HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated" Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal

Scotland given choice to vote for independence

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-15-2012, 01:33 PM
  #1
Shrimper
Trick or ruddy treat
 
Shrimper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Essex
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 72,111
vCash: 50
Scotland given choice to vote for independence

David Cameron and Alex Salmond signed an agreement that means that they can vote on independence. 16 / 17 year olds are being allowed to vote as well.

Reckon they'd be mad to say yes in my opinion.

Shrimper is offline  
Old
10-15-2012, 01:48 PM
  #2
RonFournier
Registered User
 
RonFournier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,460
vCash: 500
With their oil there's no reason why they couldn't become a Norway-like country.

RonFournier is offline  
Old
10-15-2012, 01:50 PM
  #3
Loose Sens
Drafting my Overalls
 
Loose Sens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,914
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonFournier View Post
With their oil there's no reason why they couldn't become a Norway-like country.
That oil is quickly running out, the UK's size provided Scotland with the infrastructure money to get the whole thing started and to maintain it, etc...

And I say this as someone with family members living in Canadawho see themselves as very distinctly Scottish along with relatives in Scotland who will probably votes yes for independence.

Loose Sens is offline  
Old
10-15-2012, 01:55 PM
  #4
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Shogunate of Nofunia
Country: Fiji
Posts: 28,639
vCash: 50
Not going to lie, it would be kind of cool to see such a vote actually being successful, but that being said, don't think it'd be a good deal for either side and doubt it even comes close to passing.

No Fun Shogun is online now  
Old
10-15-2012, 01:56 PM
  #5
Shrimper
Trick or ruddy treat
 
Shrimper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Essex
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 72,111
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonFournier View Post
With their oil there's no reason why they couldn't become a Norway-like country.
The oil is running out and they won't get the revenue from previous oil drained from there. They get a certain amount currently but if they went independent they'd lose all of that along with subsidies of the NHS, medical care, University fees and tuition fees. Not to mention they'd lose all ship-building contracts and have to fund their own security forces and border forces. The fishing market is struggling as well.

Also, going independent would mean they wouldn't have any of the EU money that other countries get and would have to apply to join which takes ages.

Shrimper is offline  
Old
10-15-2012, 02:01 PM
  #6
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Shogunate of Nofunia
Country: Fiji
Posts: 28,639
vCash: 50
Oh, and here's a link, btw:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-19942638

It'll be held sometime in Autumn, 2014.

No Fun Shogun is online now  
Old
10-15-2012, 02:03 PM
  #7
Shrimper
Trick or ruddy treat
 
Shrimper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Essex
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 72,111
vCash: 50
Yeah, I believe the deadline they have to do it by is December 2014 but they'll do it just before then as there's a general election the year after.

Shrimper is offline  
Old
10-15-2012, 02:03 PM
  #8
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
As long as the liquid gold continues to flow and my supply of The Macallan 12 Year Old single malt scotch is uninterrupted, I have no issue with Scottish independence.

Freedom and whisky gang thegither-Tak aff your dram!

As my dear departed grandmother (born just outside Edinburgh) would say...

Lang may yer lum reek.

Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
10-15-2012, 02:11 PM
  #9
ddawg1950
Registered User
 
ddawg1950's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,985
vCash: 500
Oh great.

I suppose they'll say they invented Independence now!

ddawg1950 is offline  
Old
10-15-2012, 03:01 PM
  #10
Doppler Drift
Registered User
 
Doppler Drift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 10,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddawg1950 View Post
Oh great.

I suppose they'll say they invented Independence now!
Nope, that would be the Irish (see Reagan, Ronald).

Doppler Drift is online now  
Old
10-15-2012, 03:56 PM
  #11
PredsV82
Puckaroni and cheese
 
PredsV82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Outside
Country: Scotland
Posts: 14,188
vCash: 500
IIRC Scotland is pretty much solid Labor(or Labour) Party territory.

I understand why Cameron wouldnt mind cutting them loose.

Would be like a Republican president allowing California or New England to vote for independence (or a democrat to allow the South to secede)

PredsV82 is online now  
Old
10-15-2012, 03:58 PM
  #12
Sirquacksalot
°Viva Los Patos!
 
