There are a number of very reasonable arguments for independence apart from the obvious. Being the worlds first democratic parliament, being one again and regaining our sovereignty and territorial integrity to support our nation and to assist our people to reach there potential with out hindrance!! But also to have the right to not to take part in illegal wars! To stand up for justice and the basic rights of the individual! To have a balance economy which balances its books! To have no part in the IMF and the slavery it produces! To have the right not to take part in and to highlight the transgressions of basic human rights and associated torture and rendition! To have a free press! To enforce and enshrine the rights of the individual regardless of colour or creed! All those nice things missing from the Americans fascist dictatorship! Regards Highlander
Nah, none of that makes sense. I mean come on, the Scotts never could even win against the English. No people should ever obtain by paper what they could not obtain through blood and iron.
...ev'ry day would be the first day of spring Every heart would have a new song to sing And we'd sing of the joy every morning would bring...
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains All the cops have wooden legs And the bulldogs all have rubber teeth And the hens lay soft-boiled eggs The farmers' trees are full of fruit And the barns are full of hay Oh I'm bound to go Where there ain't no snow Where the rain don't fall The winds don't blow In the Big Rock Candy Mountains. In the Big Rock Candy Mountains You never change your socks And the little streams of alcohol Come trickling down the rocks The brakemen have to tip their hats And the railway bulls are blind There's a lake of stew And of whiskey too You can paddle all around it In a big canoe In the Big Rock Candy Mountains
Not if we stay in the Union...maybe if we get out of it. As it is..we don't even have the option to try.
Don't get me wrong, I support your right to self determination, I'm just sceptical about politicians in general....
That makes two of us, at least.......but I'm inclined to think that 6 million(or so) Scots in a PR system, however flawed, will have much more chance of holding their politicians to account than 60 Million people in the UK voting on a first past the post system which appears to allow the party with the most votes.....even if it is only one, or less if they can cobble up a coalition, to dictate the direction of the UK for the next five years or so. What has never been accepted is that most of Scotland, politics wise, does not think the same way the Unionist majority in the UK Parliament has done since the 1970s at least. Scotland has never had a majority of Conservative MPs elected to the UK Parliament since 1958........and today we have more Pandas in Scotland than Conservative UK MPs. My own home area was one of those labelled "Tartan Tories" in the 1970s, because, until the SNP kicked the Tory candidate into touch, we had, as a predominantly rural consituency always tended to vote what our "betters" and employers told us to vote.....which was, as they were mostly land-owners and farmers....Conservative after 1923...(before then mostly Liberal) Even now, a Labour (or whatever the current version of Labour is) vote there is a wasted vote......because they have never accomplished anything to benefit those of us outside London......and most certainly nothing to benefit those of us in the rural North/Highlands of Scotland. Unfortunately, it has taken the Central Belt voters a longer time to catch up with those of us who had already recognised that the Conservative and Unionist Party is a waste of space, and had also seen that Labour is not a Scottish Party either and doesn't give a toss about us, bar as electoral seats to increase their UK representation. Afraid, with the best will in the world, I find it hard to get enthused because the new deputy leader of Scottish Labour used to spend a lot of his holidays visiting his grandfather in my home area....because, to date, I haven't noticed the Scottish Labour Party actually being Scottish...or even considering Scotland........any more than the Conservatives and LibDems do. I know there are people on here....most of whom are already on my extensive ignore list, who will call me "parochial".....but what has being global under UK auspices brought us but wars and more wars? A lot on here, I know, don't like Alex Salmond......in fact a lot on here are frankly irrational to the point of paranoia about what they consider his influence on the Scottish people...but the thing is...Alex Salmond speaks to us..he is as near left wing as Scotland has been left with, given the way the UK parties have been hurtling to the right since the late 1970s. No other political party even bothers to consider how Scotland thinks, particularly if that means going against the accepted UK Unionist dogma of the party to which they belong. And we do kinda resent the fact that some on here think we Scots are as pig-sh1t ignorant as they are themselves in that, unlike those who vote for the Tory cuts to the vulnerable and the Tory concessions to the already rich...most of us would kinda like a fairer and more equitable society..because if we didn't, we'd have voted for the Tories or Tory-lite Nulabour at the last Scottish election. We may well never get it..... but there is Buckley's chance as long as we are still in the Union and under the thumb of varying in degree UK versions of American Republican attitudes. And before the usual nit-pickers get going.....I am talking only from the way I see things....and have seen things for the last fifty years...I do not claim to speak for all the residents of Scotland who will be able to vote...and most certainly do not claim to speak for the Unionists among us. But given that, while possibly the percentage of Scots confident enough to vote for independence is not yet enough to win the day.....the percentage for independence and devo-max together is around the 60+....so the sooner the UK Parliament gets its head round the fact that the UK as currently constituted is a busted flush..and if they want to hold on to the Union, they are going to have to think about a lot of change....not just for Scotland, but for England, Wales and NI as well. the more chance they have of hanging to at least some of their power.
