# The Scottish Independence Thread



## jetwaterluffy1 (Aug 7, 2014)

Don't think this has been made yet.

We can start with this article:


> Scottish debate: Salmond and Darling in angry clash over independenceFirst TV debate on independence sees bitter exchanges between campaign leaders over currency union and taxesShare 784
> inShare.13Email Severin Carrell and Libby Brooks
> The Guardian, Wednesday 6 August 2014 Jump to comments (2665)
> 
> ...


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/05/alex-salmond-alistair-darling-scotland-debate-independence


The debate:


----------



## Roman (Aug 7, 2014)

What I will say is that it's utterly insane to think that Scotland would remain relevant in the world economy if it decides to become independent. Good to see that a majority, however slight, thinks the same.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Aug 7, 2014)

Freedan said:


> What I will say is that it's utterly insane to think that Scotland would remain relevant in the world economy if it decides to become independent. Good to see that a majority, however slight, thinks the same.


I wouldn't say that. I'd say the majority of people in scotland currently thinks that, on balance, scottish independance, under these conditions, would probably not work as well remaining in the UK.

I don't think the majority scottish people think that an independant scotland would be an apocalypse for the scottish economy.


----------



## Roman (Aug 7, 2014)

Just to clarify, if Scotland does gain its independence, would it want to remain part of the EU or does it want out of that as well?


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Aug 7, 2014)

The Scots want to remain in the EU – they want a lot of everything that’s hilariously not feasible actually.

If Scotland does indeed leave the UK they would have to apply to re-join the EU. All 28 EU states have to anonymously agree to include new member states and countries like Spain are almost certain to oppose. So if Scotland do leave the UK, they can kiss good bye to the EU too.


----------



## Roman (Aug 7, 2014)

^ Case in point.


----------



## Zaru (Aug 7, 2014)

Yeah other EU states don't want to give their subregions any funny ideas about independence and EU membership.


----------



## Nordstrom (Aug 7, 2014)

MbS said:


> The Scots want to remain in the EU ? they want a lot of everything that?s hilariously not feasible actually.
> 
> If Scotland does indeed leave the UK they would have to apply to re-join the EU. All 28 EU states have to anonymously agree to include new member states and countries like Spain are almost certain to oppose. So if Scotland do leave the UK, they can kiss good bye to the EU too.



Unanimously, but yeah. They'd be in a cinch for a while.

That said, as someone from a region who seeks it's independence as well, I sympathize with the Scots. Their economy wouldn't suffer, but they wouldn't be relevant anymore. England alone is the bulk of the UK. It's like the 48 States or Russia and the USSR. It would mean they would no longer be important, but they would still be fine and could even prosper much more smoothly without the UK limiting them.

Also...

[YOUTUBE]tAqzXWNnRq4[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Aug 7, 2014)

MbS said:


> The Scots want to remain in the EU ? they want a lot of everything that?s hilariously not feasible actually.
> 
> If Scotland does indeed leave the UK they would have to apply to re-join the EU. All 28 EU states have to anonymously agree to include new member states and countries like Spain are almost certain to oppose. So if Scotland do leave the UK, they can kiss good bye to the EU too.



I think the case Salmond tries to make is that because Scotland is already in the EU, it won't leave when it splits from the rest of the UK, so neither Scotland nor the rest of the UK will have to re-apply for EU membership.




If Scotland leaves, what flag do you think the rest of the UK should use? I favour this one:

where the black is for the flag of St David (Wales's patron saint):


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Aug 7, 2014)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> I think the case Salmond tries to make is that because Scotland is already in the EU, it won't leave when it splits from the rest of the UK, so neither Scotland nor the rest of the UK will have to re-apply for EU membership.



Salmond is of course talking out of his arse. Jose Manuel Barroso ? High Illustrious President of the European Commission ?  refuted Salmond stating Scotland would have to apply for EU membership and get the approval of all current member states in the wake of a ?yes? vote in the September referendum, and it would be 'extremely difficult, if not impossible? for an independent Scotland to get the necessary approval from member states for it to join the European Union. The SNP just want their cake but can't eat it.


