BS: Scotless

Subject: BS: Scotless
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 09:20 AM

If the Scots go for independence what will the remainder be called?
DisUnited Kingdom? Lesser Britain?
Will the Scots Guards stop parading in London?
Will we stop using Scotchguard on our carpets?
Will whisky, porridge and shortbread go on the black market?
Will the Scots who have dominated British politics, sport and entertainment all go back home (Jim Naughtie, PLEASE do).

RtS

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Seaham Cemetry
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 09:31 AM

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The title still holds, as there will be a united kingdom within the confines of Great Britain, even if the top bit, not in The UK is sat with their head in the hands wondering why they followed a useless loser who made promises he couldnt begin to keep.

Irrelevant anyway. Turkeys dont vote for Christmas.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 09:33 AM

Actually they very often do!

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 09:34 AM

Will the current Union Flag have to be re-designed? If so, what should it look like?


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 09:37 AM

.... and if the Union Flag is re-designed, will countries like Australia and New Zealand have to change their flags?


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 09:57 AM

If you give Australia an excuse, they will change their flag. I suggest red white and red vertical panels with a red kangaroo in the middle, New Zealand could substitute a Kiwi. Bermuda, a pair of shorts, etc.

Look on the bright side English newspapers won't have to print the curling scores from the Olympics.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST, topsie
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 10:32 AM

There will still be whiskey, porage and shortcake.

If we redesign the flag, maybe we could add some black and yellow for Wales (or a dragon?), and even a bit of black and white for Cornwall.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 10:34 AM

If Hague, Cameron and their accomplices are so fond of self determination for an economic basket case like Ukraine, why are they against the same for a modern democracy like Scotland.

Something smells fishy.....an its no' Alex Salmond! :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 10:36 AM

"We would welcome Ukraine into the European Community"

Scotland???......Nae chance!!

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 11:49 AM

Will all reference to the Scots be banned from our speech here in England? Will we have to say 'a thingy mist', 'thingy broth' and 'er hum terriers'? And exclaim Great Thingummy! Not to mention 'Doodah tape'.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Al
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 12:15 PM

And certainly no more bleeding scots MP's
Al

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jim McLean
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 01:19 PM

Sorry, Al, there a few Scots with English seats. And the Uk won't exist in it's former UK state (FUK)?) Wales doesn't have a crown, it was included with England when the parliaments of England and Scotland were united in 1707, thus uniting the two Kingdoms. Ireland left the UK in 1801 and is now a republic. The North of Ireland doesn't have a crown either so that just leaves England. The crowns of Scotland and England were never united until their parliaments joined in 1707. The Union of the crowns of 1603 is a misnomer as both Scotland and England were independent kingdoms for over 100 years until 1707. So after independence RUK will be RUK and the blue should come out of the flag but I don't think anyone will bother their backside what RUK or EWNI, NEWI or whatever will call themselves. Independence is more important than bothering about flags and other frivolities. But please keep the Scots who have English seats, we don't want them.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 01:49 PM

Ireland left the UK in 1801 and is now a republic.

The union of Great Britain and Ireland happened in 1801. Ireland split from the UK in 1922.


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 03:01 PM

Jim McLean

It isn't the United Kingdoms is it? I think the name can say.

BTW, you had better keep quiet about the Scottish crown when you go or they might put Charles under it and send him to Balmoral.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jim McLean
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 03:48 PM

Sorry Doug, you're quite right, I slipped up there, replying too quickly. Unfortunately we can't help still having Charles. The crown is common to Scotland and England and the Commonwealth. Personally, being a republican, I would prefer to reject any connection with the crown but I suppose the SNP are being pragmatic. They don't want to rock the boat but I reckon it won't take too long to get rid of Charles at al after independence. Ireland did it and Australia is on the edge.
Jack, you can only have one United Kingdom if you unite two. If one leaves .... you have two separate kingdoms as was before the union of 1707.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: ragdall
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 03:19 AM

Will the curling world have to add another team to competitions or just drop "Great Britain" in favour of Scotland as the teams invariably have been from there?

rags

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 03:34 AM

It would be nice to have tennis commentators waffle on about "since Fred Perry" again.

Won't happen though. Nobody has asked The UK to stop existing. Start on that premise and the rest unravels nicely.

A letter in The Independent this morning saying a yes vote will he ecologically dangerous to the planet. Salmond's smug beaming face would glow enough to melt the ice caps.

Of course, having got him wielding even more power, and his track record, I don't fancy Scotland's economic outlook much. Even a daft sod like me can tell the difference between reality and his bluster.

If I lived in Scotland, I'd possibly be out pushing leaflets for Mr Darling. Now there's something I never thought I'd say.

Still. Nice to see Dick Gaughan in bed with the few percent who own the vast majority of the land. What price the diggers eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 04:08 AM

'...the few percent who own the vast majority of the land...' Reminds me of a song I enjoyed in an Edinburgh theatre, in a rather anti-English satirical show. It began, (in very posh public school accents) "We are the men who own your glen, but you won't see us there! In Edinburgh pubs and London clubs we show how much we care." The last line went, "If you want your land, we'll take a stand; we will not budge an inch!" I wonder if anyone here knows this song?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jim McLean
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 04:12 AM

Ignoring the comedy, Musket, could you tell me what you meant about about Dick Gaughan. If it was in the Independent, I get the Guardian.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 04:17 AM

The play was called The Cheviot, The Stag and The Black, Black Oil. It's quite relevant here, as it expressed many reasons for Scottish Independence in rather a bitter, satirical way.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 05:45 AM

I don't get either Jim. Buying newspapers only encourages the buggers.

The Indescribanlyboring however is a free iPhone download in their app.

Dick Gaughan plays at fund raisers for the yes vote. Some of which are on YouTube. Just thought it ironic, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jim McLean
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 06:54 AM

But Musket, I was looking for an explanation of your line "Still. Nice to see Dick Gaughan in bed with the few percent who own the vast majority of the land. What price the diggers eh?"
I just don't understand what you meant, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 07:06 AM

The Acts of Union of 1706 and 1707 saw the creation of Great Britain NOT the United Kingdom

The Act of Union in 1801 saw the creation and naming of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

In 1927 after the creation of the Irish Free State it became The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Should Scotland vote for independence on the 18th September this year then in 2016 it will become The United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jim McLean
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 08:44 AM

The Treaty of Union of the Two Kingdoms of Scotland England.
The above continually refers to " .... that the succession to the Monarchy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain ....

and "... That the United Kingdom of Great Britsin shall ....

and " ... a that all parts of the United Kingdom ...

and " ... that part of the United Kingdom called Scotland ....

There are innumeral examples of the terms Great Britain and the United Kingdom in the above Treaty.

The United Kingdom was formed between The Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England, remove one and there IS no United Kingdom.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 09:26 AM

Great Britain

Extract 1:
"This article is about the historical state (1707–1800). For the modern state, see United Kingdom. For the island, see Great Britain. For other uses, see Britain (disambiguation).

The Kingdom of Great Britain, occasionally referred to as the United Kingdom of Great Britain, was a sovereign state in north-west Europe that existed from 1 May 1707 to 31 December 1800.

Extract 2:
"On 1 January 1801, the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland merged to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland"

Extract 3:
"The Treaty of Union and the subsequent Acts of Union state that England and Scotland were to be "United into one Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain". They describe the new state as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the United Kingdom, using capital letters for such terms. The websites of the UK parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the BBC, and others, including the Historical Association, refer to the state created on 1 May 1707 as the United Kingdom of Great Britain. However, the state created by the union of England and Scotland in 1707 is named in the treaty as Great Britain; and is usually referred to by that name or as the Kingdom of Great Britain.

Should Scotland elect to go its own way (which it won't) on the 18th September 2014 then after 2016 the UK will still be known as the UK and carry on as normal. Scotland will have to find a currency, make up it's mind if it wants to apply for membership of the EU and NATO and a whole raft of other things including organising the referendum for those living in the Western isles, Orkney and Shetland to see if they wish to remain Scottish (If those islanders were sensible, particularly those living on Orkney and Shetland they would vote to return to Norway).

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jim McLean
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 09:38 AM

You have said it yourself,

The Kingdom of Great Britain, occasionally referred to as the United Kingdom of Great Britain, was a sovereign state in north-west Europe that existed from 1 May 1707 to 31 December 1800.

The rest of your post is speculation from an anti Indepence point of view which you are entitled to.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 09:56 AM

Err... You can't change the name without a referendum. The only referendum here is about leaving The UK. The UK still exists afterwards and each and every aspect of The Treaty of Rome commitment and membership still holds. For The UK that is.