Sirquacksalot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: The Mojave
Posts: 5,068
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddawg1950 View Post
Oh great.

I suppose they'll say they invented Independence now!
No they won't. Everyone knows 'Merica invented freedom because Jesus.

On topic: Scotland would be insane to vote for independence right now. If they want to join the E.U. (and they do) they'd have to adopt the Euro, and that's a terrible idea right now. Since Euro adoption is one of the conditions for new membership that means Scotland would be out of the E.U. for the foreseeable future, so it would have to negotiate individual trade agreements with all the nations with which it currently enjoys free trade. Not to mention that it would have to do this while simultaneously negotiating with NATO, the U.N., etc. There's not a chance the English are giving up access to all the North Sea oil rigs they built, so there'll be conflict over that. You'll also have to deal with all the Scots living in England/Wales/N.I./abroad that want to secure Scottish Citizenship. Will they have to move back, will they be granted Scottish Citizenship by birth? Their visas (if living abroad) are for a British identity, will they be forced to leave? As well the English/Welsh/N.Irish that are in Scotland might want to do the same in reverse. What happens if most of Scotland wants to leave the U.K., but a localized group wants to stay and is willing to fight for it? Will there be another R.O.I.-N.I. like situation? As much as the Scottish like to bemoan being "ruled" by the English, since the devolution of the Scottish Parliament, English MP's have no say in Scottish law (unless the law is G.B. wide). Scotland has a large degree of autonomy already, but becoming fully independent in this economy is a terrible idea. If the Scots are dead-set on independence, then it's a far better idea to wait it out.

Sirquacksalot is offline  
Old
10-15-2012, 07:04 PM
  #13
jimmythescot
Registered User
 
jimmythescot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,399
vCash: 500
The oil is probably not going to run out anytime soon. At current estimates there's around 30-40 years left at current rate of extraction. But they also said that when it was discovered in the 1960s. The oil companies always lie about how much there is because they need to negotiate their tax, contributions, and licences. They've also just discovered a new field so that date is probably even further into the future.

The oil industry is almost entirely based in Scotland, so to say that we'll be unable to run it ourselves is ludicrous. We already are running it.

Oil revenue is not part of the Barnett formula, so unless you mean having leaking nuclear submarines sitting in the Clyde, or leaking nuclear power stations in the highlands: we don't receive a direct benefit from oil other than job creation.

Scotland already pays for those 'subsidies' mentioned (health care, tuition fees etc) out of the lump sum from the Barnett formula.

Scotland more than pays it's share. Without taking into account the oil revenue (around £17Bn a year for the licensing and tax on the extraction and refining) Scotland is in deficit by the exact same amount proportionally as the rest of the UK. The idea that Scotland is a basket case is entirely invented, unless you accept that the UK is a basket case.

All in all, Scotland would probably be in a surplus after cutting our ridiculous defence expenditure and finally directly benefiting from our most precious natural resource.


The oil rigs are in private hands so the rUK would have nothing to complain about.

England has never had a say on Scottish law. I assume you meant 'Scottish governance'. They are devolved issues, but you know what the English can do to rectify the West Lothian question? Vote for a English parliament. Or Regional parliaments. If you don't campaign for something, you're not going to get it.

At the moment, Scotland desperately needs immigration. We have an ageing population and not enough people to fill all the jobs. So no. We won't be kicking people out. And for the considerable future we would be actively welcoming incomers. We can't do this at the moment because we're under the auspices of the UK immigration policy which is entirely about protecting London and the surrounding districts from overcrowding.

The EU is an interesting one because nobody really knows what will happen. It could be possible that the EU will say 'once in forever in' or they might demand what you stated. Nobody knows right now and it would be a subject for negotiation, no doubt. I suspect that they'll try to foist the Euro on us, but we may just stay out of the EU in that case. For the immediate aftermath of a Yes campaign Scotland would keep the pound, and although nothing has been stated yet, I suspect it would be a temporary measure until the Euro re-establishes itself or we re-introduce the Scottish pound.