----------



## sadated_peon (Aug 7, 2014)

I heard the most common argument for Scottish independence being that they have very little control of where their taxes go. That they are they have no say. 

Which seems strange to me. They have a population of less than 10% of UK so they have then less than 10% of the vote. 

This is democracy, not tyranny.


----------



## Nordstrom (Aug 7, 2014)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> I think the case Salmond tries to make is that because Scotland is already in the EU, it won't leave when it splits from the rest of the UK, so neither Scotland nor the rest of the UK will have to re-apply for EU membership.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wonderful taste. I couldn't have chosen a better flag if I wanted to.


----------



## Easley (Aug 7, 2014)

Voting for independence is a huge gamble and I think most Scots know that deep down. But at the moment, nationalist pride is fueling the yes camp, plus the usual anti-English sentiment. 

Darling is right, Salmond's arguments are really just blind faith. No amount of passion can hide the risks. When tough questions are asked about Scotland's currency and the economy, doubts start to emerge. The 'no' campaign is hitting him pretty hard in this area. It seems to be working.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Aug 7, 2014)

sadated_peon said:


> I heard the most common argument for Scottish independence being that they have very little control of where their taxes go. That they are they have no say.



Scotland has a devolved government, so it regulates how its spends its taxes.


----------



## Blue (Aug 7, 2014)

The UK should do everything politically and economically possible to prevent any referendum from succeeding. 

And if it does anyway, should just go ahead and annex Scotland because no, you don't get to leave unions.


----------



## Zaru (Aug 7, 2014)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> If Scotland leaves, what flag do you think the rest of the UK should use? I favour this one:
> 
> where the black is for the flag of St David (Wales's patron saint):



Imagine if suddenly all the brit flag merchandise became outdated.

And there is a shitload of brit flag merchandise.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Aug 7, 2014)

Blue said:


> The UK should do everything politically and economically possible to prevent any referendum from succeeding.
> 
> And if it does anyway, should just go ahead and annex Scotland because no, you don't get to leave unions.


The UK government can't do much because it is currently run by tories, which large amounts of Scotland hate, so almost anything they do will make scotland more likely to vote yes. It is one of the main reasons scotsmen wanted independence in the first place, in fact.


Zaru said:


> Imagine if suddenly all the brit flag merchandise became outdated.
> 
> And there is a shitload of brit flag merchandise.



Yeah, then people will have to buy new merchandise to replace it.


----------



## Nordstrom (Aug 7, 2014)

Blue said:


> The UK should do everything politically and economically possible to prevent any referendum from succeeding.
> 
> And if it does anyway, should just go ahead and annex Scotland because no, you don't get to leave unions.



Because you say so?


----------



## Juda (Aug 7, 2014)

Blue said:


> The UK should do everything politically and economically possible to prevent any referendum from succeeding.
> 
> And if it does anyway, should just go ahead and annex Scotland because no, you don't get to leave unions.



England does not have the power nor political power it once had to even attempt such a thing unfortunately.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Aug 8, 2014)

Sleipnyr said:


> Also...
> 
> [YOUTUBE]tAqzXWNnRq4[/YOUTUBE]


*
That's gonna be/ Is the Anthem of Scotland?! Really?! REALLY?!  Where's the PIPES! Where's the sounds of the wind swept highlands? Where's the FU you to the English!
*
*You have Great songs like 
The Bonnie Banks O' Loch Lomond*
*
YOU TAKE THE HIGH ROAD AND I'LL TAKE THE LOW AND I'll be in Scotland before you*

"Cam Ye O'er Frae France" 

and "Ye Jacobites by Name "


and you come here with this weak shit 
At Least let "Scotland the brave" the Anthem!


----------



## Nordstrom (Aug 8, 2014)

makeoutparadise said:


> *
> That's gonna be/ Is the Anthem of Scotland?! Really?! REALLY?!  Where's the PIPES! Where's the sounds of the wind swept highlands? Where's the FU you to the English!
> *
> *You have Great songs like
> ...



Oh, you mean this?
[YOUTUBE]iYOBFj8jhS8[/YOUTUBE]

The pipes are not good for singing. That's why the sung part skips them.