Successive UK governments have also made it clear legally that currency union of any kind requires a referendum. The UK is not being given a referendum to my knowledge on currency union. If they did, the option, still open, to join the Euro and ditch the pound would possibly be an option as well as sharing our pound with a Foreign Scotland.

All moot anyway. Between now and then Salmond has to explain plan B if perfidious Albion won't roll over. After all, what's in it for The UK?

Sorry Jim but there are intelligent voters in Scotland. That's why functions are less ideological and more pragmatic than the knee jerk us & them approach sadly buggering up many areas of England.

Still. With the low life expectancy in your more populous areas, at least you won't have our pension crisis eh?

As Frankie Boyle inadvertently said as a joke. Scotland despite poor diet and alcohol doesn't have an obesity problem. Thanks to heroin. Poignant joke aside, who is going to vote to have an unsustainable social infrastructure?

Perhaps you could get Sean Connery to pay tax, seeing as he loves you so much. Billy Connolly seems to prop up Malta thinking on....

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 10:15 AM

Never mind 'Scotless'

We could soon be 'Scot Free'.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 10:19 AM

groats and bawbees?

RtS

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 10:28 AM

Cherry picking at its best Jim?

However the state created by the union of England and Scotland in 1707 is named in the treaty as Great Britain; and is usually referred to by that name or as the Kingdom of Great Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jim McLean
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 11:20 AM

Cherry picking indeed!
The currency after independence could be the same as before the union which was .... the pound Scots.
Musket, I'm still waiting the your explanation re Dick Gaughan.Again the rest of your posting is all supposition, time will tell but the rUK will obviously have to re negotiate EU budgets as it will be short of a large land area, fisheries etc.
So rUk will be just that, rUK. The Bank of England is independent and holds Scotish assets as well. Jim Wallace the advocate general for Scotland has just said that his analogy for Scotland leaving the UK is to leave a golf club and take holes 17 and 18 with them.
I think a fairer analogy is to say to Scotland you're not in the club but we want to continue paying your dues.
None of this can be resolved now, slagging or praising celebraties, whose opinions are of no matter except to readers of Hello magazine or the Telegraph. Balanced arguments are required.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 11:37 AM

"The currency after independence could be the same as before the union which was .... the pound Scots."

So you want to be like Greece before it joined the Euro?

:-)

Yeah, Scotland will vote for that!

:-D

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jim McLean
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 12:17 PM

Don't understand, Jack. Anyway I was replying to Roger.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 12:46 PM

I understand that it would be insane and self destructive for the people of Scotland to vote to reinstate the "Pound Scots." Someone else here had suggested that Scottish voters are practical. If they are, that won't happen.

Before the crisis in the Euro a few years ago, I am sure that looking at the explosive growth of a similarly sized economy in Ireland secession looked very attractive indeed. But in the current monetary climate, such a vote looks very risky indeed. Would Scots be willing to endure the sacrifice of serious competitive disadvantage while confidence in its currency is built?

Anyway, you are welcome to wait for Roger's reply. I am now contributing my own opinion and knowledge on a matter brought up in an open forum, not specifically replying to you.   

I am sorry for the attempt at humor if it bothered you.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jim McLean
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 01:46 PM

Jack, I didn't realise that was an attempt at humour so it didn't bother me, I just didn't understand what you meant (and still don't).
I'm sorry I can't really be bothered to repeat myself over and over again. Your understanding of the Scottish and international economies seems to be based on misconceptions and wishes.
I'm out.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 03:58 PM

I look forward to being proved wrong by the successful reintroduction of the "Pound Scots."

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 06:12 PM

On the ground here in Scotland, there is a definite move towards independence.
I travel around a lot and meet many people in my working life,a year ago few contemplated victory of the Yes campaign, NAANTA seemed to hold the balance of fear and the lies about the operation of the Barnet Formula were widely believed. Now there is a feeling of belief in ourselves, a "yes we can" feelgood atmosphere, a feeling that it's about more than an extra few pounds in our benefits, or a penny or two off our tax rate. It's about raising our beloved country up out of the mire, giving our young folks hope for the future and some chance of fulfilment in their lives, no longer second class citizens in our own land or cannon fodder in mad foreign wars.

We don't want anything belonging to other nations, just the chance to be ourselves at last and hopefully to be a template for the future for other countries, on the wrong side of Capitalism.


Freedom come all ye

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,eric the viking
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 06:20 PM

It is interesting living up here in the same village as the MP (SNP)for Moray who travels down to London and back on our expenses.(Lives about 400 yards away) There isn't a muff from him. You would think there would be active campaigning in the towns and villages but having been just in the last week in Elgin, Inverness and Glasgow you would not believe the referendum was just around the corner. Apart from the odd bit in the local paper and the usual protagonist's letters it's really quiet. Even local BBC news doesn't contain information on a daily basis. But it does suprise me that Angus Roberstson( Robertson is the SNP Campaign Director for the referendum on Scottish independence) has never even addressed a local meeting about it. If you follow him on twitter he doesn't say much either.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 06:25 PM

Eric, Is SNP for or against?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 06:37 PM

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scottish-independence-warnings-over-pound-swaying-undecided-voters-as-poll-shows-strong-lead-for-no-vote-9147790.html


Scottish independence: Warnings over pound 'swaying undecided voters' as poll shows strong lead for 'No' vote


Two-thirds of people said they thought it would be in Scotland's best interests to keep the pound after independence, while 12 per cent say the country should have its own currency.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Eric the Viking
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 06:57 PM

SNP=Scottish National Party (Those who are fighting for the referendum) Alex Salmond (Leader). Angus Robertson SNP is campaign director for the YES vote. He is our MP in the British Parliament so he represents an area of Scotland in the English (Since it concerns itself mostly with the South) Parliament.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 07:21 PM

Jack, the whole UK media are lining up against the Yes campaign, there is not one media voice for a Free Scotland. I believe nothing I read in the English press.
The coverage is very biased, but the Scots are a stubborn people and one of the things that brings out our ire, is a feeling of being patronised by a posse of Public Schoolboys....the Tory/Liberal axis in Westminster.

The currency issue is simply fear mongering by the Unionists, Scot land keeping the pound, will be in everyone's interests, but more important to the Union, is keeping Scotland as a poor relation within it.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 04:28 AM

NAANTA seemed to hold the balance of fear ......

Who or what is NAANTA? Googling doesn't seem to help.


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Musket
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 04:38 AM

Notwithstanding that keeping the pound means being told your interest rates by Westminster, and therefore your economic policies being approved.....

Standard Life have lit the blue touch paper now. Stand well back.

Bye Bye! Thanks for the haggis!

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 05:05 AM

I was up in the South West of Scotland last weekend, as I have been on many occasions, and the overriding impression I get from my friends there is that independence will be a bad thing. My impression may be skewed but it is what I have found. I have no axe to grind as it will not affect me but when Salmond says he believes the Westminster government and the EU are 'bluffing', I wonder about the sense of a man who is playing poker with a whole countries future as the stakes.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 05:08 AM

I've got a better idea than pound Scots (poonds?).
Just how many Muckles make a Mickle?
Scottish friends tell me that Cameron/Osborne's interventions have turned manya "don't know/don't care" people into pro-Independence.
Don't get me started on flags....


RtS
(1/4 Indian-born Irish 3/4 Brummie)

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 05:19 AM

"Jack, the whole UK media are lining up against the Yes campaign, there is not one media voice for a Free Scotland. I believe nothing I read in the English press.
The coverage is very biased, but the Scots are a stubborn people "
The whole UK media are against it? Surely (at present) Scotland is part of the UK. Are you saying you can't even find a Scottish newspaper that favours separation?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 05:32 AM

Ah the Pound Scots which at the time 1707 1 Pound Sterling was worth 12 Pounds Scots. What would this new currency be based on? Borrowings made on possible future earnings from the North Sea? On very unsure ground there.

Lithuania took quite a few years to first get an internationally recognised currency and may finally get the Euro 27 years after it started out seeking to acquire it as a currency.

The UK already a member state of the EU will have to renegotiate nothing on the basis of Scotland electing to leave the UK. It will be Scotland that has to do the applying and negotiating after which Scotland in seeking EU membership will have to overcome the greatest hurdle to her gaining membership - the unanimous acceptance of existing member states - Off the top of my head I can think of at least 6 member states, not counting the UK, who would bar Scottish membership, for reasons connected with what they perceive as being in their own nation's best interests.

