Scottish Independence Referendum is agreed: vote in 2014

[jamson]

Exactly and we would be in the same situation that we are in now. The UK will always make decisions based on what is good for London as history has shown. I have yet to hear an argument that solves this better than independence.


Where have you seen anyone displaying this type of behavior? I find it to be in bad taste to even suggest it and its insulting to the 6 million people who knew what hatred really was.


I hope you know that your research lacks any semblance of integrity and is worth less than the pixels it is written in.

Your 'friend' sounds like an interesting fellow, did he ever tell you what that instinct was or did he just leave you hanging all dramatic like. I would put my money on liberty...as in self determination.


Funny how everyone keeps saying that but the poll on this very forum says the opposite.


maybe if you keep saying it enough you will actually start to believe it.

Sigh...

[The Great Montrose]

It's a political ploy by Salmond both to give him enough time to delude the Scottish public into supporting independence, and to also appeal to patriotism as the referendum is on the anniversary of the battle of Bannockburn.

Funny how in 2014 the British government is spending 50 million pounds on celebrating the start of world war 1, which by coincedence shall be celebrating how we are better together, since when did we start celebrating the start of wars? especially one that cost thousands of Scottish lives.

[Watercress]

Do you seriously believe that they are celebrating the start of WW1? You know, like they celebrate WW1 every Remembrance Sunday?

[The Great Montrose]

do you seriously believe that they just happen to be spending 50 million pounds to show that we are better together months before the referendum?

[Watercress]

No, they are spending 50 million pounds to commemorate the centenary of the start of the First World War. I doubt there will be any Unionist messages within, and If there are I shall be disappointed. Whatever the suitation is, and whatever my own sympathies, the centenary is no event to be politicising.

[The Great Montrose]

I ovbiously agree that there should be no politicising of the centenary but why the need to spend 50 million pound?

[Watercress]

It's an important event. That includes ceremonies, events, organised and funded school trips, festivals, TV programmes, all sorts. To put it in comparison, they spent £6.2 Billion on the Olympics. Now obviously that's a larger event, but nonetheless is a huge investment compared proportionally to this centenary. Arguably they should put even more money into it.

[The Great Montrose]

I think they overspent horrendously on the olympics but thats off topic as this is starting to go haha anyway happy Saint Andrew's day everyone

[selder]

I doubt there will be any Unionist messages within, and If there are I shall be disappointed. Whatever the suitation is, and whatever my own sympathies, the centenary is no event to be politicising.

I wouldn't hold your breath on that as Cameron couldn't even make it through St. Andrew's Day without a better together dig...

Scots and Scotland have done so much to shape our modern world. So, this is a day for everyone to celebrate our shared history and look forward to our future prosperity together.

[Ember]

It's a political ploy by Salmond both to give him enough time to delude the Scottish public into supporting independence, and to also appeal to patriotism as the referendum is on the anniversary of the battle of Bannockburn.

I suspect the timing of the referendum has far more to do with the Westminster general election the year after than it does with the anniversary of some ancient battle. Regardless of how important Bannockburn was, Salmond is far too politically astute to imagine that sentiment over the anniversary will swing the result of the referendum his way. I think the "Yes" campaign is banking on it looking likely in 2014 that another Tory government (or at least Tory-led) will be elected the year after. Polling suggests that could swing it for them.

[Bobz]

Tom Devine, one of the countries most regarded historians, noted in a television debate recently that the biggest danger of Scotland voting to stay in the Union would be that Westminster politicians and the London commentariat would turn around and say "I'm tired of this bloody Scottish thing, you've had your say and that's that."

The danger is that as it stands, the devo-max option is the most popular in Scotland. A large chunk of the electorate want to see Hollyrood gain more powers. However, the Unionist parties refused to endorse the option in the Edinburgh Agreement so now those who support more powers to the Scottish parliament can only achieve their goal through independence.

It's a very simplistic argument to say that greater devolution powers will never happen because it isn't on the referendum. It was taken off based upon the very realistic possibility no one option would gain a majority or that the ballot would confuse voters. See the recent Puerto Rico referendum as an example that it's best to have a simple yes/no option. There is really nothing to suggest new powers can't be negotiated and voted upon in a new referendum afterwards.

The SNP stated publicly on many occasions before the last election that they would hold the referendum in the second half of their term. With their re-election producing the first majority in the Scottish parliament they have a democratic mandate to hold it during this period. I know the Scottish government get a lot of stick for that but I guess elected parties sticking to their pre-election pledges is a foriegn concept in Westminster these days.

The SNP stated they wanted a referendum and they're getting one. That's more important than having it late just because they think they'll have a better chance then. Or maybe Salmond wants to spend the time wasting more taxpayers money watching golf.

[In3x]

It's a very simplistic argument to say that greater devolution powers will never happen because it isn't on the referendum. It was taken off based upon the very realistic possibility no one option would gain a majority or that the ballot would confuse voters. See the recent Puerto Rico referendum as an example that it's best to have a simple yes/no option. There is really nothing to suggest new powers can't be negotiated and voted upon in a new referendum afterwards.