----------



## Nordstrom (Aug 8, 2014)

Juda said:


> England does not have the power nor political power it once had to even attempt such a thing unfortunately.



Sure, they can do it. I'm sure the world will manage the loss of yet another Western Great Power to a bloody civil war that will run them to the ground faster than WWII.


----------



## Naya (Aug 8, 2014)

Can't really discuss it right now, will have to read about it more.
However, I've heard news about it several months ago and I want to know what will come out for sure.
The worls is changing so fast, all this is amusing. Especially for someone like me who isn't really interested in policy


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Aug 8, 2014)

makeoutparadise said:


> *
> That's gonna be/ Is the Anthem of Scotland?! Really?! REALLY?!  Where's the PIPES! Where's the sounds of the wind swept highlands? Where's the FU you to the English!
> *
> *You have Great songs like
> ...


You can play anything on bagpipes, a national anthem isn't neccesserliy restricted to a certain instrument. I've heard Jerusalem (England's National anthem when it isn't too busy using the british one) played on the pipes too in fact.


----------



## quicksilver (Aug 8, 2014)

It's up to the Scottish people, but they should know Salmond is selling a pipe dream.

His "budget" is based on North Sea oil revenues and fisheries licenses, both of which are non-renewable resources; the banking sector already promised to relocate to London.

He wants to keep the Pound, and a seat at the Bank of England (both of which Salmond has said are "shared institutions"), and the UK has laughed them out the door. Alternatively, he wants the Euro, but that requires EU membership, and as has been said before, the UK would be the successor state; thus no Thatcher opt-outs in the event they pass reapplication.

So, while not a basket case, Scotland would be terribly and maybe perpetually weakened. When the Irish Free State became a republic, it took 40 years, EU membership and a 10% corporation tax to begin to see progress.

Basically, Scotland's success is dependent on future EU membership, but what logic is there in trading the London bureaucracy for Bruxelles' (especially with HM the Queen still regnant after independence)?


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Aug 8, 2014)

silverflash said:


> It's up to the Scottish people, but they should know Salmond is selling a pipe dream.
> 
> His "budget" is based on North Sea oil revenues and fisheries licenses, both of which are non-renewable resources; the banking sector already promised to relocate to London.
> 
> ...



Why are fisheries non-renewable? If regulated properly, it'll work fine.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Aug 12, 2014)

> Scottish independence: Alex Salmond predicts record vote turnout
> Alex Salmond
> Mr Salmond touched on a range of topics during an interview at the Edinburgh International Book Festival
> Continue reading the main story
> ...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28748212


----------



## Juda (Aug 12, 2014)

I actually dont want them to leave the UK. Its good a lot of people actually saying no to independenc


----------



## Torpedo Titz (Aug 12, 2014)

makeoutparadise said:


> *
> That's gonna be/ Is the Anthem of Scotland?! Really?! REALLY?!  Where's the PIPES! Where's the sounds of the wind swept highlands? Where's the FU you to the English!
> *
> *You have Great songs like
> ...



Count yourself lucky, England doesn't even have an official anthem, mate. We get dumped with the usual British bollocks.


----------



## quicksilver (Aug 12, 2014)

Jon Stark said:


> Count yourself lucky, England doesn't even have an official anthem, mate. We get dumped with the usual British bollocks.



All Home Nations have the same anthem. _God Save the Queen_.

At least, that's what it should be...


----------



## Aduro (Aug 12, 2014)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> The UK government can't do much because it is currently run by tories, which large amounts of Scotland hate, so almost anything they do will make scotland more likely to vote yes. It is one of the main reasons scotsmen wanted independence in the first place, in fact.


Its true that the Scottish tend to vote labour more than the English, but the Tories have been in charge more often that not in the last two centuries and they haven't come this close to independence for a very long time. The real problem many have is that because England and Wales combined have more seats, a law might be passed in Scotland that most of the MP's in Scotland voted against, but frankly every constituency in the country is in a similar situation, its how the Parliamentary system works well as a whole and frankly the way of life there isn't that different to most of England.

