"Do you THINK Scotland will vote yes and gain Independence"

What do you THINK the result will be

  • Total voters
    67
Status
Not open for further replies.
At least the Scots people are getting a say in the matter this time around. They weren't given the choice in 1603; their king decided for them.
 
From the people I've talked to, everyone is fed up with all the coverage.

The media are having a feeding frenzy about it.
 
I was talking to my Mum about this last night. She was born in St Andrews but has lived in England since she was 3, but she's very Scottish as she grew up as the youngest of 11 Scottish children lol
She was telling me that anyone who has lived in Scotland for the last 3 months can vote, but someone born in Scotland but doesn't currently live there cannot vote !!

She's a bit miffed about that hahaha
 
Jay said:
I was talking to my Mum about this last night. She was born in St Andrews but has lived in England since she was 3, but she's very Scottish as she grew up as the youngest of 11 Scottish children lol
She was telling me that anyone who has lived in Scotland for the last 3 months can vote, but someone born in Scotland but doesn't currently live there cannot vote !!

She's a bit miffed about that hahaha
Click to expand...
The thing is this isn't a vote that will just effect Scotland so why should only residents get a vote. I live in Devon but I bet if its a yes vote me and my children will be effected.

The nations of this little island working together as one has work for centuries. We have fought and won wars to keep it that way. Why screw it up because people don't like being told what to do by London. I don't like being told what to do by London, and I'm sure Lyon doesn't with Paris, Texas by Washington etc.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it
 
Last edited:
Bobsyeruncle said:
Why is it a one time irreversible thing? We've been independent before, then not independent for 300 years. Who's to say we won't be part of another union in the future? Maybe if Scotland really prospers, you could be in one with us:LOL:
Click to expand...

You're right. It will be fascinating to watch how long a country without any kind of army and that keeps banging on about how much oil it has will remain independent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Raptor Mike said:
The thing is this isn't a vote that will just effect Scotland so why should only residents get a vote. I live in Devon but I bet if its a yes vote me and my children will be effected.

The nations of this little island working together as one has work for centuries. We have fought and won wars to keep it that way. Why screw it up because people don't like being told what to do by London. I don't like being told what to do by London, and I'm sure Lyon doesn't with Paris, Texas by Washington etc.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it
Click to expand...
Well, for starters, Lyon and Texas are not countries, whereas Scotland is. Big difference.
 
JonathanRyan said:
You're right. It will be fascinating to watch how long a country without any kind of army and that keeps banging on about how much oil it has will remain independent.
Click to expand...

Well, the last time a small country with lots of oil and no army got invaded, there was plenty of help available to boot out the invaders. Why would it be any different just because it's Scotland?
 
JonathanRyan said:
I think their "help" to non members comes with a few conditions.
Click to expand...
What would those conditions be? Any idea? Considering we've been a member for years, and would still have nukes on our soil, I don't see them worrying too much about conditions:D
A non issue I think.
 
JonathanRyan said:
Also, I think they get charged for the bombs NATO drop on them. Then NATO gets to choose which government they elect next.
Click to expand...


and not forgetting if they no longer like the one they've chosen, or it starts to act in its own national interest then they can always 'encourage' a little coup d'etat. Completely bloodless of course ;)
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
What would those conditions be? Any idea? Considering we've been a member for years, and would still have nukes on our soil, I don't see them worrying too much about conditions:D
A non issue I think.
Click to expand...

I lose track of who "we" are and also what plans are real and which are media hype. I thought:

1. A future independent Scotland was dedicated to becoming a non nuclear power "immediately".
2. I can't see any sensible outcome where Scotland declares itself non nuclear but allows England's leased nukes on their soil. Certainly everybody seems to agree that allt he jobs at Faslane are basically gone if it goes "yes".
3. Scotland have stated their desire (in the event of a yes vote) to join NATO but, like many things, it's unclear how that could actually happen. NATO is a nuclear power and likes to stick its weapons wherever it wants. A very real question would be "what's in it for NATO?" if Scotland applied to join.

Don't get me wrong - I think we (the UK) should get rid of al nukes and if necessary withdraw from NATO. But I don't see plausible plan to do that at the moment.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
We'll be a member anyway, so it's all a pretty pointless discussion.
Click to expand...

That's not what the yes campaign say.....

I just looked it up :) The stated policy is that Scotland would apply to join only if NATO agreed never to station nukes on their territory. I ask again, what's in it for NATO?
 
Fine. But when it all goes wrong, which it will, I hope we don't take them back. Otherwise its a case of the Scots thinking they can do better without the rest of the UK and screw what happens to them but if it goes wrong don't worry they'll take us back if it goes wrong.

There is so much we don't know eg currency. How rude to say they don't want the UK but they want our pound. How are they going to protect yourselves if something kicks off with a tiny army. What about the 8000 jobs lost when they removed trident? Even they're national bank is part owned by us and is going to leave Scotland in the case of an yes vote. Salmond is blagging it and doesn't have a clue.

The best thing for Scotland and the rest of the UK is the UK and I wish Scots would stop their whinging about the problems that the rest of us also have to put up with and instead of wasting tax payers money on this petty vote use it to help rebuild the UK as a whole.
 
JonathanRyan said:
I lose track of who "we" are and also what plans are real and which are media hype. I thought:

1. A future independent Scotland was dedicated to becoming a non nuclear power "immediately".
2. I can't see any sensible outcome where Scotland declares itself non nuclear but allows England's leased nukes on their soil. Certainly everybody seems to agree that allt he jobs at Faslane are basically gone if it goes "yes".
3. Scotland have stated their desire (in the event of a yes vote) to join NATO but, like many things, it's unclear how that could actually happen. NATO is a nuclear power and likes to stick its weapons wherever it wants. A very real question would be "what's in it for NATO?" if Scotland applied to join.

