Derek – I hope you work in some kind of creative industry, otherwise your talents are wasted.

[edit – damn, doesn’t work on a new page!]

No zokes – I am perfectly prepared for the Falklands to have self determination. I never argued anything different.

In that case, my apologies – I thought you were arguing that the islands belonged to Argentina, and that the 3000 Falklanders were just an occupying colonial force.

Assuming that the there is only one referendum and it is the one that Uncle Alex wants to hold. He (oops sorry), the SNP (sorry again), the Scottish Government are

– going to chose who can vote;
– going to chose the question(s) on the ballot paper;
– going to run the election (after all he is unbiased);
– going to count the votes; and
– finally going to determine what the Scottish Government should do.

Uncle Dave meanwhile wants to

– use the existing electorate in Scotland
– have a single question about Independence (Yes/No)
– allow an independent organisation to run the election
– allow an independent organisation to count the votes;
– agree BEFORE the vote that Yes means out of the UK and on your own

So who seems reasonable now!

I think what we need here is a referendum on whether we should have a referendum. I’ll form an arms-length consultancy sub-group immediately, to report in 2015. Would anybody like to be Sustainability Manager ??

Zokes, no, I think you must have misunderstood TJ when he said, and I quote:

La malvinas son argentinas

Which is clearly an argument in favout of the Falklanders right to self determination.

😆

The Falklands and Scotland are totally different.

In one case the UK invaded and has run the place ever since. We did try at one point to give it back to Argentina, but the stupid buggers misunderstood and invaded the Islands. There is no way any UK government is ever going to be able to give the Islands to Argentina without the support of the Islanders.

In the other case the Scottish Parliament choose to join in and form Great Britain with England and Wales. This is not to say that Scotland can’t choose to leave the UK – but the consequences of doing this need to be understood by the Scottish people before they vote. Otherwise they’ll be a vote, Salmond will negotiate with Westminster, he won’t get his way and spend all his time whinging that Westminster is being unreasonable!

Zullu you like repeating quesions…any chance you can answer DD’s one on your racist experiences? FFS was this not why [ I assume] you were [both]sent to the nuaghty step by Mark ? Some men you just cant teach

Because this thread has degenerated into the usual abuse and needless argument it’s now closed.
This useless level of abusive argument is ugly and puts off many from joining in life on this forum. The negative use of the forum rule will be brought into heavy use unless certain so called ‘big hitters’ can’t curb their nasty urges to pick online fights and attempt to bully other users. Time to grow up and start contributing something other than your keyboard warrior egos to this community.

From Mr Grumpy himself …do you need a longer lesson?

Also funny to see that you were madly arguing that the Falklanders shouldn’t have self determination rights, with the only vaguely logical argument for this basis being their proximity to Argentina.

You do recall all the UN posts about why that did not apply to the Islands ….what a very poor and utterly dishonest attempt to totally misrepresent the views of those who you disagree with who just tell you what the UN think :poor: You dont even believe that to be the case you are not that stupid or foregtfull…this is just pointless goading and macho BS to provokle a reaction as is Zulus latest post…quite sad grown men behave like this

Note to self see above comment from Mark and walk away from thread

Ps

+1 for naming all the “broons” a show it is decided

sadmadalan

actually the SNP preferrred process goes

1)indicative / consultative referendum

2) negotiation to set out the exact terms

3)Binding referendum

The SNP proposals also involve oversight from a multiparty group

Cameron wants to go straight to a binding referendum before the details are known and quickly so there is no time for proper debate.

so – informed decision making with considered debate or not?

Would anybody like to be Sustainability Manager ??

Junky – TJ brought up the Falklands on this thread, he took us there!

FWIW on the other issue, I asked DD why he assumed I hadn’t, and for the record I went out with an asian girl for six months, and (we) saw racism from both sides, OK?

I’m not trying to needlessly argue, however its still fair to ask “why the double standards”

You dont even believe that to be the case you are not that stupid or foregtfull…this is just pointless goading and macho BS to provokle a reaction as is Zulus latest post…quite sad grown men behave like this

And in English?

Didn’t Yorkshire vote no to devolution?

sort of, but mostly it was an un-missable chance to annoy john prescott / prevent him grabbing any more influence.

