[Closed] Do you think Scotland should be an independent country?

Live in Scotland
Voting Yes
Have a vote

English, lived in Scotland all of my adult life, voting on behalf of my kids best interests rather than my personal view
Do have a vote
Will be voting no

How the heck is Scotland like India, Scotland wasn't a colony. As such it benefited vastly as the rest of the UK did from being part of the Britain that ran the Empire. You only have to look at the history of Glasgow to see that.

English living in England
Undecided but would probably vote yes if I lived in Scotland

This is despite the truly worrying amounts of BS and bluster coming from the Yes camp and it's supporters.

Edit: inflammatory misleading nonsense like this:

[img] [/img]

a) you already have a Scottish Parliament b) the second map should show the whole UK including Scotland surely?

And Steff McDeff playing the 'poor wee Scotland under the yoke of the English colonial oppressors' card. 🙄

Scotland wasn't colonised.

Britishness is a false construct

No, it's not. Very clearly.

I'm English.
Live in England with no vote, would vote no, but have no objection to scots wanting to leave if they wish.
I do think it is foolish to base an economic/political decision on what is essentially xenophobia.
Also to those saying they want to get away from Westminster centric politics, they will just be damning themselves to Edinburgh centred politics instead. Scots politics is already infected with this, look at what happend with Holyrood Parliament building. Same shit different location.

Vote yes (what's the worst that can happen?)
live in Scotland
have a vote
am English.

what's the worst that can happen?

Fire, flood, earthquake, plague of locusts,... 😉

bencooper - Member

what's the worst that can happen?

Fire, flood, earthquake, plague of locusts,...

Please keep project fear out of it.

what's the worst that can happen?

A huge drop in living standards.

(what's the worst that can happen?)

Diminishing Oil revenues resulting in increased taxes to fund public services
Economic isolation, £ or Euro or neither?
Loss of major industry including finance sector.
No lender of last resort if there is a finance crisis.
Alex Salmonds smug 'glorious leader' face everywhere.
More Nicola Sturgeon.
Missing out on allowing Devo Max by the back door, a great opportunity for best of both worlds.

A huge drop in living standards.

Worse than the continuing and worsening austerity promised by all Westminster parties?

I do think it is foolish to base an economic/political decision on what is essentially xenophobia.

If this is how the independence campaign is being portrayed south of the border then I find it sad.

Its about a country deciding how it wants to be governed

Yes
English living in Holland
No vote

Yes because of the current democratic deficit in England/Wales with Scottish votes being counted on matters which are none of their business. Also 300 years Scotland acting like a fairground owner in Scooby Doo - "It'd have been all OK if it wasn't for them pesky English" - is enough. It is time for Scotland to stand or fall on its own.

If this is how the independence campaign is being portrayed south of the border then I find it sad.

I think comment was made with reference to this :

I'm sure every part of the map of Empire that used to be coloured red went its own way with the admonition and scorn of Her Majesty's Government and its lackeys and lickspittles ringing in their ears. A few years later, how many of these disloyal subjects have crawled back for another lick at the colonial jackboot because Her Majesty's Government was right about them being too small/poor/remote/wayward/stupid to govern themselves? How many have been reduced to a system of barter in lieu of a currency? Which of them are pariah states that have not been admitted to the EU, the UN or NATO? How many of them have enjoyed the advantages of natural resources, wealth, education, location, etc etc that Scotland does?

Britishness is a false construct, a shorthand for Englishness, which is many decades past its sell-by date.

Which I'm sure you'll agree is quite an impressive xenophobic rant, there's even mention of the "colonial jackboot".

What tyres will I need in an independent Scotland?

That fictional austerity you mean? The one where you hold budgets and increase tax take, it's hardly austerity. If you want to see real austerity visit Greece or Ireland.

An iScotland will have to live within it's means, and its costs in many areas will rise, due to higher borrowing costs, no option of QE and loss of buying power. So who you going to tax to take up the slack? The oil and finance industries would be obvious starters but both are highly mobile, and could walk away if things get too much. So the other option is tighten budgets across the board and suddenly Westminster 'austerity' looks like the cuddly option.

What tyres will I need in an independent Scotland?

Slicks, as you'll need good grip to stick to a country that will be paved with gold.

Voting NO!
Scottish living in Scotland.
Yes I have a vote.