I am a Scot born and bred, I have no problem being British, never have had, I have never felt as though I have been treated as a second class citizen, in fact quite the reverse. I wish to see my country remain within a Union that has been beneficial to both partners down through the centuries and that is why on the 18th September I will vote NO. I then hope that Alex Salmond and the SNP will immediately resign and apologise to the population of the British isles for foisting upon them the unnecessary waste of £millions on this bloody stupid referendum and campaign that only they wanted, yet were either too stupid or too arrogant to prepare for. A campaign in which their lies, deceptions and distortions have been caught out and exposed time and again.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Musket
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 05:42 AM

I'd think on Dave. A yes vote would affect UK citizens, as the government cannot enter into currency union without a referendum. That's the point. Cause and effect.

On a positive note, propping up the welfare bill and disproportionally huge public sector won't be our problem, till we start the bail outs from foreign aid......

Seriously, I cannot get excited about it. I was in Scotland (Fife) the other weekend and I am giving an after dinner speech next week in Edinburgh. Again, not representative, but in have yet to hear anyone I know speak in favour of it. The after dinner speech is at a Royal College that has yet to publish a view, but knowing many council members, they would be concerned about seamless accreditation, breakup of regulators that affect their students and alumni and attracting students in the first place to their part of the university.

If ever the people of Scotland are advised of the advantages, consequences and otherwise, a debate can begin. But even if I were the most tartan wearing, sporran hugging, bagpipe annoying, deep fried haggis gobbling nationalist around, I'd still possibly be curious enough to look further than Salmond's assurances that everybody will do as he says outside of his fiefdom.

Two years ago, someone said that a referendum in the next three years isn't feasible as far too much negotiating has to take place in order that the electorate are given the answers to "what happens with..?"

You know who said that and where?

Alex Salmond on BBC Question Time.

Lose the referendum? He needs to lose his seat.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 05:53 AM

Somewhere in the dim and distant past on this forum I was assured that a referendum for Scottish independence would have taken place before 2010. That did not happen, but one would have thought that had that been the SNPs original date for it then by 2014 they would have every i dotted and every t crossed with regard to every facet of an independent Scotland. We are now seven months away and it is as plain as a pike staff that they simply do not have a clue.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 05:58 AM

"no longer second class citizens in our own land or cannon fodder in mad foreign wars."

What planet have you been living on?

The Westminster Parliament is loaded with Scots and in case you didn't know, there is no conscription and all your "cannon fodder", just like ours, are volunteers.

Salmond is selling you all short, gloosing over the disadvantages, such as coming out from under the umbrella of the UK's monetary rating.

It'll take a good few years to attain triple A.

The pity of it is that all this arises out of the Scottish dislike for England and the English.

Vote YES, and good luck to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 07:55 AM

Doug Chadwick.....NAANTA stands for....."NAW!! And Ah'll no' Tellye Againe".........often said by stern mothers to unruly offspring   :0)


Unfortunately for the "No" campaign, we are a grown up nation and require no instructions from an unrepresentative government in Westminster.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 02:54 PM

OK, thanks. I never would have been able to work that out.

"NAW!! And Ah'll no' Tellye Againe" seemed to hold the balance of fear ......

Even with the full version inserted into original text, I'm still not sure I understand what it means - but, then again, I'm easily confused. I don't think you need to explain it any further as I don't want to side-track the thread.


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 02:58 PM

UK monetary rating umbrella? Would this be the same rating, that Project fear as the NO campaign call themselves, had a Westminster Gov. Dept. prepare a paper on pointing out to we poor Illiterate Scots how we would lose our valuable credit rating if we voted YES.
Unfortunately the day prior to this paper being published the UK credit rating was downgraded leaving a large mountain of pulp to be disposed of.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 03:00 PM

Yes Doug, you are correct NAANTA have run a very negative campaign based on fear of what may happen after independence, rather than the sort of country and society we can aspire to.
Best wishes Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 03:11 PM

Read the newly released report from Standard and Poor's.
This states that an independant Scotland would have a Triple A rating.
They, not unionist supporters on this forum, know what they are talking about.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 03:42 PM

Standard and Poor's?

Didn't they give AAA ratings to mortgage bonds consisting of interest only loans? I wonder who is paying them off now?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 04:04 PM

Has Standard and Poor's been nobbled by that arch villian Salmond?
They quote:--"even without North Sea Oil revenue a newly independant Scotland would qualify for our highest economic assesssment".
Read the report and ponder ye of little faith.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 04:05 AM

"Read the newly released report from Standard and Poor's.
This states that an independant Scotland would have a Triple A rating."

I read that as well where does it state that Scotland would be given a AAA rating from the get go? Rhetorical question it doesn't. All it says is that they see no reason why Scotland could not float its own currency, but that it would take time and it would cost. The following extracts are included in the report:

1: "The Scottish economy would face "significant, but not unsurpassable" challenges, if it were to separate from the rest of the UK"

2: " it cautioned that, while Scotland is capable of adopting its own currency, that it could "pose some initial risks to external financing". Specifically, we think Scotland would be hard-pressed, under a new currency regime, to quickly replicate the deep capital markets it enjoys today as part of the larger UK,"

3: "a newly-independent Scotland would be likely to face a shrinking economy if financial services, which account for 8pc of GDP, relocate to the remaining UK"

4: " Scotland may also be forced to reduce the size of its public sector workforce, which at nearly a quarter of the total population is well above the UK average, while Scottish companies which benefit from strong integration with the rest of Britain could also suffer"

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 05:48 AM

"Willie Walsh, head of International Airlines Group (which owns British Airways), responding to a rather loaded question from BBC News by saying he'd regard independence as "a positive development". That's pretty interesting in itself, given that airlines are much more important to the Scottish economy than one insurance company, yet we have a strange premonition that it won't attract the same headlines."
Wings over Scotland

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 06:19 AM

"That's pretty interesting in itself, given that airlines are much more important to the Scottish economy than one insurance company"

Probably one of the daftest statements I think I have ever read.

Now let me see, the North Sea Oil & Gas industry is worth 16% of what is figured to be Scotland's GDP

The Financial Sector is worth 8%

And airlines are worth how much?

Airlines invest how much in Scotland?

Airlines employ how many in Scotland?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 07:51 AM

Stop wriggling Mr T, GUEST said "more important than any INSURANCE COMPANY"

The airlines are indeed very important to our tourist industry, which could be further expanded under Independence, to make a huge contribution to our economy.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,guest
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 08:14 AM

Increased revenue fro air lines ....... not good.
More money from oil and gas ....... a burden and it won't last more than 40 years.
Getting rid of Trident and saving a fortune ..... bad idea, we need a nuclear deterrent to protect us from street terrorists.
Why do potential NO voters see only doom and gloom. Pathetic, sad fearties who have no future except staying as we are, a gloomy outlook but suits their gloomy disposition.
"Always look on the bright side of life".

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 09:30 PM

As I've said before, go and good luck. I'm all for English autonomy.

The benefits for us will be 1). Not having MPs with Scottish constituencies voting on purely English matters, and 2). Regaining an English identity.

Wales and Northern Ireland both have their own parliaments, and at last we will be one step nearer to having OUR own.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 10:17 PM

I'd think the United Kingdom of Southern Britain and Northern Ireland might be the most logical, though strictly speaking, since Northern Ireland is not a kingdom, but a section if a province, it wouldn't be correct.

At any rate the term Great Britain could no longer be used as if it was the name of a country rather than just of an island.

And I can't see how the term British could still be used as a label for the citizens of the new country, though I suppose it could still be used for the inhabitants of the island.

I suppose they could try to hold on to it and use it the same way the citizens of the USA call themselves Americans because there's no word specifically that differentiates them from all the other people in the American continent.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 03:32 AM

One of the good things for us, is that we will have a government which represents the Scottish people.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 05:34 AM

The serious thing for me is that deprived of Scottish voters the labour Party might never regain a majority in the UK/English parliament and we would be condemned to permanent Tory rule. As Pte Frazer would say:
"We're doomed".
Rts

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Triplane
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 08:20 AM

nobody has mentioned a national anthem
http://www.rampantscotland.com/songs/blsongs_ally.htm



Deja vu?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 08:25 AM

If the Scots choose to go I don't see how the rest of us can prevent it. The idea that the rest of the UK should have a vote is unworkable for that reason. It would also raise the possibility of a real constitutional crisis if Scotland voted to remain and the rest of the UK voted from them to go. So it really has to be up to them. I think we are stronger together, but I can understand their reasons for wanting independence. If that's what they choose, good luck to them.

