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

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

Gas, not oil, where are all the gas fields?
Would vote No
English
Don’t have a vote
[/quote]

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.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20042070

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.

Really Ernie any links to back that up.
South Africa became independent {for the white minority ) in 1934 I think long before

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
and then

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
Just as a point of interest are all better together supporters getting two votes?
No wonder you hope no one notices 😉

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.