As a slightly lefty guy in England I hope they vote to stay in though, if they do then the balance in the rest of the UK's parliament is gonna veer right sharply. Not to mention we'll have even less influence in Europe. I think the only reason this is surfacing now is because Nationalism always rears its ugly head when the shit of ancient divided history hits the fan of a prolonged recession.



> Yeah, then people will have to buy new merchandise to replace it.



The Chinese factories who make the new flags will be very happy about that I'm sure.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Aug 20, 2014)

> Scottish independence: English people overwhelmingly want Scotland to stay in the UK
> 
> But if Scotland does break away, the English do not want them to keep the pound
> CHRIS GREEN  Author Biography  SENIOR REPORTER  Wednesday 20 August 2014
> ...


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/scottish-independence-english-people-overwhelmingly-want-scotland-to-stay-in-the-uk-9679439.html
Italicized: seems a pretty obvious result IMO
Bolded:


----------



## Roman (Aug 20, 2014)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> Bolded:



Yeah, that's just spiteful. English pride at its finest I guess?


----------



## Nordstrom (Aug 20, 2014)

> “The UK’s standing in the world will be diminished”: 36% agree, 29% disagree



Change the UK to any country with a trillion dollar or more economy and it's great news!

Yeah, the UK is also in that group.


----------



## Roman (Aug 20, 2014)

> “People should be able to travel between England and Scotland without passport checks”: 69% agree, 13% disagree





Like, Scotland wants to break away and the English still expect to be able to travel freely across the border, especially when some of these people want to break away from the EU precisely so that people from the EU won't be able to travel freely to the UK.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Aug 20, 2014)

Freedan said:


> Like, Scotland wants to break away and the English still expect to be able to travel freely across the border, especially when some of these people want to break away from the EU precisely so that people from the EU won't be able to travel freely to the UK.



I'm almost certain that Scotland want the same thing. Passport checks would be far too much unnecessary bother between the two countries. The UK has a similar arrangement with Ireland currently, although I think they image your car as you go across the border to make sure you aren't smuggling weapons between the two countries.


----------



## Nemesis (Aug 20, 2014)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> I'm almost certain that Scotland want the same thing. Passport checks would be far too much unnecessary bother between the two countries. The UK has a similar arrangement with Ireland currently, although I think they image your car as you go across the border to make sure you aren't smuggling weapons between the two countries.



They don't really do that anymore.  In most cases the first indication that you have left the republic and entered Northern Ireland is that the road signs are now in miles and not Kilometers.


----------



## Gunners (Aug 20, 2014)

Freedan said:


> Like, Scotland wants to break away and the English still expect to be able to travel freely across the border, especially when some of these people want to break away from the EU precisely so that people from the EU won't be able to travel freely to the UK.



Well, if you're an EU citizen you should be able to travel to other member states without a passport.


----------



## Roman (Aug 20, 2014)

Gunners said:


> Well, if you're an EU citizen you should be able to travel to other member states without a passport.



/missing the point


----------



## Gunners (Aug 20, 2014)

Freedan said:


> /missing the point



No, I'm not missing the point. The two sets of wants do not contradict one another.


----------



## quicksilver (Aug 20, 2014)

Freedan said:


> Yeah, that's just spiteful. English pride at its finest I guess?



I think it's more that the English are unsure of being in international organizations themselves.



Freedan said:


> Like, Scotland wants to break away and the English still expect to be able to travel freely across the border, especially when some of these people want to break away from the EU precisely so that people from the EU won't be able to travel freely to the UK.



Ireland has no customs border with Northern Ireland, even though that means it can't participate in the Schengen zone with the rest of the EU because the UK doesn't. Likely Scotland will be the same.

-

The status of the pound will be the decisive issue of the referendum. If the UK was against the Euro, it would not want a monetary union of the pound. If an independent Scotland tried to use it unilaterally, it would create the same situation as the EU, with Scotland as Greece and England as Germany, and be ruinous to their economy.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Aug 20, 2014)

Gunners said:


> Well, if you're an EU citizen you should be able to travel to other member states without a passport.


No you can't. There's a treaty in the EU that says you can that the UK didn't sign.