Agreed totally, however I hope we don't get a situation like 1979, the tory government makes a series of promises to the Scottish people in order to entice them to vote the way they want only to completely shelve the offer once Scotland has voted the way they desire.

A unionist friend of mine said he wanted a 2 question paper, and was quite offended to find out it has been done to "avoid confusion." I believe his response was something along the lines of, "How dumb do they think we are?"

[Spitfire -WONDERBOLT!]

Agreed totally, however I hope we don't get a situation like 1979, the tory government makes a series of promises to the Scottish people in order to entice them to vote the way they want only to completely shelve the offer once Scotland has voted the way they desire.

A unionist friend of mine said he wanted a 2 question paper, and was quite offended to find out it has been done to "avoid confusion." I believe his response was something along the lines of, "How dumb do they think we are?"

A two question paper is fine, what WAS PROPOSED, was a ONE QUESTION, with THREE answers, each being treated as sperate.

and you think that is going to happen? Even if you wanted to create a federalised system you would have to get rid of the Union as it stands today, we would have to write a constitution and change the whole system. What do you Unionists suggest we do with the Queen in a federal government? what role could a royal family play? How can you say that this is any better than all the countries becoming independent and running their own affairs but keeping treaties of cooperation with one another? It would seem you simply want to maintain some kind of international clout, well if thats the case you must really love the EU, right? Well if not you will grow to love it even if it takes 200 years.

If you were in front of me I would not be able to contain myself, There is ALWAYS a place, for Her Majesty, she is what British is, she is the Style, the elegance which is aspired to, she has gone though things which would have left the best of us a shattered wreck. If you ever try marginalize her, she will prove herself.

The Prince of Wales has, at great personal risk, to his OWN house, his charities, and his own allowances, done more fro Ayrshire than your beloved Salmond has in the years he has been in Government, every penny spent on it, £10million, was raised, loaned to, or given, by his own effort, he through his aides has overseen every inch of the project, he has restored a house, build a hotel, and has given the jobs to people in the area.

They will never be illrelivant, so long as they they have life to give.

I will never love the E.U. Scotland and England have had an alliance since King James IV and Elizabeth the I, because both were protestants, and look how that turned out, a Scottish King, on the English throne, we have a common culture, along with the rest of the the old empire, of which our queen is the corner stone.

No one is going to do all regardless of the outcome. Scotland will continue to be a depressing shitehole and its people will continue to be depressing :wub:s.

Sir, I have depressingly little to live for, and if my country is broken, my heart will be too, my allegiance is to my monarch, not any Government, although Westminster and Holyrooyd (Sp.?) is the one I serve, without her signature, I am not bound by its laws, and when you have nothing to lose, you only have everything to gain.

[selder]

If you were in front of me I would not be able to contain myself

Sir, I have depressingly little to live for, and if my country is broken, my heart will be too, my allegiance is to my monarch, not any Government, although Westminster and Holyrooyd (Sp.?) is the one I serve, without her signature, I am not bound by its laws, and when you have nothing to lose, you only have everything to gain.

I hope you are not being serious, but if so please stop reading this stuff if it upsets you that much as it is not healthy. The internet is not a good place to turn to if you are experiencing emotional distress, you need to turn to those around you and talk with friends about happier subjects like careers or long term goals. Please don't upset yourself too much we all feel strongly about our personal beliefs.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Hmm, I am just wondering what the Scots plan on living off. Will they not just return to the pre-union state of ing sheep to stave off the cold?


Either way, if the border is back up, I'll move there - wanna do some border reiving!!!

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Free Scotland!

[selder]

Hmm, I am just wondering what the Scots plan on living off. Will they not just return to the pre-union state of ing sheep to stave off the cold?

Believe it or not we actually have central heating and electricity now plus with the global economy with fewer trade restrictions like The Alien Act we actually have access to markets now.

[Spitfire -WONDERBOLT!]

I hope you are not being serious, but if so please stop reading this stuff if it upsets you that much as it is not healthy. The internet is not a good place to turn to if you are experiencing emotional distress, you need to turn to those around you and talk with friends about happier subjects like careers or long term goals. Please don't upset yourself too much we all feel strongly about our personal beliefs.

My Career plans involve serving this country, in arms or in court. I am not distressed, I am resolute, this is what is called a contingency plan, but I am not so fool-hardly as to dismiss your movement as lost merely based on the fact you're down 5% in the polls, do not concern yourself, I am sure it will take little for your government to be made bankrupt, if it doesn't manage it on its own.

[Danny_K_1]

Sir, I have depressingly little to live for, and if my country is broken, my heart will be too, my allegiance is to my monarch, not any Government, although Westminster and Holyrooyd (Sp.?) is the one I serve, without her signature, I am not bound by its laws, and when you have nothing to lose, you only have everything to gain.

It's nice to keep the union and all and for everything to be sunshine and lollypops with no one leaving but you'd seriously lose the will to live if we left? It means that much to you? People don't change who they are just because the country is part of a little club, life won't change (not immediately) and as such no one will bloody well care other than the diehard loyalists. Besides the point what has the Queen ever done for you for you to care so much?

[removeduser_487563287433]

ATTN NATIONALISTS: I am not posting this to mock you, I am posting this for you to think about, then review your own opinions, and act. And to mock you.