Forum menu
There is no common Scottish culture.
I guess those of us who were born and live here will just have to bow to your greater knowledge of the Jocks.
LHS - That's Scandinavian nothing to do with the Scots.
I think you will find there are a number of ****ts in Scotland.
Is this thread going to get back on track at all as I thought AS's speech was hilarious!
The pot was there yelling at the kettle, then the little boy came in & started stamping his feet, making threats if he didn't get what he wanted...
Seriously though, I had some respect for AS prior to this speech but now HA! What a clown!
Just to clarify, I have no axe to grind ref the Scottish independence. I don't why it shouldn't go ahead but AS's take on "independence" needs an entry in the dictionary all of its own because it bears no resemblance to the version of independence I'm familiar with.
Some interesting stuff re EU membership:
http://futureukandscotland.ac.uk/blog/scottish-independence-and-eu
I like that ben, easy to read and clearly sets out the position at hand.
Winston this is from the open university mooc "Gaelic in Modern Scotland"
1 Gaelic as a national language of Scotland
1.1 Introduction
Modern Scotland, like most nations of the world, is a multilingual entity with a complex linguistic history. In many people’s eyes, Gaelic belongs predominantly to the Highlands and (west coast) Islands, but the linguistic division of Scotland along the Highland/Lowland line reflects only the latter part of the country’s long history.
Indeed, of recorded Scottish languages, Gaelic defers solely to English with regard to its maximum geographical extent. The only modern administrative regions which have no significant Gaelic heritage are the Northern Isles of Orkney and Shetland, which remained outside the Scottish kingdom (and the later ‘Gàidhealtachd’) at the time of Gaelic pre-eminence and whose inhabitants view themselves as belonging largely to the Norse sphere of influence.
Incidentally you said it was not a success that gaelic is still spoken in Scotland
and in another post you said referring to gaels1% doesn't sound very successful to me.
Your own wordsThey were ethnically cleansed in the Clearances, this wasn't done by just the English but their fellow Scots helped as well.
Yet they and their language remain.
The language is pretty much dead, it's not like you see it on any official documents or hear anyone speak it in the street. Compare that with Wales where it Welsh is used regularly.
Then English is the language of international business and Scotland, so any arguments about independance and language is blind alley.
I actually agree with you there Dragonarguments about independance and language is blind alley.
Its just the claims that there is no distinct Scottish culture that are laughable really
Interesting article about bias in the media:
Ooh, that pesky Wikipedia again - actually a more accurate translation of a'Ghalldachd is the non-Gaelic-speaking lands. But whatever - Gaelic might not be the prime language of many, but Gaelic words and especially place names are common. Scots words even more so.
The gaeltacht, is the gaelic speaking parts. btw fwiw England has lots of Celtic place names etc aswell.
btw dunno why Celtic history is coming into this, the whole of these islands, England included and a fair old chunk of europe has Celtic origins.
History doesn't really come into it, it's quite simple, there are a fair old whack of scots that feel we'd be better represented in a smaller Democratic grouping. That doesn't mean that what went previous is wrong, just at this moment in time, we feel that the larger grouping is deverging from what we want. Example, is that when they proxy parties get into power in holyrood(scottish labour), under the UK government, watch them dismantle the health service, free eduction etc, all to be inline with England.
That's why I'm voting for an IS, I'm against the privatisation of the individual.
Bugger all to do with who did and didn't speak gaelic(my grandparents first language) or any perseption of cultural differences, which are minimal.
Precisely. I'm first-generation Scottish with English and American parents, my partner is English. All voting for independence. This isn't about history, it's about the future.
ps that wasn't particularly aimed at you! 😉bencooper - Member
Precisely. I'm first-generation Scottish with English and American parents, my partner is English. All voting for independence. This isn't about history, it's about the future.
Didn't think it was 😉
teamhurtmore - Member
In his usual, unbalanced way wee eck with stand up tomorrow and talk about only one side of currency unions - reducing transaction costs and he will "dress this up" by calling GO/EB/DA/HM Tres notion (incorrectly) a "tax" on business. Conveniently, he will ignore the other side of unions - giving up independence - since that is counter to the whole debate. He will of course also use the three Bs and "assets". He may also have to add his mate's new retort "preposterous" as well? If only predicting the outcome of horse races was this easy!