----------



## Hozukimaru (Aug 20, 2014)

As far as I know you can travel to the UK with just your ID if you are an EU national. The point of the schengen area is that you don't even need your ID to travel between member-states but it's highly recommended that you carry your ID just in case.


----------



## Nemesis (Aug 20, 2014)

They changed it a couple years ago.  Basically the UK gov was trying to show how it is superior to all of europe once again by saying "Nope, we're not doing same things you are and how dare you complain about us not following all the rules." type thing.


----------



## dr_shadow (Aug 20, 2014)

Nemesis said:


> They don't really do that anymore.  In most cases the first indication that you have left the republic and entered Northern Ireland is that the road signs are now in miles and not Kilometers.



In the year 2014 there are still countries that don't use the metric system.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Aug 20, 2014)

mr_shadow said:


> In the year 2014 there are still countries that don't use the metric system.



Fuck the metric system


----------



## Hozukimaru (Aug 20, 2014)

...

edit: ninja'd


----------



## Nemesis (Aug 20, 2014)

mr_shadow said:


> In the year 2014 there are still countries that don't use the metric system.



I'd rather no countries use it.  Base 10 is nothing but a dumbing down and making people think is always a superior means of doing things.


----------



## Mider T (Aug 20, 2014)

Scots don't need independence when they have autonomy.


----------



## Nemesis (Aug 20, 2014)

Not just that.  Their MPs can vote on laws that affect all of the UK including England.   But there are some scottish laws that no one in England can have a say on.  (Good old West Lothian.)

Though the solution to what some people here in England say is just not viable either.  There can never be just an English Parliament.  When one country of the four basically holds 80% of the population it becomes too powerful and too centralized.  England itself should be broken down into regions with their own parliaments, especially since London itself has a similar population as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland combined.


----------



## Nordstrom (Aug 20, 2014)

mr_shadow said:


> In the year 2014 there are still countries that don't use the metric system.



I need to agree with a lot of English and Americans here. Fuck the metric system.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Aug 21, 2014)

mr_shadow said:


> In the year 2014 there are still countries that don't use the metric system.


The UK only uses imperial in roads, informal measurements of the body, and some sports. Pretty much everything else is in SI. But most physicists would use metres per second for cars anyway, not km/h.



Nemesis said:


> I'd rather no countries use it.  Base 10 is nothing but a dumbing down and making people think is always a superior means of doing things.



Imperial would be fine if it consistently used base 12 or whatever. Thing is, it doesn't, it changes base depending on what you are talking about. Of course, you could just take the unit of the yard or the ton and find a consistent multiplier. That's pretty much what SI does, with small differences, and it uses base 10.

The idea that it is dumbing things down is really dumb. It's only dumbing things down if useful information is lost. How is feet, yards, stone, fluid ounces useful information? Yes, some non SI-derived units are useful sometimes, like electronvolts and light years. Imperial units really aren't.


----------



## quicksilver (Aug 21, 2014)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> The UK only uses imperial in roads, informal measurements of the body, and some sports. Pretty much everything else is in SI. But most physicists would use metres per second for cars anyway, not km/h.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Metric comes from Napoleonic France, so it is automatically suspect. Napoleon laughs, and the goddess Britannia weeps whenever we use it.


----------



## Hozukimaru (Aug 21, 2014)

It's usually more connected with the French revolution than Napoleon himself.


----------



## quicksilver (Aug 21, 2014)

Hozukimaru said:


> It's usually more connected with the French revolution than Napoleon himself.



Equally bad, if not worse! For simplicity's sake, let's just use one or the other to describe both "periods," and Napoleonic is shorter.


----------



## stream (Aug 21, 2014)

During the French revolution, it was also tried to switch to a ten-day week. That one didn't stick though. We might have religion to thank for that, partly.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Aug 26, 2014)

They just held the second and last debate, consensus says Salmond won.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28929057

71%...