There was more to the Empire than boots on the ground in India. It is myopic to suggest Scotland was not heavily involved. The whole thing would probably not have been possible without the development of the steam engine by James Watt. Powered industry and helped UK textile sector clothe vast regions of the World.
It's use for locomotive power allowed convenient travel for millions around the globe and also allowed faster response by troops to quell these mutinies.

Scottish built ships transporting tea, wool, spices and other goods around the globe to make large sums of money, often for Scottish based merchants prior to the era of fair trade.

How many Clyde built ships were used in the slave trade? I am also sure there were no Scottish slave traders and plantation owners in the Americas either.

You could say that at that time the real power was not wielded out of London, but cities in the north, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow and Edinburgh.

You could say that at that time the real power was not wielded out of London, but cities in the north, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow and Edinburgh.

I completely agree - Scotland used to proudly describe itself as "North Britain". We were the workshop of the world.

That was killed off by successive governments, with Thatcher dealing the final blows, in favour of a London-centric economy based on financial speculation.

Alex Salmond is going to reestablish the Empire ?

That'll give Scottish shipbuilding a much needed boost.

Alex Salmond is going to reestablish the Empire ?

Yeah, because a Scottish empire worked so well last time 😉

A rebalancing away from the City would benefit not just Scotland, but Wales, the North of England, and a bunch of other places. The difference is that Scotland has a chance to do something about it.

The whole thing would probably not have been possible without the development of the steam engine by James Watt.

That is rubbish. It is a bit like saying the internet would not exist if Tim Berners-Lee had not invented it. Of course it would exist, someone else would have invented it a very short time later. Same for the steam engine and most other inventions.

No it won't. An independent Scotland will be in direct competition with Wales and England. There will be no winners only losers, and Scotland will probably lose most.

An independent Scotland will be in direct competition with Wales and England.

We already are. Funding, projects and investment are already a matter of competition between the countries and regions of the UK - the difference is that at the moment it's a rigged competition.

Vote for independence then.

The oil and finance industries would be obvious starters but both are highly mobile, and could walk away if things get too much.

Large chunks of finance industry have already indicated they will move away if there is no currency union. But we don't need to worry about minor detail like that, after all, Dear Leader Alex has said it will all be okay and he therefore doesn't really need a plan b.

Large chunks of finance industry have already indicated they will move away if there is no currency union. But we don't need to worry about minor detail like that, after all

Have they? All I've seen is some statements saying they might have to move and they're drawing contingency plans. Not the same thing at all.

Dear Leader Alex has said it will all be okay and he therefore doesn't really need a plan b.

It's silly comments like this that try and paint As as a dictator that devalue the debate and your opinion.

Scots were heavily involved in sugar tabs and tea trade,in fact the merchant city in Glasgow was funded from the profits of this. All done in the early 1800's when the first two were grown on plantations. In fact Rabbie Burns was already contracted to go and work as a overseer on a plantation in Jamaica whern his book of poems took off. However it was the Barsteward English made them do it!

It's silly comments like this that try and paint As as a dictator that devalue the debate and your opinion.

point taken about the silly dictator quote but I stand by my view that it is arrogant to not present an alternative to currency union and just work on the assumption that it will all be fine,

point taken about the silly dictator quote but I stand by my view that it is arrogant to not present an alternative to currency union and just work on the assumption that it will all be fine,

I assume that announcing a plan B would significantly effect the SNP's bargaining position. They'll have a plan B and C but obviously feel it's better in the short term stick with what they have.

The oil and finance industries would be obvious starters but both are highly mobile, and could walk away if things get too much.

How is the oil industry going to move away? Scotland is where the oil is.

Finance - several companies have said they're making contingency plans, but really they'd be negligent if they didn't. I used to work for IBM, looking after General Accident's mainframes, and they were stored at a tank-proof facility. The chances of a tank attacking an industrial estate in Perth were pretty slim, but they did it anyway to cover themselves.

A conservative MP earlier:

it would be "an empty step for the rest of the UK to decide that Scotland should not be allowed to use the pound because an independent Scotland, should one exist, would be the second largest market for rUK exports"

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/independence-debate-needs-a-bit-more-love.23750818

I think he underestimates his own party's ability to cut off its own nose to spite its face.

I completely agree - Scotland used to proudly describe itself as "North Britain". We were the workshop of the world.

That was killed off by successive governments, with Thatcher dealing the final blows, in favour of a London-centric economy based on financial speculation.

can't help but think that the real reason the snp is so successful is that the disaffection that we all feel with the mainstream parties in the UK is being expressed differently, just because there's an alternative way to vote. shame it's resulting in such a waste of energy and resource that could actually be being put to improve people's lives.

vote no.
british.
no vote.

we're stronger together.