Finally, I would like to point out that Scotland, even after the oil does run dry, should be in an enviable position with the current drive for green energy. Scotland has 25% of Europe's tidal energy potential. In fact, the Pentland Firth has the equivalent volume of the entire North Sea pass through it twice every day. Combine this with wave and wind power (both of which are strong here) and we're quite possibly the Saudi Arabia of green energy.

EDIT: Just wanted to say 'Waiting it out' would not be an option. This is the first time the people of Scotland have had a say on this matter. It's been over 300 years. This isn't Quebec where they have this discussion every second election.

jimmythescot is offline  
Old
10-15-2012, 09:52 PM
  #14
Vyacheslav
That one guy
 
Vyacheslav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Jackson, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 15,092
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Vyacheslav
Quote:
Originally Posted by PredsV82 View Post
IIRC Scotland is pretty much solid Labor(or Labour) Party territory.

I understand why Cameron wouldnt mind cutting them loose.

Would be like a Republican president allowing California or New England to vote for independence (or a democrat to allow the South to secede)
That's a little extreme..

Vyacheslav is offline  
Old
10-15-2012, 09:59 PM
  #15
Concordski
Knockoff Jets FTW
 
Concordski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 7,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyacheslav View Post
That's a little extreme..
Yeah; I don't necessarily agree with the politics of the South, but I'd fight to keep them from leaving.

Concordski is offline  
Old
10-15-2012, 10:14 PM
  #16
Vyacheslav
That one guy
 
Vyacheslav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Jackson, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 15,092
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Vyacheslav
Exactly, and I can't imagine a president of either party doing it either. With that kind of logic, Lincoln would have let the south go.

Vyacheslav is offline  
Old
10-15-2012, 10:18 PM
  #17
glovesave_35
Name
 
glovesave_35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Korea
Country: United States
Posts: 15,775
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyacheslav View Post
Exactly, and I can't imagine a president of either party doing it either. With that kind of logic, Lincoln would have let the south go.
England fought the Scottish at various times to regain or keep control of Scotland, right?

glovesave_35 is offline  
Old
10-15-2012, 10:29 PM
  #18
The Moose
Registered User
 
The Moose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 5,351
vCash: 500

The Moose is online now  
Old
10-15-2012, 10:34 PM
  #19
Doctor Drej
Unregistered User
 
Doctor Drej's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The Quiet Room
Country: United States
Posts: 10,921
vCash: 500
My first thought when I saw this news. ^

Doctor Drej is offline  
Old
10-15-2012, 10:59 PM
  #20
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 111,226
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmythescot View Post

All in all, Scotland would probably be in a surplus after cutting our ridiculous defence expenditure and finally directly benefiting from our most precious natural resource. .
Scotland will have to build a military from ground up ,, Even if only a small one that will cost $$$

Blackhawkswincup is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 03:57 AM
  #21
jimmythescot
Registered User
 
jimmythescot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,399
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
Scotland will have to build a military from ground up ,, Even if only a small one that will cost $$$
Whenever two nations separate there is a negotiation process about who keeps what. Assets and liabilities. If we were to go by GDP or population it would be roughly the same split. So Scotland wouldn't be starting from scratch and would probably spend around £1.5Bn less than the rUK. So when we get to negotiations about who keeps the Nuclear bombs we can either make a concession to get more of the other kinds of hardware, more embassies, less debt or a readjusted marine border: or we can scuttle one of the subs (our share of the nuclear hardware by the earlier measure I stated) to join the German WWI fleet at Scapa Flow. I'm sure the diving tourists would love that.

EDIT: Just realised you might have meant personnel. Scotland has a long military tradition and the Scottish military is already separate from the rest of the UK.

EDIT2: Forgot to address the violence question. We've been campaigning for independence as long as Ireland has been. In fact, there was a bill in parliament in the 1920's granting Scotland independence. Then the great depression happened and it took a back burner. There has been very little terrorism at all in the name of Scottish independence. And the one guy who did was a lone nutter.

There has been a mild threat coming out of the Unionist side of Northern Ireland, but nothing out of Scotland from either side and I doubt there will be. We're talkers when it comes to politics.