If Alex does get his treasured independence and duly becomes unelected leader of an independent Scotland. What timescales are we putting on the following happening:

1) Inexplicable medals appearing on the breast pocket of his suit?
2) Asking for staff to refer to him as Supreme Leader?
3) Erecting a huge bronze statue of himself, smiling and waving, Outside the front of Holyrood. With a pair of crossed bagpipes behind him?
4) Requires all citizens to now refer to him at all times by his full title “Supreme and Dear Leader of the Glorious Revolution, Most Wise, Colonel in Chief, Commander and Brother Alex, Lord of the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Sea and Conqueror of the British Empire”
5) Changes the new constitution to allow his cat to become foreign minister?
6) Bans all opposition parties. Oh sod it. Lets just ban elections too. I won the only one that counts
8) Essentially becomes Robert Mugabe?

Junkyard – if the Falklands stuff is aimed at me perhpas go back and read it

1) I accept the right to self determination

2) I would prefer they are not a UK colony any more.

To answer the OP :

b r – Member
So if Scotland does become independent, how will it be decided who is a Scot (and ‘worthy’ of a passport)?

Birth place, place of residence or something else?

Cholesterol test.

1) I accept the right to self determination

2) I would prefer they are not a UK colony any more.

I suspect, and it may just be an inkling, that (1) will never lead to (2), unless the existing inhabitants are dispossessed and a new lot are asked the question…

Bored now can we go and play football instead?

and, I’ll ask politley, a final time and leave it there TJ

do you support the same right of self determination for the Shetlanders, the right to a decision on whether they remain part of an independent Scotland?

If you choose to ignore that question, fine, I’ll leave it there, however I’m sure people will be able to draw their own conclusions as to whether you are hypocritically applying double standards due to your own political bias.

Bored now can we go and play football instead?

Independent or not, they’ll probably still lose to the English 😆

I’m not trying to needlessly argue,

PMSL!

and, I’ll ask politley, a final time and leave it there TJ

😆 oh no stop it, it hurts

Bored now can we go and play football instead?

We can Fred. But there are only 1 of 2 teams allowed to win. And that’s after they’ve sent each other some bullets and parcel bombs ‘n stuff, then had a mass brawl 😉

Zulu – I do not know why you keep going on about this. I have told you clearly many times. I believe in a peoples right to self determination

Well based upon TJ, anyone that lives there.

So rules out any ‘Scot’ not resident in Scotland, but rules in anyone who can get in there before the vote…

And we might just get my son on my parents address, just in case University will still be free in 5 years time.

Scotland could stay the same whatever happens…

I like this bit..
“The Scottish people will continue to shop, drink, complain, work for the council, eat beige food and hate each other because of football, religion or some bastard hybrid of the two.

I believe in a peoples right to self determination

Nice weasel worded sideways dodge into not answering the question. Do the Shetland islanders constitute a ‘people’ in their own right and get their own right to self determination,or are they part of the amorphous ‘Scottish people’ and become bound by a Scottish referendum?

Draw your own conclusions as to why TJ couldn’t answer with a simple yes or no 😉

In the other case the Scottish Parliament choose to join in and form Great Britain with England and Wales.

Scotland joined because it was bankrupt, and needed bailing out. I should think that 300 years worth of interest would be a tidy sum…

Anyway back to the subject, Freedom for Yorkshire! Just because we lost a couple of battles back in the day with them fellas who like red roses, there is no reason that those of us you like whites roses should not seek self determinatiion. After all fighting the battles of the past can’t really be seen as petty nationalism. It never did Northern Ireland and Yugoslavia any harm.

zokes – Member
> Bored now can we go and play football instead?
Independent or not, they’ll probably still lose to the English

Remind me of the scoreline the last time England and Scotland played a football match?

An awful lot of English people like z-11 seem to have a lot of interest in a country that they are quite critical of casting off the colonial yoke.And then bleating that they should be setting conditions. Scotland fell into that trap in the 70’s. There is only one Tory MP in Scotland, why should we be dictated to by Cameron?

Why do you even care z-11, surely by your political leanings it will be one less burden on you and your ilk?