We already are. Funding, projects and investment are already a matter of competition between the countries and regions of the UK - the difference is that at the moment it's a rigged competition.

Indeed - it's massively rigged towards London and Edinburgh.

whatnobeer - Member

All I've seen is some statements saying they might have to move and they're drawing contingency plans.

bencooper - Member

Finance - several companies have said they're making contingency plans, but really they'd be negligent if they didn't.

😕 Surely they should be making "contingency plans" to move to Scotland, not move away.

Haven't they heard the good news ?

live in england - half scottish/half english (lots of family still in scotland)

nope - don't think it is necessary for an independent scotland, but they have every right to choose

imo - we are better off together on this small island, i don't see the point of multiple parliaments, it will not benefit the population of this island

the only winners will the the scottish political class with a new tier of civil servants

the working class scots won't be better off but just the same, but at least they can't whinge at westminster any more, too many scots never leave home (including my family - we go up north, they never travel down south - they are not poor) and don't quite understand that a large proportion of people in Wales. NI and England feel the same way about london calling the shots

it sickens me that the true intentions/plans are not being correctly and rightly discussed up front with the scottish population first (defence/education/health/currency/the EU etc.) and it appears to be a case of vote first, and we'll work out the fine details later - never trust a politician

hey - at least if it goes ahead the LABOUR PARTY are screwed in Westminster!

orange - Member
...i don't see the point of multiple parliaments, it will not benefit the population of this island

the only winners will the the scottish political class with a new tier of civil servants

...it sickens me that the true intentions/plans are not being correctly and rightly discussed up front with the scottish population first (defence/education/health/currency/the EU etc.) and it appears to be a case of vote first, and we'll work out the fine details later - never trust a politician

hey - at least if it goes ahead the LABOUR PARTY are screwed in Westminster!

But don't you see, we're getting rid of 2 surplus parliaments, the Commons and the Lords, so that leaves us with just the one. 🙂

There's only so much that can be preplanned. There will be an election shortly after independence, and there will be policies and decisions to vote for.

Aye, the Labour party may well be screwed in Westminster unless they suddenly rediscover their roots and ditch all their pink Tories. If the independence movement succeeds it will be largely due to the vote of disaffected Scottish Labour voters (that bit is purely my opinion).

don't think it is necessary for an independent scotland

You don't think independence is necessary for an independent scotland?

too many scots never leave home (including my family - we go up north, they never travel down south - they are not poor) and don't quite understand that a large proportion of people in Wales. NI and England feel the same way about london calling the shots

this is an absolute peach 🙂

2001 Census found 38.9 thousand moved from
Scotland to England, and 43.7 thousand from
England to Scotland

Census data shows that the figures moving between north and south are almost equal. So 10 times as many Scots, proportionally, experience life in the England compared to the other way round.

More Scotland to England migrants tend to be young adults and England to Scotland migrants are more heavily weighted in the elderly category.

Oh well, maybe the colonial jackboot was a metaphor too far for some sensitive souls. I'd say that there is a whiff of colonialism about parts of Britain's historical relationship with Scotland - from the Clearances to Churchill's tanks in George Square. Of course Scotland isn't India - and yes, some Scots were enthusiastic empire-builders, and Glasgow in particular grew rich from exploiting the colonies.

The point I was trying to make is, there are many political entities whose relationship with Great Britain ran its course, one way or another, which have gone on to prosper as independent nations. I'm sure each of those in turn was threatened with an indypocalypse such as is now being predicted for Scotland. How many of them regret the decision?

The sky didn't fall down, the world didn't stop turning on its axis, when Australia, India, Ireland, Cyprus, wherever, ceded from the larger political entity to which they once belonged. Nor will it for Scotland, if that is the route it chooses to go down. Similarly dire warnings were bandied about by the No campaign in advance of the Devolution Referendum. How many Scots now would choose to vote their Parliament out of existence and return control of its remit to Westminster?

If the debaters would like to **** off to one of the other Independence threads, it would be much appreciated. This one was actually interesting for a while 🙄

If the debaters would like to **** off to one of the other Independence threads, it would be much appreciated. This one was actually interesting for a while

Was always going to happen. As soon as people start justifying a vote one way or another then they'll get questioned on it.