POSTED 22 HOURS AGO #
Been in meetings most of today and only read FT and BBC coverage, but pretty much a full house in the BS stakes
1. " george tax" (tick): nice tag line and will ring bells. But complete bollocks. Not even close to a tax. Yes if you don't share currencies there are transaction costs but that is not even close to the definition of tax. Add "george tax" to "assets" in the BS bingo. Classic Amber light of BS coming up next.
2. No recognition of the counter argument of seperate currencies (tick). Not surprise there. Presenting one side of the argument and loading it with negative (and he talks about a positive story) and false descriptions
3. The liability arguments again and the threat of a technical defaul (tick).
4. Three Bs (cross) as far as I can see from reports. But a nice opening line about misjudging the Scots people. We prefer to swallow our own/ my lies (since they are home grown porkies) rather than being bullied with the truth from anyone else.
Lays the foundations for the House of Hubris perfectly. I can't face reading the full text yet, time for a run instead.
[url= http://http://news.scotland.gov.uk/Speeches-Briefings/First-Minister-speech-February-17-2014-95a.aspx ]full text of Salmonds speech[/url]
Summarising without reading THM 🙂
I guess those of us who were born and live here will just have to bow to your greater knowledge of the Jocks.
Do you have much experience of, say, the Outer Hebrides? I think your average borders resident has far more in common with the English than they do with the locals on Harris and Lewis.
Example, is that when they proxy parties get into power in holyrood(scottish labour), under the UK government, watch them dismantle the health service, free eduction etc, all to be inline with England.
The current lot are managing to destroy it atm!!
MrsT has an insight into what goes on out with hospitals but still in NHS and it is a shambles. Millions of pounds have been and are being wasted.........Too many quangos and nothing joined up.
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/lies-damned-lies-and-statistics.html
Bencooper if it went pear shaped you'd probably decide on a job elsewhere leaving real Scots with their family ties/roots
British in the sense a German or Italian is European. If you ask my nationality, it's always been Scottish. Don't English people do the same?
Not me - I'm British if asked, English if pressed, Devonian if pressed further. 😉
I think this is actually a big drawback for the English. we're under-represented, and I think this is possibly because most of us feel British, so why would we need another parliament, other than the one we've got? don't know - nothing to back that up.
Therefore no English parliament. Personally I'd rather we all did without regional assemblies, including the welsh and scots, as they're just another tier of politicians feeding in the trough which ultimately we all have to pay for.
More politicians is not something anyone really wants, is it, politicians aside?
Anyway, rather off the point of the ( quite interesting ) thread.
Personally i'd rather see the Union stay together. surely we're stronger together? simplistic view maybe...
Gordi, thanks for the link. It couldn't get it to work. Maybe a bit tired after a quick 10 miler. But read it off the STV website in full.
Actually a bit of credit is due to wee eck this time. Of course there is the expected BS and the new addition of the "George tax" lie, but that is just par for the course. Given that his advisers are currently arguing about what plan c should be, he made a reasonable fist of the bad hand that he was dealt. Plus he made a very subtle but important change of tack. When presenting the smokes and mirrors about debt and the pound, he very carefully avoided use of the word pound at the same time as saying asset. Finally learning or just a slip? Instead he referred to the BOE as the shared asset, which is much better. Keep going at this rate and he might start telling the whole truth.
I'm British. I speak English.
Personally I'd rather we all did without regional assemblies, including the welsh and scots, as they're just another tier of politicians feeding in the trough which ultimately we all have to pay for.
+10
The less of them the better.
TBH, if I was a Scot I'd be very concerned about AS - he doesn't appear to have your best interests at heart & I think he's going to end up shafting you on the altar of his ambition/ego..
mrlebowski - Member
TBH, if I was a Scot I'd be very concerned about AS - he doesn't appear to have your best interests at heart & I think he's going to end up shafting you on the altar of his ambition/ego..
How can he do that? Can you give an instance?
You realise we will be having regular elections, and it's unlikely the SNP will survive as a party past the honeymoon period.