What I find totally unconvincing is Alex Salmond's insistence that if Scotland chooses to walk away he can dictate the terms on which it does so. He's promising things which aren't in his gift, and continues to do so even when he's been told otherwise. Of course there's a lot of posturing on both sides, but it seems very unclear what an Scotland's future might be in the real world outside Salmond's fantasies and whether it will actually have sufficient financial and political clout to be truly independent. I think there's a real possibility that Scotland could end up with nominal independence but less autonomy than it already has.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Tammas
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 08:36 AM

Roger the Skiffler, Since 1945 only one ONE occasion (1964) Scottish MPs have turned what would have been a Conservative government into a Labour one. The Tory majority without Scottish votes would have been just one MP (280 vs 279), and as such useless in practice. The Labour government, with an almost equally feeble majority of 4, lasted just 18 months and a Tory one would probably have collapsed even faster.

- on ONE occasion (the second of the two 1974 elections) Scottish MPs gave Labour a wafer-thin majority (319 vs 316) they wouldn't have had from the rest of the UK alone, although they'd still have been the largest party and able to command a majority in a pact with the Liberals, as they eventually did in reality.

- and on ONE occasion (2010) the presence of Scottish MPs has deprived the Conservatives of an outright majority, although the Conservatives ended up in control of the government anyway in coalition with the Lib Dems when Labour refused to co-operate with other parties in a "rainbow alliance".

- which means that for 65 of the last 67 years, Scottish MPs as an entity have had no practical influence over the composition of the UK government. From a high of 72 MPs in 1983, Scotland's representation will by 2015 have decreased to 52, substantially reducing any future possibility of affecting a change.

The simple reality of the matter, established indisputably and unambiguously by these stats, is that England and the rest of the UK are and always have been perfectly capable of electing a Labour government if they want one, whatever Scotland does.

The truth is that Labour doesn't need Scottish MPs, and an independent Scotland would NOT give the Tories a permanent majority in the remnant UK. Those are the facts, and voters should be deeply mistrustful of anyone who tells them anything else.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 07:20 PM

If Scotland does go, the whole issue of the voting system would be liable to come into play. The referendum on the Alternative Vote has been taken as meaning that it's been decided for this generation, but that referendum would be irrelevant, because the country in which it was carried out would have ceased to exist.

I would think it highly likely that with the departure of the sizeable bloc of Scottish Labour MPs making it very vulnerable, support for some move towards a more proportional voting system would be greatly increased in the English Labour Party. And in the electorate as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Stu
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 11:31 AM

Reading the comments sections on many sites I'm shocked at how much many Scots hate the English and even the Gruaniad comments section (where you'd hope to get a tad more nuanced debate) is a festering pit of bile and hate. I always knew we weren't loved that much but as an English person whose opinion runs contrary to that of the YES campaign then you're going to get a right gobful.

You'll be:

thick
nasty
a tory
stupid
a warmonger
unable to reason
an oppressor
a condem
not in possession of all the facts
Longshanks
uncivilised
thick
Cameron
Osbourne
rich (!)
Thatcher
dense
etc etc

All I see here is the working people of this island finally being split by petty nationalism and having their voice effectively silenced forever. The tories and toffs will win.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 12:02 PM

Not in Scotland they won't!
Anyway, which party in the UK supports "working people"
UK Labour are a joke.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 12:12 PM

I imagine "Oh Flower Of Scotland" would be their anthem. It expresses much of their hatred of the exploitative English and a yearning to see Scotland's people rise again. I can sympathise with them, and the song is rather beautiful; it always brings tears to my eyes. They really do hate the English. I have to use my Scots accent when up there, and it changes their attitude towards me a lot. Not very edifying of them, but we have a great deal to answer for in history. I recently found that play I was rambling on about in a previous post, the Cheviot the Stag and the Black Black Oil. It's on Youtube, and although written in the seventies, it expresses remarkably well what the Scots went through and why they detest the English. We haven't a leg to stand on; we did all that and they can't forgive.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Tammas
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 01:30 PM

Eliza, the Highland clearances were carried in some places by Scots albeit at an Englishman's command. Culloden was a fight between Scots and Scots although again there was an Englishman and a Dutchman at the helm and an Italien Prince masquerading as a Scot. And in most posts the comments are all anti Scots and again, as an Englishman living in Scotland for over 30 years, the majority of Scots are great. I don't hear the equivalent insults of deep fried mars bars or men in skirts or all the usual jibes made against the Scots.
Forget the insults, fellow Englishmen/women. If you don't like the idea of Scotland being independent, forget it and wish them well. My relatives in England think it's a good thing and are not concerned about their grandchildren becoming foreigners .. they already have other grandchildren in Australia and Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 04:19 PM

Is this what the independence movement is about?

That and BraveHeart? and Rob Roy?

And kilts and highland games and curling?

All good and noble stuff no doubt.

But then there is the spectre of the PIIGS. Would you end up more like Ireland or Norway?

Best of luck Scottish friends. Keeping in mind that it will not be easy to strike off on your own, in many ways a "yes" vote will be the start of your troubles rather than the end of them. Let you hearts and your heads guide you and IMHO you are sure to make the right choice for yourselves and your children.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 05:25 PM

Well Tammas, I lived in Scotland for 10 years, and in those days found a great deal of anti-English feeling. One Scots boyfriend took me to tea at his parents' house and they were absolutely rigid with disgust because I was 'English'; racist isn't the word. Only after I told them my surname (a town in Caithness) were they slightly mollified. But I sympathised with them, and I too found the Scots a great people. After all, I'm half Scots and half Irish; it's only being born in England that makes me English. My sister has lived among them for 40 years and she too is extremely fond of the place and the people. I used to find a warm affinity between Scotland and France, as of course they had been ancient allies. My sister doesn't agree, but I feel Scotland is so different culturally and historically that it may do well to 'go it alone'. And they really do dislike the English still.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 05:57 PM

Scotland's representation will by 2015 have decreased to 52, substantially reducing any future possibility of affecting a change.


Which, out of interest, is still too high a representation in parliament. I could present the figures but you would not believe me. Go and work it out yourselves.

Hint - Get the number of people in Scotland as a percentage of the number of people in the UK. Then get the number of Scottish MPs as a percentage of the number of MPs in parliament.

It may surprise you.

DtG

(I get it as 8% Scottish MPs and less than 7% of the population. See how you do.)

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 04:21 AM

Population of Scotland 5.295 million
Population of UK 63.23 million.
Scottish population as a percentage = 63.23/5.295 =11.941%

Scottish MPs 59
Westmister MPs 650
Scottish MPs as a percentage of Westminster MPs = 650/59 = 11.01%

???????

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 06:02 AM

Guest:
Population of Scotland 5.295 million
Population of UK 63.23 million.
Scottish population as a percentage = 63.23/5.295 =11.941%

Scottish MPs 59
Westmister MPs 650
Scottish MPs as a percentage of Westminster MPs = 650/59 = 11.01%

??????? Scottish population as a percentage should be (5.295/63.25)*100 = 8.37% You've canlculated it as a fraction of the population. One eleventh is approximately 8%. One eleventh is not 11%

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Seaham Cemetry
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 06:06 AM

The United Kingdom Of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Still holds if the petulant dreamers in skirts bugger off.

Just because not all of Great Britan would be in The United Kingdom, there would still be a kingdom within it, and about as united as it has ever been...

In any case, until the citizens of The UK are asked, yoh can't actually break it up. Bits can leave it, as there is an outside chance of happening for Scotland, but The UK exists and shall continue to exist regardless.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 06:10 AM

Thanks Nigel. Saved me pointing it out :-)

It is an even higher representation at the moment but I was allowing for the reduction to 52 that is due.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST, topsie
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 06:18 AM

Although I don't have all the figures in front of me, I would be surprised if there are not similar differences in representation between areas in the rest of the UK, and between different constituencies. It would be very difficult to make them exactly equal.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 06:58 AM

The Queen is also Queen if various other countries, such as Canada and Australia. We don't generally refer to all these as part of the United Kingdom. THe position in regard to Scotland would be essentially the same.

"Great Britain" is a geographical term for the island, and this will of course continue to be the case. However to be strictly accurate, the country "Great Britain" only existed between 1707 and 1801.