I've lost count of current tally, still looks pretty even between those can actually vote.

Hold on...this isn't an independence thread???

Sorry 😳

More Scotland to England migrants tend to be young adults and England to Scotland migrants are more heavily weighted in the elderly category.

Ooh you cheeky sod

Can vote:
??Yes 16 (50%) ??No 16 (50%)

Can't vote:
?Yes 8 (38%)??No 13 (62%)

Truly independent. Yes but I doubt that's what they want.
After that would mean that every penny that was ever input by the UK would have to be retrieved. They don't own the North sea gas, the UK does. Moral Scotland would have to start again with only what was owned by private Scottish individuals and companies. You can't say I am leaving the club and taking the club resources' with you.

They don't own the North sea gas, the UK does.

International law would disagree with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone

Truly independent. Yes but I doubt that's what they want.
After that would mean that every penny that was ever input by the UK would have to be retrieved. They don't own the North sea gas, the UK does. Moral Scotland would have to start again with only what was owned by private Scottish individuals and companies.

What? If by "truly independent" you mean cut off from all other organisations and other countries, then no, we don't want that But then no one does. I really don't see what's so hard to understand about what we want when we say we want to be independent.

You can't say I am leaving the club and taking the club resources' with you.

Yes you can. It's more like a divorce, you can come to an agreement with the partner that wants to leave or you can let the courts decide the settlement.

How is the oil industry going to move away? Scotland is where the oil is

But you can easily service it from elsewhere, kit already goes out from Norway and England, as well as Scotland. As for other service we've done work for all around the world, and no O&G company builds much in the UK anymore, and if they did it would probably be in Newcastle anyway.

Add in that the North Sea is very mature with poor returns on many fields, which are often owned by Asian or Middle Eastern government controlled companies, and you have to say the future of North Sea oil isn't a particularly stable one.

It concerns me that people base arguments on principles which are completely flawed (and would be apparent if they bothered to do a quick google search). Hopefully most of those people don't actually have a vote.

Oh well, maybe the colonial jackboot was a metaphor too far for some sensitive souls. I'd say that there is a whiff of colonialism about parts of Britain's historical relationship with Scotland - from the Clearances to Churchill's tanks in George Square.

Who are you blaming for the clearances? I think you'll find it was mainly Scottish landowners.

Great example of ill-informed prejudice influencing voting decisions though.

They don't own the North sea gas, the UK does.

International law would disagree with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone
br />

Gas, not oil, where are all the gas fields?

Would vote No
English
Don't have a vote

No.
English.
Don't have a vote.

I am not sure that Scotland will stand well on its own and there's an awful lot of infrastructure that would need sorting out, currency being just one aspect. Ultimately I'm not convinced either country will come out of it better.

Was this irony?

I am also sure there were no Scottish slave traders and plantation owners in the Americas either.

Because this would suggest that Scotland had a slice in the slave trade:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Dunfermline/@12.1285946,-61.6156626,16z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x8c3819fd09637b19:0x6f3d8fdddea8e297
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Carriacou/@12.4537646,-61.4765739,15z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x8c387a53722524a7:0x84212d20ff812188

[quote=irelanst ]They don't own the North sea gas, the UK does.

International law would disagree with you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone

Gas, not oil, where are all the gas fields?
Would vote No
English
Don't have a vote

If Scotland were to get a "geographical share" based on the median line it would mean about 90% of the UK's oil resources would be under Scottish jurisdiction.

According to research by Prof Kemp, in 2010 the Scottish share of total oil production in the UKCS was more than 95% while for gas it was 58%. The Scottish share of total hydrocarbon production (including NGLs) was 80%. The Scottish tax share exceeded 90%. This reflects the much higher value of oil compared to gas.

Scottish. Have vote. Will vote Yes. (7/1 at Ladbrokes today for a 50-55% yes, btw)

Yes
English
No vote

Interested to see what happens to the oil revenue if there is a yes vote in most of Scotland but the Shetlands and/or Orkney vote no to independence or have their own referendum to leave a newly independent Scotland.

Talking of the odds I see the prices are roughly 4/1 for a Yes result

Yep the Hamilton family were well into slave trade as were many others.

Lots of Scots were sold into slavery as well.

(7/1 at Ladbrokes today for a 50-55% yes, btw)

Currently 4-1 for a simple 'Yes', however 'No' is 1-6

Who are you blaming for the clearances? I think you'll find it was mainly Scottish landowners.