Don't laugh but........does Alex Salmond have the best possible legal team and 24-hour personal protection ? I like him. I also liked Robin Cook.
Yes he has a 24 hour bodyguard, one of the best, ex Met, his name is Cherry. But Salmond calls him his chauffeur so the tax payer has to foot the bill.
Look at it this way, there is no way that the powers that be could get away with doing to Scotland what they are going to do to Scotland while it was part of the Union. In years to come the Scots will look around them at their beloved Scotland, or "The Wind Farm" as it will be known in England, and say "why?", "why us?". Meanwhile down south the coal fired power stations will be running flat out on the carbon credits that Scotland generates and Scotland can get a few aluminium smelters to soak up the electricity they produce as a bi-product.
Mmmm......a statement such as this In would expect from a 15 year old! I think that your family would separate themselves from your narrow field of vision! Regards Highlander
Mmmm.......when Chavez can do it, why not us? If you look to the many rather than the greed of the few,a balance is a natural outcome! Regards Highlander
So....and a very nice Welsh, Seagoon he was, but he couldn't get the accent right! Regards Highlander
I think he's canny enough to pull it off. I wonder what sort of England-free investments a liberated Scotland will attract ?
There's an important distinction there that might not appear obvious from the outside. The UK is very, very unusual in the world in this sense. It wouldn't be 'breaking up a country', but breaking up a 'state' (partialy) back into its already widely internally and internationally recognised constituent 'countries'. That's not quite the same thing. The UK is not a 'country', it is a 'state' which comprises of a 'union' composed of several different 'countries'. It's not like New York deciding to try leaving the USA, for example, but more like the USA, Mexico and Canada forming a 'political union' (without the permission of its people, of course, since it was effectively a pre-democratic decision), and then the people of Canada deciding that the union wasn't working for them and voting to leave the union again again. That may seem in some ways a subtle distinction, but it is a vitally important one to understand in order to understand the way the UK is viewed by the people within it, and why the whole independance issue plays out as it does. Everyone within the UK is aware that it is a union of countries, and already regards Scotland as a 'country' and a 'nation' in its own right, irrespective of their opinion on the possibility of that country leaving the union (and their opinion of whether it should be an 'independant' country and nation, rather than being part of the union). While some in England would certainly want Scotland to stay within the union, I think it's fair to say that most people within the UK as a whole regard it as a matter for the people of Scotland for that reason.
Of course not. The rest of the world, the part that keeps order for the weak and infirm, will cover their butts.
I agree . But sadly , what I've learnt in the past few weeks is , that if the Scots dont go along with Alex Salmond - its like that most Sassanachs - south of the border are already so f/ing fed up , that they'rd wish to rid of SCotland .- whatever the costs. According to some , it should be a complete and total separation - no hanging on to the same currency and using /enjoying the privilege of using UK embassies /diplomatic facilities etc., THey'll have to stand entirely as a totally independent country. According to Alex Salmond , he only wants half independence and still use the same currency . The scots want their cake and eat , enjoying the best or both options . Fat chance.
That is the same argument that led to our civil war...the folk who wanted to leave did not recognize any value perceived in their states by the folk living outside it... I admit I do not understand why folk from a moderately important nation would want to leave and form a trivial one? It is not as though they were being abused in any way.
Those embassies and diplomatic facilities belong to the entire union, including Scotland, not just to the bit that would be left if they became indepenadant. Why would they not be able to use facilities that already partly belong to them anyway? They are as entitled to their share as the rest of us are. We could, of course, separate them out so that each part takes a certain relevant percentage of them, or a certain relevant percentage of each building, but that would really be fairly silly - much more logical, sensible and cost effective for everyone to just share them. I don't think we really need to worry about Scotland and the remainder of the UK actually cutting off diplomatic relations from one another, so sharing them shouldn't be an issue.
That , I trust will be matters for negotiation between those we've elected , dont you agree . ? However I + many other shall , in due course, be making our views on the subject known to our respective members of Parliament , who'll get the boot if they ignore /fail to comply. cheers.