Ok links not working that's what I get for trying to post links from a mobile
Mainly as he's offerng nothing but vagauries & weak assurances seemingly backed up by nothing more than empty threats..
He does not strike me as being remotely trustworthy.
Mainly as he's offerng nothing but vagauries & weak assurances seemingly backed up by nothing more than empty threats..
He can't offer anything definite as Westminster refuses to ask for the advice or 'pre-negotiate' (though they were happy to state a position on a currency union). The 'empty' threat of not taking debt is an option as the debt belongs to the UK, not Scotland, even though it is unlikely to pass, it is still an option.
He can't offer anything definite as Westminster refuses to ask for the advice or 'pre-negotiate' (though they were happy to state a position on a currency union). The 'empty' threat of not taking debt is an option as the debt belongs to the UK, not Scotland, even though it is unlikely to pass, it is still an option.
Ah ok, so it's all Westminsters fault that he's offered no other options?
So far as EU membership goes it certainly is all Westminster s fault as the Uk govt is the only one that can askthe EU for a definitive statement on Scotland joining. The Westminster govt has refused to do so.
So far as EU membership goes it certainly is all Westminster s fault as the Uk govt is the only one that can askthe EU for a definitive statement on Scotland joining. The Westminster govt has refused to do so.
& financial union? I think Westminster has made their stance fairly clear.
I would like to see the no campaign grab the greater powers for Holyrood (devo Max) option and beat dear leader at his own game.
He keeps expecting the no camp to legitimise his position by pre negotiating on independence. I firmly believe that the majority of Scots would vote for increased powers, and would welcome debate on possible options. Darling should not meekly mummble out a press release on this, if sincere and meaningful he should use it as his main weapon. The no camp can claim to have it's finger on the pulse of most Scots, and if Cameron shows support he might find even his ratings in Scotland improve slightly.
They can even reach out to dear leader to discuss it on amicable terms, knowing he won't touch it with a barge pole, unless devo max is what he is after.
If currently the polls are 40%, 40%, with 20% undecided, I reckon all the undecided become no and possibly 10% of the yes side becomes no.
It is important to stress that to sway some of the yes voters, commitment has to be given and powers have to be meaningful. Dear leader will squirm then.
In addition, Milliband needs to stand up and say more. Labour really need to speak out more to its core support. He recently called for introduction of 45p tax rate. The pros and cons can be debated, however that tends to go down well in Scotland. For once when asked to comment on Millibands suggestion on radio, nobody from the SNP was available for comment.
The 'empty' threat of not taking debt is an option as the debt belongs to the UK, not Scotland, even though it is unlikely to pass, it is still an option.
Yes, but the balance of the negotiations has been fundamentally shifted - Salmond has put his ace on the table, and rUK have raised.
i) Scotland still wants their share of the other assets, everything from fighter planes to ships to pension funds - the keys are all in the rUK's drawer, and if Scotland don't take on their share, then the rUK can happily play scorched earth
ii) if Scotland tries to create a precedent of walking away without the debt, how do you think the other European nations with homegrown independence movements like Spain are going to respond to their EU application?
ii) if Scotland tries to create a precedent of walking away without the debt, how do you think the other European nations with homegrown independence movements like Spain are going to respond to their EU application?
Also, would you really want a country that's happy to default on a debt as any kind of trading partner?
Yep, and from day one of Independence, Scotland are going to have to raise capital from the markets (they, like rUK, are still running a budget deficit) - and I don't think that Wonga offer loans that big...
He can't offer anything definite as Westminster refuses to ask for the advice or 'pre-negotiate' (though they were happy to state a position on a currency union). The 'empty' threat of not taking debt is an option as the debt belongs to the UK, not Scotland, even though it is unlikely to pass, it is still an option.
What has this got to do with Westminster? It has`nt happened yet! Is it not the case that we have to wait till after the event and if Indy is declared we then have to apply for EU membership if "we" want it? Do we want it? will that be another vote required?
Same with the pound. Until we actually do gain Indy then all questions are hypothetical and it will take years to go through the courts?