So far as the presence of the Union Flag on the flags of various other nations, I would think that, if they didn't decide on a redesign dropping the flag, they might be likely to hang on to the historic design rather than switch to one involving a new version. After all, joining the USA didn't cause Hawaii to drop the flag from it's own state ensign, seeing it as having a historical significance rather than any political meaning.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 07:32 AM

I would be surprised if there are not similar differences in representation between areas in the rest of the UK, and between different constituencies.

We are not talking of differences in constituencies here, Topsie. Whole countries should not be over or under represented in a so called equal union between them.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Seaham cemetry
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 07:49 AM

Cue history lecture on "the rotten boroughs."

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Stu
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 08:50 AM

"Anyway, which party in the UK supports "working people"
UK Labour are a joke."

Careful what you wish for . . . Salmond is right up the arse of Murdoch and supported that most foul of capitalist aristocracy Donal Trump when he trashed a scientifically important dune system and used dirty tricks and smears against the local Scots who protested.

All the political parties are for business, not people. Yes or No, the jingoistic and divisive spiel coming from campaigners simply shows how far we're regressing on these islands as a society.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST, topsie
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 09:21 AM

"Whole countries should not be over or under represented in a so called equal union between them."

Nor, ideally, should parts of countries be over or under represented, whether comparing the north of England with the south, or the Isle of Wight with Dorset, or Wales with Scotland (Scotland hasn't left yet, remember). You were discussing the size of the population in relation to the number of MPs, were you not?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 12:19 PM

You were discussing the size of the population in relation to the number of MPs, were you not?

Yes, the population of countries. Scotland is a country. Enland is a country. As far as I know the north of England, the south, the Isle of Wight and Dorset are not. Wales is but they have their own assembly anyway.

Are you suggesting devolution for every area? if so, how far do you take it?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST, topsie
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 12:50 PM

Dave, I was adding to what you said, offering another dimension for comparison - I wasn't contradicting you.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 12:57 PM

The idea that the territories of the UK are separate countries is amusing as is the idea that some Quebeccers call themselves "a nation."

It just shows how out of touch they are.

"Dreamers in skirts?"

Is that necessary?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 01:09 PM

How far? The guiding rule should be the principle of "subsidiarity" - "Subsidiarity is an organising principle of decentralisation, stating that a matter ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest, or least centralised authority capable of addressing that matter effectively. "

The Westminster government as it stands is close to the opposite pole. Mind, so would be an independant Scottish government in Edinburgh. It's a long way to the Shetlands or the Western Isles, geographically and in all kinds of other ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 01:50 PM

Are you suggesting devolution for every area? if so, how far do you take it?

England has a population over 5 times greater than that of Scotland, Wales and Northern Island put together. The latter three countries have their parliament and assemblies but, on purely English matters, England must put up with the interference of MPs with no interest in its affairs.

The population of 4 of the 9 English regions approximate to that of Scotland and 3 others are around half as big again. Only one English region has a population smaller than Wales and none are smaller than Northern Ireland. Why shouldn't the English regions have the same devolved powers as the non-English parts of the UK have.

I am not sure if regional devolution would provide any tangible benefits but I am certain that it would come at a massive cost. If Scotland votes to stay in the UK, I think it would be better to abandon devolution and have one country with one set of laws from Lands End to John O'Groats, from Lowestoft to the Irish border.


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 02:31 PM

If that was the alternative it would ensure a massive vote for independence.

Counties might be the best level for most things.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 03:14 PM

I am amused by the opinions voiced here by folks from all over.

This is a question solely for the people residing in Scotland, we must decide which is the best road forward. I favour independence and have watched the gap between the Yes and NO camps narrow considerably over the past few months. I think we will vote for independence in September, but three month ago I would have guessed the reverse.
There is certainly a change in political opinion in Scotland, in the face of almost complete media opposition.
I would certainly like to see something like the Scandinavian model adopted after the referendum, we have all the resources we need here to make a success of our economy and our society.

The media opposition has forced Alex Salmond to "play politics" a bit, he has said that he wants Scotland to be an EU member, but I think should he win, within three years we will be a real sovereign nation without legal ties to the Brussles lawmakers.

But first things first......EH no'?   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 04:14 PM

Nor I you, Topsie. I was just wondering where devolution stops.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,DTM
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 07:24 PM

Just read through the above posts.
There's some real twaddle in that lot.

"The Scots hate the English"? Nonsense. There are some bampots in that mode I grant you but they are well in the minority.
You'll also find the majority of that 'hate' is mainly directed at the south east - i.e. the hub of the Universe. FWIW, Liverpool and Newcastle have more in common with Glasgow and Edinburgh than London.

If it's a YES win and Scotland screw everything up then the people who live in Scotland will have screwed up. Better that than leaving it to a mini-mafia of ex-public schoolboys do it.

With mixed feelings, I fear more for the future of Scotland and its residents if it votes no.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 07:55 PM

With any luck David Cameron might throw his energies into campaigning for a No vote. That could decide it.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 11:12 PM

"I would certainly like to see something like the Scandinavian model adopted after the referendum, we have all the resources we need here to make a success of our economy and our society."

If I was English or Welsh, I'd have some reservations about Scotland taking the offshore oil and enough of the Navy to defend it. Scots might find their troubles have just have just begun after a "yes" vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 03:08 AM

Always a master of gentle irony, is Mr McGrath!    :0)

Hope you are well Sir?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 04:47 AM

I see that in the current Ukraine issue, the West is arguing that people from outside, I.e. Russia should keep out of the argument as it is for the people of Ukraine to decide their fate. So much for the people outside Scotland wanting a vote on the future Referendum. And the EU is screaming for them to join while Ukraine is almost bankrupt and Barroso says it could be impossible for Scotland to join. What a load of two faced, hypocritical "people".

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Mr Happy
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 05:06 AM

[Great= Large] Britain is a geographical term describing the large island containing Wales, England and Scotland & differentiating it from 'Small Britain' aka Brittany

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Musket
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 05:09 AM

Come on Jack. I bet you say you are Canadian, rather than American? (Every Canadian I know makes the distinction, yet you have as much right as anyone else On the continent to call yourself American. I know I have said it before, but I saw a wonderful T-shirt in Vancouver a few years ago. Canadian {noun} Unarmed American with healthcare.

There seems to debate as to whether the term United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is still a valid term of reference if we repair the breeches in Hadrian's Wall?

Well, nobody worries about a country called The United States of America!

It isn't every day I applaud an approach by the government but I do feel it somewhat positive that regardless of whether I like their politics, ministers are pointing out what they are paid to point out. They are entrusted to act in the interest of The United kingdom, so it would be wrong for them not to state an opinion on something that could be to our detriment, and "our" includes the people of Scotland if you hadn't noticed. The stance on monetary union is valid because it could affect the people of The UK.

Storm in a teacup, but amusing debate, with the Wallace wannabes coming out of their closet. We'll have forgot about it by October. Sadly, I have to give a talk in Edinburgh this weekend, (been cancelled twice..) and cannot avoid speaking of professional accreditation recognition. A bit of an issue for many. After all. Even my own responsible adult is a fellow of The Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, as are many more. The Ireland college needed an inter government agreement after the forming of The Free State.

Give 'em a bloody Parliament, they want a sodding country. (OK, a sodden country.)

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 06:12 AM

More negativity and insults.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Musket
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 06:18 AM

Yeah, and then they want their own country!

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 06:21 AM

Basically the percentages related to the YES (32%) and the NO (57%) camps has remained unchanged.

When those who declared themselves as "undecided" were polled in an Ipsos MORI survey for STV 34% of the undecideds" said they would now vote NO, 16% of them said they would vote YES and 44% said their stance remained unchanged (What the remaining 6% of the "undecideds" said was probably unintelligible).

Come the 19th September the result will be announced as a clear and massive NO.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 07:21 AM

Ah Mr T....I remember your Predictions of Doom, before the election of the SNP to lead the Scottish Government"

Guess who won....by a landslide?

I have a better record on seeing into the political future, and I see Freedom!

Will you have a vote Mr T?.....just out of interest, no malice intended :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Musket
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 08:10 AM

I like The SNP as a party in power under the devolution criteria. I am so glad they won because despite his silly notions over a vote he didn't want yet, (lest we forget) Salmond is the type of socialist liberal you can admire. Whether it be gay rights or stamping out persecution of travellers, there are many reasons to admire him.

Isn't that right worm?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 09:56 AM

I say I am FROM Canada. I was born a Newfoundlander. Newfoundland bankrupted its self twice supporting England in war and pushed into a union with Canada because Britain would not be able to bleed us dry again if we entered into an economic partnership with the USA.