----------



## dr_shadow (Aug 26, 2014)

> *(Reuters) - Scotland's pro-independence leader Alex Salmond won a final TV debate on Monday just over three weeks before a historic breakaway referendum, but it wasn't clear if his combative performance would help him catch up in the polls.*
> 
> In a bruising debate before the Sept. 18 referendum, Salmond relentlessly talked over and at Alistair Darling, the leader of the "Better Together" anti-independence movement, and it was sometimes hard to hear what was being said.
> 
> ...



http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/25/us-scotland-independence-poll-idUSKBN0GP1Y420140825


----------



## San Juan Wolf (Aug 26, 2014)

Blue said:


> The UK should do everything politically and economically possible to prevent any referendum from succeeding.
> 
> And if it does anyway, should just go ahead and annex Scotland because no, you don't get to leave unions.



As much as I am not in favour of this due to the situation just causing a bunch of unnecessary problems, even if I am usually in favour of more states (and monarcheis as a whole) coming into existence, this is a very old world imperialist sort of thing to say.

Kind of like saying the US would have the right to oppose Hawaiian seccession despite the fact it deposed the legitimate goverment and annexed it against the will of the population, something the US admitted over time.

Or how Russia claims it owes no reparations to the Baltic states because they all totally joined the USSR voluntarily and the fact that nearly their whole pre USSR leadership got executed or exiled to Siberia after that is nothing but an incredible coincidence.

If a state is forced into a union against their will, or that union is no longer supported by the majority of it's people, then those Unions should be abolished.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Aug 26, 2014)

Actually, it was kind like the opposite, Scotland "annexed" England.

The king of England died, and the next blood successor was the king of Scotland. So he became the king of both countries.

Eventually he decided to unite the two of them into a single country, because, why not?

Still, if Scotland wants out, let them. People should be allowed to decide which country they want to be part of. If they don't feel like they are being represented by the UK government, they should have the right to tell it to fuck off and separate from it, assuming that's what the referendum decides.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Aug 26, 2014)

Dragon D Luffy said:


> Actually, it was kind like the opposite, Scotland "annexed" England.
> 
> The king of England died, and the next blood successor was the king of Scotland. So he became the king of both countries.
> 
> ...


Wasn't the king forced to abdicate? Can't remember.


----------



## Nemesis (Aug 26, 2014)

No what happened was that Queen Elizabeth I died without a child, her closest relative was King James of Scotland who inherited the throne.  Since then England and Scotland were in a personal union but were two different countries.

It wasn't till act of union 100 years later that the kingdom of great Britain came about.  Basically Scotland tried a colonial adventure and got itself bankrupt after they landed in the worst of positions.  It would have collapsed without the help of the English parliament.

If you mean forced to abdicate it was actually the glorious revolution in which the William and Mary were put on the throne when England and Scotland were basically two separate countries.  After this happened the monarchy became nothing more than a figurehead under the parliament which had all the power.



> Still, if Scotland wants out, let them. People should be allowed to decide which country they want to be part of. If they don't feel like they are being represented by the UK government, they should have the right to tell it to fuck off and separate from it, assuming that's what the referendum decides.



As much as I agree Scotland wants out it should I don't get how they are not being represented in Government.  The whole "We only voted for one Conservative therefore UK government isn't democratic for us." is a stupid line that comes along every so often.  The East Anglia region is near enough always blue with one or two red and yellow dots.  Should East Anglia just secede every time we have a Labour government.  Or what about areas that are always Labour or Lib Dem should they always secede.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Aug 26, 2014)

You two really need to brush up on your history.

Queen Elizabeth I died in 1603 without a male heir of her own. The closest was her cousin, James VI of Scotland who belonged to the House of Stuart. James VI was crowned James I in England although the two kingdoms were not joined at the time, they just shared the same monarch, kind of like how Charles V was the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire and the King of Spain where he served as Charles I.

England and Scotland were not officially formed into the United Kingdom until the Act of Union in 1707 passed by Parliament.

Edit: Ninja'd.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Aug 26, 2014)

So apparently, someone in the Better Together campaign decided to greenlight this ad...

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HH9TvFMYs48&feature=youtu.be[/YOUTUBE]

And you thought the GOP's views towards women were embarrassing.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Aug 27, 2014)

Alright, what I know about Scotland's history comes from a bus tour in Edinburgh.