What has this got to do with Westminster? It has`nt happened yet! Is it not the case that we have to wait till after the event and if Indy is declared we then have to apply for EU membership if "we" want it? Do we want it? will that be another vote required?
Same with the pound. Until we actually do gain Indy then all questions are hypothetical and it will take years to go through the courts?
You're a braver man than I voting for something without the knowledge of what it'll entail.
]ninfan
i) Scotland still wants their share of the other assets, everything from fighter planes to ships to pension funds - the keys are all in the rUK's drawer, and if Scotland don't take on their share, then the rUK can happily play scorched earth
That wouldn't look particularly fair or even democratic the yes scotland stance is we want a fair share of all the assets and would accept a fair share of the debt. We contributed to those assets. I see the question of whether currency is an asset as moot point and agree that rUk taxpayers should have a say in any negotiations. That is what both Mr Osborne and Mr Salmond have set out though negotiating positions.
But its 'Yes Scotland' who have been throwing around the threat of not paying - they've played their only card and Osborne has said 'so what', now Salmond has got nothing left to play!
We contributed to those assets.
So, if you want to keep them, then you've got to take on your share of the debt!
You're a braver man than I voting for something without the knowledge of what it'll entail.
And a lot of the debate comes down to that. If you believe the Scotland would be better governed from within Scotland then you'll vote Yes no matter what.
What has this got to do with Westminster? It has`nt happened yet! Is it not the case that we have to wait till after the event and if Indy is declared we then have to apply for EU membership if "we" want it? Do we want it? will that be another vote required?
AS is criticized for not offering facts on what will happen if there is a Yes vote. They've published what they want to happen but cant give anything firm as Westminster refuse to play ball. I'm sure you can see why they're doing this.
Also, would you really want a country that's happy to default on a debt as any kind of trading partner?
Scotland would have no debt to default on, it is all the UK's debt.
Scotland still wants their share of the other assets, everything from fighter planes to ships to pension funds - the keys are all in the rUK's drawer, and if Scotland don't take on their share, then the rUK can happily play scorched earth
I cant imagine why a scorched earth style approach would be in the best interests of the UK. A strong trading partner and economy in Scotland would surely be better for everyone involved.
Scotland would have no debt to default on, it is all the UK's debt.
If you want a share of the assets then you'd better take a share of the debts too.Also, as I understand. Scotland is legally bound to take a share of the UK debt - after all some of it is yours...just like the asserts...ergo if you don't accept the debt surely you are then defaulting on it..
If you want a share of the assets then you'd better take a share of the debts too.Also, as I understand. Scotland is legally bound to take a share of the UK debt - after all some of it is yours...just like the asserts...ergo if you don't accept the debt surely you are then defaulting on it..
The debts were run by the UK so they remain with the UK. So no debt to default on.
The Yes campaign want to take the debt as well as the assets, that's always been the position. One of an open and fair negotiation as set out in the Edinburgh agreement. It's only been a response to the extreme non pre-negotitating that's being going on that it's been floated.
...Legally under international law the position is clear: if the remainder UK keeps the name and status of the UK under international law, it keeps its liabilities for the debt. The UK took out the debt, and legally it owes the money. Scotland cannot therefore ‘default’. ...
[url= http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/blog/currency-reflections-legal-issues ]http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/blog/currency-reflections-legal-issues[/url]
The Yes campaign want to take the debt as well as the assets, that's always been the position.
No problem, but the position last week was that they wanted the assets [b]and[/b] currency union in return for shouldering their share of the debt
Now they're playing for just the assets
The debts were run by the UK so they remain with the UK. So no debt to default on.
Well, as suggested, you can wait and see what the markets think of that argument, and then see what Spain thinks of it when you negotiate for EU membership - I'm sure the prospect of walking into the moonlight without any debt would appeal to Catalonia as well
Oh, and guess who you've got to rely on to do your EU negotiation for you 😉
The debts were run by the UK so they remain with the UK. So no debt to default on.
Ok fine, then we'll keep your share of the assets too. Surely thats equally fair.
Legally the debt is not Scotlands, what's the legal position on any assets?
Surely Spain's vote is not the one they should worry about, I assume the UK will have a say.