Oh can we also have the vote before the final bill comes in for the London Olympics and the high speed Birmingham-London rail link? Ta. Olympics alone are a third of the cost of indy.

or are they part of the amorphous ‘Scottish people’ and become bound by a Scottish referendum?

Well done, you knew the answer all along.

TJ

actually the SNP preferrred process goes

1)indicative / consultative referendum

2) negotiation to set out the exact terms

3)Binding referendum

The SNP proposals also involve oversight from a multiparty group

Cameron wants to go straight to a binding referendum before the details are known and quickly so there is no time for proper debate.

so – informed decision making with considered debate or not?

Seems good, but lets dig deeper

1. If it is a indicative / consultative referendum then everyone can ignore the outcome for/against Independence and/or Devo-Max. In fact it is almost pointless.

2. Negotiation is going to be very painful for everyone. Especially since the referendum is only indicative / consultative. Obviously the multi-party oversight committee would be involved. However what would be the balance of this committee and who gets to appoint it. If it is done using the balance in the Scottish Parliament then the SNP would have a majority and could (note could) ignore any one else.

3. Binding referendum – which the Scottish Government don’t have the authority to run. This has to be done by Westminster

The problem here is that appears that Scotland is voting for independence based on what is the best financial position for Scotland at the current time. If Scotland wants to be an independent state then this vote should be on ideological grounds only. A vote yes for independence means that you will leave the Union regardless of the impact and be prepared to accept the benefits and costs equally. Some of these will only become apparent after the separation.

Scotland appears to be wanting it both ways, “we want to leave but only if we are better off”. What happens when it appears when it would be better off in the Union, would Scotland want to rejoin?

b r – Member
Well based upon TJ, anyone that lives there.

So rules out any ‘Scot’ not resident in Scotland, but rules in anyone who can get in there before the vote…That’s my understanding and it seems fundamentally fair. Those who live in Scotland should have the right to determine its future. Ex-pats don’t get to vote in UK elections, so it’s just the same?

Guys, guys, guys (and Hels) it matters not! Yeah we’ll be independent for a while, then we’ll go bankrupt, then we’ll re-join the union. This is allowed as “independence isn’t a one way street” remember!

There is only one Tory MP in Scotland, why should we be dictated to by Cameron?

Because he’s the prime minister of the UK. I must say he’s played a blinder on this one – either he wins, and Salmond is finished, or he loses, and is assured of a permanent Tory government in England, Wales and NI.

(I didn’t vote for him either, BTW.)

I’m loving the assumption that Scotland will be an independent state within the EU too. There might be a small issue there

Who’s to say the EU wants you? I think, given recent history, the powers that be in Brussels might be a little bit cautious about admitting another small nation, overdependent on a central financial industry, with some dubious looking welfare commitments…..

Jus’ sayin…..

ransos – Member
or he loses, and is assured of a permanent Tory government in England, Wales and NI.

There’s been a Tory government in England Wales and the NI for the last 32 years.

However ransos, the SNP will be very cagey after they were outflanked in the 70’s. This one will be REALLY nasty. As will Billy Connolly selling up his huge estate and castle and moving South, as he said he would.

Scotlands biggest hurdle to EU membership is that it opens the doors for the Bretons and the Catalans…And the Manx, and the Welsh…

There is only one Tory MP in Scotland, why should we be dictated to by Cameron?

Reverse West Lothian!

4.4
4.3
4.5
4.4
4.5
and a cheeky 4.9 from the Russian judge!

…Scotland appears to be wanting it both ways…

most people in scotland don’t want independance.

Europe:
A difficult one. Both the SNP and the dependence parties will roll out “experts” supporting their views that either (a) Scotland will remain part of the EU or (b) Scotland will have to re-negotiate entry. I suspect this one will be settled in the courts, although there may be no need if Scotland wants to (re)join and the EU is willing.

Scotland would get a few seats, the rUK would lose a couple. However, the joint Scotland/rUK bloc would be larger than the current UK has and for areas of mutual benefit, this could be viewed as very positive.

As for rUK membership of Europe, I tend to assume that (as per the Vienna Convention), rUK would be deemed the successor state and would retain its existing membership and that all current agreements and treaties would stand. However, this is not guaranteed and if my name was Sarkozy or Merkel and I was having to deal with an intransigent Tory PM, I might argue the contrary.