----------



## Blue (Aug 27, 2014)

Dragon D Luffy said:


> Still, if Scotland wants out, let them. People should be allowed to decide which country they want to be part of. If they don't feel like they are being represented by the UK government, they should have the right to tell it to fuck off and separate from it, assuming that's what the referendum decides.



No, they shouldn't. People are really stupid. You will always get this kind of insular "Yeah! Scots are awesome! Fuck those lazy English!"/Texans are awesome fuck those liberal yankees/Quebecois are awesome fuck those English-speaking Canadians/Catalonia is awesome fuck the Spanish etc etc etc.

It doesn't happen in the US because the process for secession is very clear and has been demonstrated: The Federal government comes and collects your fucking heads, burns your farms, sacks your cities, and pisses on your grave.

Whoever in the UK gave the Scottish the idea they could do this without a war is dumb.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Aug 27, 2014)

Blue said:


> Whoever in the UK gave the Scottish the idea they could do this without a war is dumb.



Or is living in the 21th Century. Where people have finally realized that war is stupid and that the quality of people's lives is more important than patriotism.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Aug 27, 2014)

I thought the SNP didn't want the Trident though?


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Aug 27, 2014)

Scots themselves are in favour of keeping Trident.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Aug 27, 2014)

MbS said:


> The SNP argument for a yes vote is supposed to be a clear infallible endorsement for independence – but their determination to keep a hold on UK institutions is in fact opposed to their case for independence. That is Scots allegedly craving a strong sense of autonomy: specifically the ability to freely set their own affairs as far as the domestic front is concerned.
> 
> They’ve drawn up a wish list hoping to retain the UK currency, Trident, the monarchy and other UK institutions: but it’s not within Scotland’s power to decide if they get to keep them. And look at the proposed currency union for one example; Scots want autonomy to set their own course, and yet if they do share the pound then their budget will have to be approved not by them; but the UK – which would be a foreign country.
> 
> This isn’t independence, by any meaning of the word. The SNP has repeatedly avoided telling Scottish voters what independence for Scotland would entail: what institutions it would have, what its major economic and international relations would be, etc.


The monarchy is the privilege of the commonwealth, not the UK. SNP want to destroy Trident, not keep it. They want a currency union. Not that they'll get it, but by definition a union takes ideas from both parties.


----------



## Hozukimaru (Aug 27, 2014)

So how will the UK's flag look without Scotland? 

It should look like this without the blue:

*Spoiler*: __


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Aug 27, 2014)

Hozukimaru said:


> So how will the UK's flag look without Scotland?
> 
> It should look like this without the blue:
> 
> *Spoiler*: __



As I said before, I prefer replacing the blue with the black of the cross of st david, like this:


----------



## Hozukimaru (Aug 27, 2014)

Looks badass with the black.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Aug 27, 2014)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> The monarchy is the privilege of the commonwealth, not the UK. SNP want to destroy Trident, not keep it. They want a currency union. Not that they'll get it, but by definition a union takes ideas from both parties.



The monarchy was always an iffy one I included just to illustrate the SNP's wish list. If they did want to keep the Queen then the monarchy would have to consent, which no doubt it would. But the SNP are using Trident as leverage to broker deals/bribe which is hilarious. A currency union, again is hilarious and won't happen.


----------



## dr_shadow (Aug 27, 2014)

Blue said:


> No, they shouldn't. People are really stupid. You will always get this kind of insular "Yeah! Scots are awesome! Fuck those lazy English!"/Texans are awesome fuck those liberal yankees/Quebecois are awesome fuck those English-speaking Canadians/Catalonia is awesome fuck the Spanish etc etc etc.
> 
> It doesn't happen in the US because the process for secession is very clear and has been demonstrated: The Federal government comes and collects your fucking heads, burns your farms, sacks your cities, and pisses on your grave.
> 
> Whoever in the UK gave the Scottish the idea they could do this without a war is dumb.



You should get a medal at the Great Hall of the People for your rejection of Tibetan independence.