Last edited by jimmythescot: 10-16-2012 at 04:18 AM.
jimmythescot is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 05:30 AM
  #22
Ugmo
Registered User
 
Ugmo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Country: Austria
Posts: 10,715
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBryanRoleModel View Post
Yeah; I don't necessarily agree with the politics of the South, but I'd fight to keep them from leaving.
I wouldn't. Good riddance, I'd say!

Ugmo is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 10:18 AM
  #23
Burke the Legend
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,124
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by glovesave_35 View Post
England fought the Scottish at various times to regain or keep control of Scotland, right?
Not exactly... They were seperate kingdoms during the middle ages that fought a lot of wars, in the early/high middle ages over territory disputes and in the late middle ages over succession wars. The royal lines of both Kingdoms were mixed so on succession events you'd have English kings of Scotland and even vice-versa. Look up the House of Stuart, House of Tudor, House of Hanover for more info..

Then Scotland went bankrupt in the early 18th century and formed a union with England to create the Kingdom of Great Britain.

The succession wars ended with the Battle of Culloden in 1745 when remaining pro-Stuart forces were finally crushed by loyalist forces.

After that, being part of Great Britain worked out incredibly well for Scotland, and they enjoyed a golden age as part of the British Empire. Scottish Merchants prospered, Scottish philosophers are still historically renowned, and when industrialization created a great population upheavel amongst sustanence farmers in Britain, people who lost their land had lots of options to resettle in the fertile and wide open lands of the imperial colonies.

Now that Great Britain is now longer a superpower but just another modern social democrate nation, the point of the union is being questioned. Personally I don't think they'll seperate, cuz the fact is that Scotiland is overall poorer than England due to socialist leanings, and is subsidized by Federal spending. It also enjoys outsized influence in UK internal politics so I don't see how anyone can honestly claim Scotland is being exploited in the Union. There's also no significant language or religious cleavages, so the whole thing is really quite idiotic and the sign of decadence from people with nothing better to do.

Burke the Legend is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 11:03 AM
  #24
Sevanston
Moderator
 
Sevanston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 11,396
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burke the Legend View Post
Now that Great Britain is now longer a superpower but just another modern social democrate nation, the point of the union is being questioned. Personally I don't think they'll seperate, cuz the fact is that Scotiland is overall poorer than England due to socialist leanings, and is subsidized by Federal spending. It also enjoys outsized influence in UK internal politics so I don't see how anyone can honestly claim Scotland is being exploited in the Union. There's also no significant language or religious cleavages, so the whole thing is really quite idiotic and the sign of decadence from people with nothing better to do.
I think you underestimate how much people love their signs of decadence.

If enough people are convinced (rightly or wrongly) that Scotland won't suffer socially or economically from a split, then I'd expect the vast majority vote for the sign of decadence.

My American history teacher once told me that if he lived in the time of the American Revolution, he would've stayed loyal to the crown. After years of studying the issues, he decided that the colonies didn't have much to complain about. After all, their biggest problems with the British could've been sorted out if they had just been given a seat or two in Parliament (or even granted a parliament of their own). Beyond that, the biggest complaints of the populace (not the Founding Fathers) were just taxes and how much they could personally claim of westward expansion. The former is a minor complaint, and the latter could've been easily sorted out.

But even the small complaints they had were enough to rally the entire country toward independence. So I wouldn't put it past the Scottish to decide something similar.


Last edited by Sevanston: 10-16-2012 at 11:10 AM.
Sevanston is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 11:23 AM
  #25
glovesave_35
Name
 
glovesave_35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Korea
Country: United States
Posts: 15,775
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burke the Legend View Post
The royal lines of both Kingdoms were mixed so on succession events you'd have English kings of Scotland and even vice-versa. Look up the House of Stuart, House of Tudor, House of Hanover for more info..
The House of Tudor had little to do with Scotland, at least as far as direct monarchy of England is concerned. Also, my post was intentionally vague as it should be obvious that at various times in their respective histories England and Scotland were independent kingdoms. Moreover, the movie Braveheart isn't entirely fictional. Edward I of House Plantaganet was indeed concerned with bringing the kingdom of Scotland into the English fold. It wasn't until Elizabeth I failed to produce an heir to the throne that Scottish royalty was called upon to rule England.

glovesave_35 is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:59 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.