I cheer for Canada in the winter Olympics but that is largely out of habit. I cheer for Brazil in the world cup of soccer but that doesn't mean you are going to catch me on Copacabana anytime soon wearing a string thong up the crack of my butt.

Akenton, Musket makes a good point. If "yes" wins, get out your blue face paint and your claymores and play the pibrochs whatever they are, loud and clear because you will be in for a battle where England holds more of the cards than when Bonnie Charlie took his stand.

I hope for your sake your national pride win sustain you and replace in your hearts the comfort and relative prosperity you feel today.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 10:42 AM

Still more insulting talk. What's the matter with you supporters of the Union? You say the Scots are anti English but you can do is make puerile jibes.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 12:22 PM

A pibroch isn't a musical instrument, it's a piece of music composed for the pipes as a lament for the dead.
I haven't personally made puerile jibes, but the Scots certainly are anti-English. And I understand why and sympathise with their viewpoint.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 12:30 PM

"A pibroch isn't a musical instrument, it's a piece of music composed for the pipes as a lament for the dead."

Thanks for the info. I didn't know what they were. I'd only heard them mentioned in a song sung by Irishmen.

Lets hope there are no pibroch's written for the economy of Scotland.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 02:31 PM

More puerile jibes. Jack the sailor, check your facts before posting.
And Eliza, SOME Scots may hate the English but please don't generalise. There are many English living in Scotland who would disagree with you,

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 03:16 PM

I think that my opinion that Scotland will have a hard time economically IF they separate is not a fact nor something that I can check. It is not meant to be either puerile of a jibe.

But thank you for your opinion as unsubstantiated and anonymous as it may be.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Musket
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 03:22 PM

Of course, they could address their huge public sector, or health inequalities or welfare bill.

The irony is, whilst I don't wish them to follow the petty nationalistic fools, we in England wouldn't have to keep propping up their economy. We'd be better off.

Till we ended up bailing them out as we did Ireland the other year...

All academic really. Salmond takes his population for fools and the vast majority aren't.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 04:08 PM

Jack, I think guest is alluding to the fact that Scotland contributes more to the UK economy, than it receives back under the Barnet Formula, in funding.

There is much more to this issue than mere economics tho', we have a chance to shake free of European rules and regulations, regarding the construction of a new society.

We will do whatever it takes to gain independence.....then the REAL job will begin.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 05:21 PM

A CURRENCY union would benefit the remainder of the UK more than an independent Scotland, according to a veteran economist.

It would actually be in Scotland's greater self-interest to use the pound unilaterally but a currency union would benefit both sides of the border, Professor David Simpson said.

The Harvard-educated economist, who has worked for the United Nations, World Bank, European Commission and Standard Life, rejects the argument that a currency union requires a political union to work.

The absence of a central bank with lender of last resort facilities is "an advantage, not a disadvantage" as it discourages the risky behaviour that sparked the recent banking crisis, he said.

Prof Simpson's written evidence to Holyrood's Economy Committee is backed by Edinburgh University politics professor Charlie Jeffery, who said a currency union is "perfectly feasible".

The committee will also tomorrow hear from Glasgow University professors Jo Armstrong and John McLaren, who have called on the Scottish Government to spell out how it will boost Scotland's productivity, save oil revenues without cuts or taxes and how much borrowing it would require.

Institute of Fiscal Studies director Paul Johnson will also outline the institute's latest economic forecast, which offers "good news" for an independent Scotland provided it continues with the UK Chancellor's spending squeeze.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 02:20 AM

Akenaton:

The only prediction I made with regard to the Scottish Assembly elections related to the Referendum which you corrected and assured me according to promises made by the SNP would take place before 2010, I think I stated that the referendum would take place in the Parliament that followed. In that I have been proved correct.

The SNP won their elections not on their performance but on the total lack of performance by the ruling Labour Government of the day - In general political parties of sitting governments "lose elections" more than opposition parties "win elections" - it is a factor of elector dissatisfaction.

I most certainly have a vote and that vote will be a "NO" to keep things the way they are. I do not want to Governed by a man who lies about and hides petty expenditure - if he is prepared to treat the people he is supposed to represent with such contempt over such small things what on earth will he be like when tempted by the bigger things. I have no desire to led blindfold over a cliff by the incorrect assumptions and false assurances of a political party that could not even be bothered to do the groundwork necessary to convince the electorate to whom they had to appeal. I am sorry but "It'll be alright on the night, we'll just see how it goes" is not the assurance required to launch a nation.

Jack the Sailor:

"A pibroch isn't a musical instrument, it's a piece of music composed for the pipes as a lament for the dead."

Thanks for the info. I didn't know what they were. I'd only heard them mentioned in a song sung by Irishmen."

Ah yes the Tommy Makem version linked to - The introduction to the song delivered on stage in Dublin in 1977 was "cringeworthy" in it's complete and utter inaccuracies - all about those poor wee highlanders standing with the sleet in their faces on that April morning ready to repell the English invader? Load of bollocks, the Battle of Culloden was fought between a bunch of opportunists on the make against a Government Army that contained more Scots in it than were fighting for the Jacobite cause - Actually given the choice none of the highlanders would have been there. Chocolate box Scottish history, sentimental emotional crap.


Anonymous Guest:

Number of points about your financial expert.

1: "A CURRENCY union would benefit the remainder of the UK more than an independent Scotland"

Of course it would, independent Scotland would have no say in monetary policy, interest rates, and have no seat on any monetary policy committee. In short the UK would dictate independent Scotland's finances and economic policies.

I bet this veteran economist would say the same thing about a currency union with the rest of the EU - but on that there are a host of very highly regarded economists in the UK who would vehemently disagree with him - certainly the economic performance figures wouldn't support him.

2: "The Harvard-educated economist, who has worked for the United Nations, World Bank, European Commission and Standard Life, rejects the argument that a currency union requires a political union to work."

Rather odd that as the German who came up with the idea of the Euro as the common currency for the EU stated the exact opposite. Not only that but the same man attributes all the woes the Euro has undergone over the past few years to precisely that, his firm conviction being that you have to have political union before a currency union can work.

3: "The absence of a central bank with lender of last resort facilities is "an advantage, not a disadvantage" as it discourages the risky behaviour that sparked the recent banking crisis, he said."

Ah you mean same as happened in Iceland? The crash of 2008, had the collapse of RBS and RBOS hit an independent Scotland without there being a "lender of last resort" then the effects on the country would have been disastrous. Cause of the 2008 financial collapse world wide was the US sub-prime fiasco caused by Bill Clinton and the democrats in his second term - And nobody should ever be allowed to forget that.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 05:44 AM

If Scotland had been independent in 2008 it would have had a massive oil fund like Norway and could easily have coped. Comparing Scotland at that time to Iceland is disingenuous, mischievous and incorrect.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Banker
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 05:58 AM

This what guest should have told you.

Bank bailout

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 08:07 AM

Anonymous Guest:

Norway has the Sovereign wealth fund that it has because it does not use its revenues from its offshore oil & gas industry (Taxes yes, revenues no). Norway with its ~5 million people do not need the oil and gas they produce it already had the cheapest generated electricity on the planet.

Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund derives from two sources oil revenues which are invested internationally and excess national insurance revenues the money from which is invested domestically inside Norway in Norwegian companies and technology.

Salmond and the SNP keep dangling the prospect of Scotland being like Norway yet he signally fails to tell the electorate of Scotland what they would have to sign up to for Scotland to be like Norway:

38% Basic rate of tax
Medicine paid for at point of supply
End of free prescriptions
Dental care paid for at point of supply
End of tuition fee free education
Student loans that do actually have to be paid off
Compulsory formal identification and ID
Compulsory universal conscription

Norwegians basically have a work ethic not a benefits culture. If they want something then they pay for it today, they do not borrow in the hope and expectation that their children or grandchildren will pay their debts off for them.

Any time Salmond and SNP are asked how something will be paid for the answer always comes back - revenue from Scotland's Oil - well pal if you are relying on that to fund your freebies you cannot at the same time be saving it to create a sovereign wealth fund - True??

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Banker
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 08:39 AM

Terminus, you obviously didn't check the link I posted, as it rubbished your gloomy outlook.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 12:44 PM

My instinct is that if there's a YES vote, all the stuff about England not playing ball in setting up a shared currency deal, or about problems in Scotland being in the EU will mysteriously melt away.

