing the 40 or so seats it gets from Scotland and making it near impossible to win a full parlament
Feel free to read my previous posts from a page or so back in which I explain that in negotiations the UK will have a huge advantage over Scotland.
Your sure of nothing, your hoping that things will turn out okay without any logical arguement. Your hoping that the UK will give the Scotland that just seperated from it a really good deal in terms of negotitations, which I, and the vast majority of analysts believe it wouldn't, seeing as it already holds 90% of the bargaining chips
whilst I agree at this point in time with a close election being on the horizon next year that the loss of the Scottish seats could have a bearing on the NEXT government but there have actually only been two previous occasions where labour won a majority in a UK general election where they would failed to have done so without the Scottish seats. so its hardly impossible.
and even if it was true that Scotland becoming independent would "doom" the rest of the UK to a tory government for the foreseeable future that is not, nor should it be, a factor in whether someone votes for Scotland to become independent. the referendum is about whats best for Scotland not about what might happen in the UK after, and I say that as a NO supporter.
You see very ignorant for someone debating this topic on a forum - Have you read the white paper or the news in the past year?
Firstly I'm not sure the rest of the UK would be doomed by a Tory goverment, they would be elected after all.
The reason a Tory England affects an independant Scotland is because we live in a global world in which nations affect eachother. A right wing England would force an Independant Scotland too abandon it's plan off high public spending/low taxation ect because it would be in constant compeittion with it. You can't build a socialist utopia right next door to a tory England without major buisness abandoning our small nation of 5 million for the much larger one of 60 million who are offering far more insentives.
This does nothing for working class people in an independant Scotland or the UK.
Take a look at the link if my explantation was poor, I've been up a while.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_bottom
There is already numerous precident in history e.g. czechoslovakia
"Actor David Hayman has claimed his play about Scottish independence has been banned in several areas of Scotland.
The Scots stage and screen star told the BBC several council-run theatres were not allowing his touring one-man production to be shown.
Mr Hayman, a supporter of Scottish independence, said he was being denied his "right of employment"."
tbh when you start a post with the phrase "you seem very ignorant" I tend to ignore the rest of what you have to say
Quite right if they aren't also going to have a pro union play.
Not necessarily - there are plenty of posters on this forum who proclaim that high public spending and low taxes are possible, this would be the ideal time for those that believe that to try that experiment.
Surely a right wing rUK government would want to make companies move to socialist Scotland for a happier and more productive workforce?
Problem is a socialist government tends to spend a lot of money on social security and pensions etc. and therefore needs high taxes to pay for it all.
In which case companies will look at the tax regimes of adjoining countries with similar skills and education and guess what they will move to where they can maximise profit for shareholders - which is what they are about.
As far as i can recall Salmond is promising lots of "freebies" they will have to be paid for somehow.
Think Amazon - awful company for sure - but they provide work for those who generally have few skills and in a recession can get away with paying as little as possible. They go where they can get the best deal and as a multinational care nothing for the UK or Scotland and would simply walk away if the tax regime wasn't to their liking. And there are many more just like them.
Did he give any explanation behind the ban?
Is it because on the dates he wanted there were other things booked?
Did he want the venue cheaper or for free?
Was there a deposit asked for that he didnt want to pay?
If certain councils did not allow him to use their theatres then there will be independant halls that could be used if he was that desperate to get his message across.
Given the subject matter it probably is!
Continued here: Scottish independence: let's have an honest debate (P3)