Don't get me wrong - I think we (the UK) should get rid of al nukes and if necessary withdraw from NATO. But I don't see plausible plan to do that at the moment.
Click to expand...

1:The nukes can't disappear overnight, so I'd imagine we might be members until the nukes have actually gone. Don't really know?
2: who knows what will be negotiated to allow a currency union :p
3: a similar arrangement to Ireland would work. It works well for both Ireland and nato, according to the nato website. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_51979.htm#
 
Raptor Mike said:
Fine. But when it all goes wrong, which it will, I hope we don't take them back. Otherwise its a case of the Scots thinking they can do better without the rest of the UK and screw what happens to them but if it goes wrong don't worry they'll take us back if it goes wrong.

There is so much we don't know eg currency. How rude to say they don't want the UK but they want our pound. How are they going to protect yourselves if something kicks off with a tiny army. What about the 8000 jobs lost when they removed trident? Even they're national bank is part owned by us and is going to leave Scotland in the case of an yes vote. Salmond is blagging it and doesn't have a clue.

The best thing for Scotland and the rest of the UK is the UK and I wish Scots would stop their whinging about the problems that the rest of us also have to put up with and instead of wasting tax payers money on this petty vote use it to help rebuild the UK as a whole.
Click to expand...
The last thing that Scotland wants is to come cap in hand to RUK for help if it all goes pear shaped. So we will do whatever it takes to ensure that it works. For us, failure is not an option.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
1:The nukes can't disappear overnight, so I'd imagine we might be members until the nukes have actually gone. Don't really know?
Click to expand...


Yeah, in all this, it's the don't knows that are worrying. If you want to play the us and them game - they aren't your nukes and they aren't ours either. The UK lease them off the US. I suspect the US will just take them away along with all the jobs though this may take a few months (an article in the Telegraph says the US Defense Department are basically unaware of the vote so who knows? I think they are busy ATM).

Bobsyeruncle said:
2: who knows what will be negotiated to allow a currency union :p
Click to expand...

You're possibly under the misapprehension that people want a currency union with Scotland. You need a currency, you need a bank to back that currency up. Realistically you need a currency union with somebody as other options are expensive and risky. But I can't really see anybody that needs a currency union with Scotland. That's not a strong negotiating position.

Bobsyeruncle said:
3: a similar arrangement to Ireland would work. It works well for both Ireland and nato, according to the nato website. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_51979.htm#
Click to expand...

As I understand it, that's rather like the vetoes that the UK agreed with the EU. Ireland were already a member of NATO and negotiated this deal from inside. Like the UK negotiated a deal with the EU that we didn't have to have the Euro. Any new joiners of the EU have to adopt the Euro (or did last time I checked - which is one reason why Scotland can't use the pound and join the EU). Nobody seems to know how NATO will react if Scotland says "we want to join but don't want your nukes". I've a funny feeling the UK has a veto on new members so that will be interesting.

Basically, it's easier to negotiate when you're a member of something than when you want to join. Unless you have something really good to bring to the party. The only hope I can see is that Scotland are right about the amount of oil they have.
 
If it should result in a NO vote there are still bound to be far reaching changes that will affect the rest of the UK. Scotland has been promised more powers if they vote NO. Our late, unlamented, unelected and Scottish prime minister has demanded that Westminster give certain guarantees:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29203695

I draw your attention ti item 1.
"He wants a guarantee that any future constitutional change will be made with Scotland's involvement. Some will fear that without such a guarantee, calls for more powers for England could be debated without Scotland being consulted".

So, in his world, more powers for Scotland have nothing to do with England, but any more powers for England and Scotland must be consulted. England wasn't consulted about Scottish devolution, and we've been told to keep our noses out of this debate. The man has some neck; for years Scottish MPs have been voting (interfering) in matters that only concern rUK. He and his predecessor, another Scot, did nothing about that.

My own personal view has always been "better together", but the way things have gone, and are going, I am hoping for a resounding YES.
 
JonathanRyan said:

Yeah, in all this, it's the don't knows that are worrying. If you want to play the us and them game - they aren't your nukes and they aren't ours either. The UK lease them off the US. I suspect the US will just take them away along with all the jobs though this may take a few months (an article in the Telegraph says the US Defense Department are basically unaware of the vote so who knows? I think they are busy ATM).
Click to expand...

We don't lease the nukes, they are UK property, designed and built here (at Aldermaston). What is leased, is the actual Trident delivery system (the missile the nuclear warhead is attached to).
 
Dave1 said:
We don't lease the nukes, they are UK property, designed and built here (at Aldermaston). What is leased, is the actual Trident delivery system (the missile the nuclear warhead is attached to).
Click to expand...

Thanks. I was misinformed on FB (who'd have thought it?). That makes more sense. UK owned nukes which "we" will have to relocate somewhere using our leased kit.

I don't know as much about nuclear weapons as I thought I did - are all UK nuclear missiles actually on submarines. So we could in theory move them out of Scotland on Friday morning?

Blank_Canvas said:
Unlike Scottish Banks (RBS) etc which will be run from London !
Click to expand...

Despite the name, RBS isn't in any real sense a Scottish bank any more. This is the real issue with the currency - who will underwrite Scotland's currency?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top