Great example of ill-informed prejudice influencing voting decisions though.

I blame a colonial mindset among absentee landlords for the Clearances. The Duke of Sutherland, among the most notorious of them, was about as Scottish as the present-day Duke of Edinburgh.

I can't say that getting it rrright up the English out of revenge for centuries-old historical grievances, real or imagined, would be uppermost in my mind as I entered the ballot box, though.

If I had the vote, I would be voting Yes to decouple Scotland from a neo-liberal, London-centric Westminster consensus in the here and now, in the hope, not certainty, that an independent Scotland could come up with something better and more responsive to the needs of its people.

StefMcDef - Member

I'm sure each of those in turn was threatened with an indypocalypse such as is now being predicted for Scotland. How many of them regret the decision?

Well no one can accuse you of letting the facts get in the way of your subjective opinions, that's for sure!

To claim that each of Britain's former colonies were threatened with an indypocalypse couldn't possibly be further from the truth. Far from claiming that there would be negative effects because of independence Britain went out of its way to facilitate an easy transition to independence and make it go as smoothly as possible.

There were of course exceptions such as Rhodesia and South Africa were British governments were unhappy about handing control over to white supremacists, and a few dodgy going ons to establish pro Western governments in some other countries, but independence was positively encouraged. Look up Harold Macmillan's "Wind of Change" speech.

And you really are not comparing like for like when talk of Australia, India, Ireland, and Cyprus. Firstly independence for Scotland will result in two competing countries with very simular technological and financial abilities coexisting together without borders on a relatively small island. One will have a far larger economy than the other and far more resources and diplomatic clout. Competition will be bad for both countries but worse for the weaker of the two.

Independence for Australia or India did not result in a simular clash of interests or competition.

The case of Ireland is somewhat different. There the British, and this includes the Scots, were smart enough to partition the country and keep the most prosperous, wealthy, and industrial bit, for themselves, they let the nationalists have the rest which was poor, technologically backward, and relied on a primate agrarian economy.

The consequence of this was that for decades after independence Ireland suffered very high levels of poverty causing many Irish to come to the UK in search of work and higher wages. However the highly repressive nature of British rule still made independence a worthwhile achievement for the Irish. Nothing even vaguely comparable can be said of Scotland today.

Of course in more recent decades Britain's industrial advantages over independent Ireland have diminished, Northern Ireland isn't quite the economic asset that it was a hundred years ago, and also as a result of Ireland advancing and diversifying, things have changed. Although sustained economic stability is still a goal to be achieved for Ireland.

Either compare like for like, or if you can't find a suitable comparison, don't make a comparison at all.

Yes (though I do have some anxieties about the consequences of the resulting political landscape in England - I have family there).

Live in Scotland.
I do have a vote.

though I do have some anxieties about the consequences of the resulting political landscape in England - I have family there

If you are worried about a permanent Tory government in Westminster, don't, that's something of a myth, Labour would still have had a majority after the 1997, 2001, and 2005, general elections, even without Scottish MPs.

IMO independence for Scotland is more likely to result in a change of political landscape in Scotland. I'm sure that much of the increase in the Labour vote in Scotland over the last 30 years or so has been in reaction to Tory governments in Westminster. Remove the Tory government in Westminster effect and I suspect that the Labour vote in Scotland will start to suffer.

Britain went out of its way to facilitate an easy transition to independence and make it go as smoothly as possible.

Harold Macmillan's "Wind of Change" speech

Really Ernie any links to back that up.

No I'll let you do that, otherwise just dismiss it as nonsense if you want.

Yes South Africa became independent long before Harold Macmillan's "Wind of Change" speech, I'm aware of that.

It was also an attack on independent South Africa :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/3/newsid_2714000/2714525.stm

Dunno why youse always harp on about the colonial past, whether Scottish or English or combined. It has no bearing on the discussion, which is about the future.

seosamh77 - Member
Dunno why youse always harp on about the colonial past, whether Scottish or English or combined. It has no bearing on the discussion, which is about the future.

Yup, the only value of the past is to make sure we learn the lessons, and don't repeat the mistakes.

This is why independence and democracy are the best options.

What we can learn from the Clearances and slave trading is that people who are influential or wealthy can get off with murder when there is no democracy to hold them accountable.

Highland Scots should also remember that it was outrage in England that helped bring the Clearances down to a trickle. They should also remember that some of the clan chiefs (eg MacLeod & MacDonald) rounded up their own clans people to export them as slaves to the West Indies.