So far as the latter matter is concerned I'm still puzzled why it is that there is said to be a problem with Scotland staying in the EU after independence, but not for the other part of the former UNited Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), whatever it may choose to call itself. Two new countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 01:24 PM

If you are indeed a banker, Guest, how do you feel about todays news that RBS and Lloyds would have to relocate their HQs in England?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 03:30 PM

The article banker posted seems to be arguing that if Scotland separates and there was another banking crisis the US and Arabs could be counted on the bail out Scotland's banks as they did Barclays in the last one. Would they? Did they bail out banks in Iceland and Ireland?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 04:30 PM

Yes Mr McGrath, most of the negativity can be put down to simple fear mongering.

If Scotland does strike out on her own, the rest of the UK will have their own problems to address and will have no time to dwell on ours.
In all probability we shall co-habit quite happily.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 04:53 PM

McGoH

So far as the latter matter is concerned I'm still puzzled why it is that there is said to be a problem with Scotland staying in the EU after independence, but not for the other part of the former UNited Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), whatever it may choose to call itself. Two new countries.

If Scottish independence affects all constituent parts of the Union equally, then all of the of the UK should be allowed its say in the referendum. Why should it be left to 8.4% of the population to make decisions which, if you are correct, could have dramatic effects on us all?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 09:54 PM

So you agree that Russia should interfere in Ukraine?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 02:22 AM

"Terminus"?? Really is a mistake that Guest wanker - it tells me who you are. I thought that multiple identities had been banned on this forum.

I read your link obviously you didn't. Strange that the author of the article didn't mention the bail out cash given to RBS from the same source $480bn, HBOS, etc, etc. Strange he didn't explain the reason for the very high loan given to Barclay's was down to Barclay's coming to the rescue of Lehman Brothers (Greatest US casualty of the crash with over 9,000 employees and loads of people's savings and pensions that required saving) nor that all those loans were subsequently repaid by Barclay's. Strange he didn't mention that the loans paid to British Banks by the US Federal Reserve bank were to cover the recipient banks operations in the USA? Can you suggest any reasons for those omissions wanker?

Fact still remains Barclay's did not receive one penny in the form of any bail out from the British Government.

Now let us go back to the RBS and HBOS (RBOS) as Scottish banks in an independent scotland. They have to start out with a currency over which they can exercise no control, or alternatively a completely new currency that no-one has ever heard of or traded in. In either case they are backed up by nothing - OK takers required to buy this currency? Would you? What rate of return would you require?

MGOH:

"My instinct is that if there's a YES vote, all the stuff about England not playing ball in setting up a shared currency deal, or about problems in Scotland being in the EU will mysteriously melt away."

Then your instinct would be wrong. If there is a YES vote and Scotland becomes independent then whoever is in charge of the economy of the United Kingdom and whoever is in charge of the Bank of England will do what they see as being in the best interests of the United Kingdom and the £Sterling - What is good or what is beneficial from independent Scotland's perspective will not even feature - that is what being independent is all about.

On the latter matter the United Kingdom is currently an EU member state. It will remain so in the event of Scotland voting for independence. Scotland as far as the EU is concerned will be regarded as a new state and as such will have to go through the full application process, comply with all rules, conditions and criteria for membership. Alex Salmond has been told this by both the President of the EU and by the President of the EU Commission (The unelected body who actually run the EU). The UK will not find itself in the same position for quite a number of reasons most important of which is the amount of money the UK puts into the EU coffers (If 28 people walk into a restaurant and order a meal, those sat round the table enjoying that meal being of sound mind and body do not then proceed to kick out one of the six people present who is actually paying the bill)

Now even should an independent Scotland meet and satisfy all the rules, conditions and criteria laid down by the EU for membership their application must be voted on by all existing member states and the vote has to be unanimous - at present excluding the UK I can think of at least six existing member states who would block Scotland's entry to the EU for reasons associated with their own individual national interests.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Musket
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 04:03 AM

How can there be two new countries? You need a referendum to abolish The UK?

Is there a referendum I don't know about? Have I still time to register to vote in it?

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. What's difficult about that? We have The United States of America, and I don't see all the other American countries moaning? (Apart from when The CIA interfere, or contra rebels are funded, or Bay of a pigs excursions, but I digress.)

The United Kingdom is a member of The EU. I don't see what alters? If it did, it would be challenged legally as nobody has asked the population a question regarding the status of The UK.

Regarding currency union, the chancellor has a duty to advise and act in the interest of the fiscal state of The UK. Rather than accuse him of interfering, Salmond is (jumping ahead of himself) interfering in the treasury status of what he hopes will be a foreign country by telling the Scottish electorate everybody will be as he says if he gets his Wallace moment.

Fascinating talk over Norway. I have family there, (moved from Scotland ironically) and when I was staying with them last year, (they are popular, living next to a ski resort...) their take on matters, with no axe to grind, doesn't exactly favour the Norwegian model. After having to go to a state owned shop to get overpriced wine, reminiscent of less developed totalitarian countries, I started to agree.

Mind you, the high taxes that dissuade foreign investment do give you a beast of a pension in Norway.. Snag is, Scotland depends on enterprise, something the small population of Norway makes a point of ignoring. Their poverty gap is remarkable, but there again, you don't get prizes for initiative and career advancement either. Real socialist principles, you see. Adam Smith was a Scot after all..... If Norway had the answers, it would be to tell us all to use our energy reserves in a less cooperative way and sell the excess to neighbouring countries at prices just, but only just cheaper than them extracting the gas themselves. Most European countries, The UK included, don't have the reserves to support their population in the lo term, and before you say it, Scotland would have to sell their 30 year supply, not live on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Banker
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 04:31 AM

Terminus, you have come to the end of the line. You are beginning to rant, so calm down, dearie.
You seem to have all the answers that no one else has:

"There are no immediate issues that will affect Lloyds Banking Group customers either in Scotland or the rest of the UK, particularly as any change in constitutional arrangements are unlikely to come into effect until 2016."

Separately, Barclays said in its own annual report, which was also published on Wednesday, that the referenda on Scottish independence and on UK membership of the European Union, expected before 2017, may affect the group's risk profile.

Note all the "maybes and coulds and possibles" that pundits have been using whereas you are so certain. Your negative wishes are so apparent.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Seaham cemetry
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 06:50 AM

OK.

Shell have quite rightly spoken aboout risks to their interests now. Lloyds and Barcalys have upgraded the risk on their risk registers according to annual reports.

Add them to BP and Standard Life?

Salmond said the CEOs of these companies are entitled to their opinion but most CEOs think otherwise.

Perhaps as an ex oil industry economist, he might ask a management trainee how much of Scotland's economy those five CEOs represent?

I suppose the proprieter of that fish & chip shop in Linlithgow still supports the Yes campaign, so business leaders remain divided eh?

But it's nothing to do with them apparently, just those who rely on them for jobs and a public sector and social security bill that relies on them for money.

Fascinating. The brass necked ballsy confidence of the ultra nationalists. Roll on October. Itll be nice to see them quiet for a while.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 08:21 AM

Yep that's right Guest Banker - if Scotland votes YES in September this year there will be two whole years for various companies and industries to organise the southerly flight of jobs and capital. The thing for "Jowly Eck & Co" is who or what replaces them?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Musket
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 08:35 AM

Speaking of monetary union, I am in Edinburgh this weekend.

I must remember not to collect any Scottish bank notes. They are buggers to move on down here. Nobody wants to accept them. I have to go into a bank and ask them.

I still have a photo somewhere of a Bureau de Change in Baku, Azerbaijan I walked past a few years ago. Because of the BP interest in the Caspian oilfield, there were many people popping over from their Aberdeen office. The exchange for Scottish banknotes was slightly less than for English banknotes.

Why? Buggered if I know, but I'd love to buy that man (possibly Georgian, they seemed to run the mafia side of things there) a pint.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Banker
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 10:05 AM

More insults from Terminus: and Musket, there has always been a problem in getting Scottish notes accepted in England. Try cashing a Northern Ireland note, even more difficult.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 10:38 AM

Quite true, Banker. I was 'up there' in the sixties, and when I visited my parents 'down here' my Scottish banknotes were never acceptable, and seen as completely suspicious.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 09:36 PM

Strictly speaking of course there will be only one new country. Scotland has a long history as an independent country. The "country" consisting of England, Wales and part of Ulster, whatever it chooses to call itself, has never previously existed at any time.

On what grounds is it claimed that it is not every bit as much, at the very least, a "new country" as an independent Scotland would be?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 01:09 AM

1: "Strictly speaking of course there will be only one new country."

Yes Scotland

2: "Scotland has a long history as an independent country."