No
Live in Scotland.
I have a vote.

Hope nobody notices.

Honestly though, I am encouraged by how many people here are eligible to vote, and will be voting no, despite not getting drawn into a debate. I find it hard to bite my tongue.

I tend not to get drawn into religious debates, and suppose others do not like to get drawn into discussions about publications of fanciful fiction and deity's.

I tend not to get drawn into religious debates, and suppose others do not like to get drawn into discussions about publications of fanciful fiction and deity's.

And deity's what?

I didn't understand any of that, but this seems like a good place to start.

Britain went out of its way to facilitate an easy transition to independence and make it go as smoothly as possible.

Really? How does the Suez Crisis fit with that scenario? Was that not the UK attempting and failing to hold the canal zone rather than hand it back to Egypt.

As for India. Doesn't sound like an easy transition to me.

I described in my last lecture how the conditions that had enabled Britain to acquire and rule the vast area of the Indian sub-continent, with its huge population and resources, were coming to an end after 1918. In particular, a new educated Indian elite began agitating first for self-governing Dominion status and then for independence. British concessions in the form of elected legislatures were matched by repressive measures, the continuation of wartime emergency powers after 1918, and the mowing down of a peaceful protest by troops under the command of General Reginald Dyer at Amritsar in 1918 in which 380 Indians were killed and more than a thousand wounded. Dyer had ordered public floggings of Indians after a number of Europeans had been murdered in the city, and a white woman missionary had been assaulted, and his ‘crawling order’, making Indians crawl on all fours at the site of the assault, exacerbated tensions considerably. Dyer was censured and dismissed but not prosecuted, and the incident did much to discredit British rule.

In the 1920s the civil disobedience campaign led by Gandhi frequently spilled over into demonstrations, riots and violence, met by the British authorities with growing repression, and as economic problems spread, so the educated elite’s campaign gain more widespread popular support. The Government of India Act of 1935, extending the electorate to 30 million people, still very limited, and giving more rights to legislatures, led to sweeping electoral victory for Congress in 1937. The limits of Indian influence were graphically underlined in 1939 when the British government declared war on behalf of India without any consultation. Congress leaders resigned their government posts in protest and were arrested. At the end of the war, as they were released, events were rapidly spinning out of British control. British cartoonists ridiculed Gandhi’s policy of non-violence during the war; but in fact it had led to major changes, perhaps accelerated by the threat of violence should it fail.

http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/decolonization-the-end-of-empire

You are a very persistent voter athgray

athgray - Member
No
Scotland.
I will vote.

POSTED 1 DAY AGO # REPORT-POST

athgray - Member
No
Live in Scotland.
I have a vote.

Hope nobody notices.

Honestly though, I am encouraged by how many people here are eligible to vote, and will be voting no, despite not getting drawn into a debate. I find it hard to bite my tongue.

I tend not to get drawn into religious debates, and suppose others do not like to get drawn into discussions about publications of fanciful fiction and deity's.

POSTED 58 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST

I reckon it might help gordimhor.

By the way, Mrs athgray intends to vote no also.

page 5 and it's off to cut and paste land 🙂

😆

I hope the OP is logging the IP's

Really? How does the Suez Crisis fit with that scenario?

Extremely well. I pointed out that Britain was involved in "a few dodgy going ons" there was no attempt to stop Egypt being independent, the priorities became to guarantee pro-western governments which would serve in the interests of neo-colonism.

And when India was given independence by a Labour government in 1947 this signaled the beginning of the dissolution of the British Empire, a process which was encouraged by Britain and which Britain attempted to ensure went as smoothly as possible.

Obviously whilst Britain was building and maintaining the Empire it did not encourage independence movements, I would have thought that goes without saying. But eventually when the right of independence was accepted as a legitimate right Britain did not threatened "an indypocalypse" to each country, as StefMcDef falsly claims.

Harold Macmillan's "Wind of Change" speech showed how far Britain had moved in supporting and encouraging the right of self-determination of the peoples of the colonies.

The "Wind of Change" that Macmillan spoke of was not an apocalyptic wind.

Results from the survey sitting at:
Do you think Scotland should be an independent country?

yes 39.4% 39
no 58.6% 58
don't know 2.0% 2

Do you have a vote?

yes 44.0% 44
no 56.0% 56

Of the 44 that have a vote (I manually counted these)

no 20
yes 24

which is surprising.