Yes that is right it's last spell as an independent country lasted from about 1357 to 1707, after which it retained its religion, law and right to print bank notes as part of Great Britain.

3: "The "country" consisting of England, Wales and part of Ulster, whatever it chooses to call itself, has never previously existed at any time.

The country which has contained all three has existed since 1801 and it was called the United Kingdom, it will remain being known as such.

4: "On what grounds is it claimed that it is not every bit as much, at the very least, a "new country" as an independent Scotland would be?

Well Kevin just niggling little things like membership of the EU, NATO, a permanent seat on the Security Council of the United Nations and various other international agreements.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Musket
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 04:05 AM

If anybody asks me in a referendum if I wish to live in a new country, I will weigh up the pros and cons, but as nobody is asking me, I shall continue to live in The UK, and expect my government to act in our interest.

It would appear I might at some stage be asked for my view on remaining in The EU. If and when that happens, (at present, we have a back bencher sop made with Cameron's fingers crossed) I shall vote to remain a member.

Easy.

Now, if you"ll excuse me, I have a train to catch to Scotland later, and a pint awaits tonight at The Malt Shovel, followed by a meal at Castle Terrace. A good British night out eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 04:34 AM

Terebus, "The country which has contained all three has existed since 1801 and it was called the United Kingdom, it will remain being known as such."

You should have said "The PART of the country ....."
When the existing UK and NI breaks up, both parts will have all the memberships you mention or they will have none. Are you seriously saying that all the benefits given to the UK by the EU will continue when the land mass and population will be diminished?

Two new states as McGrath of Harlow very clearly, concisely and logically spells out.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 05:24 AM

On what grounds is it claimed that it is not every bit as much, at the very least, a "new country" as an independent Scotland would be?

On the grounds of practicality.

The precedent is set by what happened in 1922 when the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" became the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In practice, a new state was formed south of the Irish border and the UK went on as before, albeit with a new name and a bit less territory. It kept its empire, international prestige, financial systems etc.

Repeating what I said above, if Scottish independence affects the status of the rest of the UK then we should all be included in the referendum. As it has been decided that the referendum is only of concern to those living in Scotland, it is safe to say that the international position of the rest of the UK will remain unchanged. Arguing otherwise may be of interest but is just so much hot air.


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 07:12 AM

The difference is, Doug, that Ireland JOINED the UK whereas Scotland FORMED the UK with England.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Seaham Cemetry
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 07:18 AM

Watch this space. Danny Alexander is about to speak to the pensions industry in Edinbiurgh where he will say the currency union refusal is final, and agreed between him, Osborn and Balls. Or in other words, anybody who will be at No.11 in the aftermath of the exceedingly slim chance of a yes vote.

Without publishing a plan B, how can the referendum even go ahead? If you vote yes, what are you voting for?

I reckon it is a huge insult to the voters of Scotland to ask them to vote for something that cannot be delivered and would have to go through the expense of a second referendum after Labour are returned in the Scottish election that would follow the vote of no confidence in the government in, I'd say October.

That's assuming The UK agreed to it, and under what conditions.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 07:48 AM

The country that was formed with the Acts of Union (England) and the Acts of Union (Scotland) was the Kingdom of Great Britain.

The Act of Union (Ireland) in 1801 formed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 07:57 AM

"Are you seriously saying that all the benefits given to the UK by the EU will continue when the land mass and population will be diminished?"

If you are referring to the "diminished land" caused by Scotland voting for independence, then by and large the "benefits" as you call them for a country of 58 million would roughly be the same as those for a country of 63 million taking into account of course that the payments and the UK is the second biggest net contributor will also pretty much remain the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 08:22 AM

"pretty much the same" so there will be a change? Negotiated with the EU or what?
And the name thing has been debated ad nauseum but the fact remains per Article 1 that the new country would be "United as one Kingdom called Great Britain" and article 2 refers to " .. the United Kingdom of Great Britain".
The fact remains that two Kingdoms were united into one. Without Scotland or England being United there would have been no United Kingdom of Great Britain for Ireland to join.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Musket
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 11:32 AM

What are people talking about? Who has said The UK is going to alter?

You need a referendum.

Perhaps Salmond is relying on ignorance. Wise move on his part judging by some of the la la land comments here.

Edinburgh is warm today for the time of year. A rather nice bit of The UK. Friendly as ever too.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,DTM
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 07:01 PM

Irrespective of what the outcome of the independence vote, surely politicians of both sides should say that, come the day, they will respect the decision made by the people of Scotland to be independent or not. There's some major dummy spitting going on from both sides.

On a personal note, Danny Alexander and his cronies are really getting on my thrupnies.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 07:27 PM

True enough Teribus. The Act of Union with Scotland established a country called the Kingdom of Britain.

That existed for less than a hundred years, to be succeeded by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. That was succeeded by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If Scotland secedes it will cease to exist, and be succeeded by a country which as yet has not been given a name.

None of those previous changes involved any kind of referendum. The Scottish referendum in a constitutional innovation, not a standard requirement for a change of national status.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 07:06 AM

To answer the original question how about EWNI, Change the letters around to suit and maybe EWIN would suit McColl fans?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 11:11 AM

To all Scots: as I believe in the English nation and the United Nations, you should believe in the Scottish nation and the United Nations; please, please go it alone...

Poem 66 of 230: TO SCOTLAND, AGAIN - http://walkaboutsverse.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/walkaboutsverse-66-of-230.html

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 11:26 AM

Thanks David....very nice.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 11:49 AM

At last, a cheery voice.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Lady ga ga
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 11:52 AM

Lady ga ga voting NO

A must!

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 12:07 PM

"But we can still rise now
And be the nation again" (O Flower of Scotland by Roy Williamson)

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Tammas
Date: 08 Mar 14 - 01:45 PM

Fantastic! from National Collective.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 02:50 AM

Anonymous Guest:

What gets paid in and what gets paid out will remain the same irrespective. The last thing in the world that the faceless unelected ones in Brussels want is open up any negotiation on EU terms and conditions with the Government of the United Kingdom. Cameron has been pressing for them since 2010 in an attempt to force reform and they, for their own reasons have managed to duck them up to date.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 04:07 AM

Rising, be a nation.....

Some unfortunate precedents in that jingoistic language.

I thought the vote was more to do with the two different ways of squandering thirty years of future oil revenues and how to move shipyard services to The Solent where there are more Tory voters.

I suppose once the haggis runs out you can boil the heather. Or borrow a cup of sugar from some Dutch campers.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Mar 14 - 11:11 PM

Rumour has it that DC was very much against going to speak in Scotland until someone realised that the departing constituencies were as good as a 20% swing to the Conservatives from Labour. He'd have a comfortable majority without any need for a coalition - and he'd lose Michael Gove into the bargain. If nationality rules apply after separation as they do now (nationality falling where born unless one parent was born in rUK), Gove would be Scottish.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Mar 14 - 05:28 AM

Gove was born in Edinburgh but adopted and raised in Aberdeen so the nationality of his parents is uncertain. He is therefor irrelevant to this discussion (and to many others, no doubt).

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Mar 14 - 06:59 AM

In a way, from an English viewpoint that typifies the problem - Scotland's treating the entire thing as a Little Scotland problem. For the moment, lacking any indication of a policy in nationality from the SNP, I presume the existing definition must apply to avoid accidentally removing anyone's fundamental right to citizenship, namely that at the very least you're a citizen of where you're born and over and above that may inherit citizenship from a parent born there.
Firstly, something of the order of 20% of their nation is disenfranchised, living outland. That is likely to open any result to appeal, as the result looks to be closer than that. That may be compounded by people without Scottish citizenship having a vote by virtue of residence in Scotland. I mention Gove because he typifies the point, he thinks himself Engliah, but isn't, and could find himself unexpectedly out of a job as a result: to qualify to stand in 2015, he'd have to be a citizen of either the rUK (no), the Republic of Ireland (no) or the Commonwealth (no) as things stand. He would depend on enabling legislation being passed before the abrogation of Parliament at the end of March 2015, which is unlikely given most of that six months is non-working time and the negotiations will take more than two years.
Is it even a purely Scottish question? The decision may inadvertently affect many people elsewhere. With recovery from the recession still wobbly, the last thing rUK needs is a bunch of hotheads forcing the government to take its eyes off the task in front of it, devastating the credit of the nation as the vicissitudes of the negotiation create untold rumours. Can any decision be made outside of the Courts, and I suspect that means the International Court in The Hague, a process which could take ten years and make both countries ungovernable in the interim.