----------



## Cromer (Aug 27, 2014)

Can some kind soul, in 300 words or less; summarize the goings-on in the Scottish Independence movement/anti-movement for a curious African? A quick Google search is only giving me sites that, at first glance, are hopelessly biased to one side of the issue.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Aug 27, 2014)

Cromer said:


> Can some kind soul, in 300 words or less; summarize the goings-on in the Scottish Independence movement/anti-movement for a curious African? A quick Google search is only giving me sites that, at first glance, are hopelessly biased to one side of the issue.



As best as I can sum it up, I'm sure the resident Brits here will be quick to correct:

It started in 2011 when the Scottish National Party gained a majority in the Scottish Parliament for the first time. Two years later, they announced a referendum for independence on September 18, 2014.

The pro-independence movement is motivated primarily by opposition to Tory policies in London, (Scotland has always leaned more left-wing compared to its fellow constituents), plus disillusionment with the Labor party, and the belief that they are being saddled with the U.K.'s debt with nothing to show for it.

The main issue over the referendum has been what type of currency Scotland will use if they vote for independence. Originally Alex Salmond, the head of the SNP, wanted to adopt the Euro, but the current shakiness of the Euro is having him opt to adopt the British Pound. The SNP had been trying to arrange a currency union with Britain that would allow both countries mutual control over the pound but Britain is refusing to do so. Salmond recently announced that if there is no currency union, they will adopt the pound anyway (they are still allowed to do that) and is threatening to default on their share of the UK debt if they refuse. The concern is that if Scotland can't get a currency union and still goes with the pound in the event of a Yes vote for secession, it will pretty much wreck havoc with the countries finances and credit, not to mention their finances will now be pretty much run by the Bank of England without their having much of a say.

Right now, the pro-unionist campaign is still leading in all polls although the independence campaign has been making strides as of late.


----------



## Cromer (Aug 27, 2014)

I see.  Thanks for the intro insight.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Aug 30, 2014)

Pro-unionist MP Jim Murphy suspends campaign tour after getting egged.

Is it me, or is the behavior of the Yes campaign starting to make the Tea Party and the uber-left look nuanced?


----------



## Blue (Aug 30, 2014)

mr_shadow said:


> You should get a medal at the Great Hall of the People for your rejection of Tibetan independence.



Don't recall Tibet ever agreeing to become a Chinese province in the first place. Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Aug 30, 2014)

Kagekatsu said:


> Pro-unionist MP Jim Murphy suspends campaign tour after getting egged.
> 
> Is it me, or is the behavior of the Yes campaign starting to make the Tea Party and the uber-left look nuanced?


No. That was some random guy throwing the egg, not the official campaign. The only majorly dodgy thing I've seen from either campaign is snp allegedly using the civil service and taxpayers money to churn out pro-yes stuff.


----------



## Nordstrom (Aug 30, 2014)

Also, new proposals for the UK flag:



This one looks really awesome!



But this one was nice too! Poor Wales always gets shafted.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Aug 30, 2014)

Sleipnyr said:


> Also, new proposals for the UK flag:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



On of the reasons I prefer the black over the green is that st david's cross mirrors the saint's crosses of the other parts of the union jack.


----------



## Easley (Aug 31, 2014)

Kagekatsu said:


> So apparently, someone in the Better Together campaign decided to greenlight this ad...


yeah, that was pretty condescending but it makes sense they'd target women.

"Polls to date have shown a marked gender gap, with women much less likely to support independence than men". (BBC poll tracker)

Scottish women will decide this referendum in favor of the union. Don't screw it up with ill-conceived ads.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Sep 1, 2014)




----------



## Kagekatsu (Sep 6, 2014)

Going to be an interesting couple of weeks.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Sep 6, 2014)

how many people voting yes just to be part of history rather than actual desire for independence


----------



## Nemesis (Sep 6, 2014)

People are voting yes for many reasons including that part.

Some are voting yes because they generally believe Scotland will be better.
Some are voting yes because of the anti English sentiment.
Some are voting yes because they buy into the whole "We only elected one Tory MP so it is undemocratic to have a conservative Prime Minister of the UK." crap.
Some because of the place in history.
Also there is no denying that Salmond has charisma.  Charisma and sprouting BS will always trump with the public in debates over facts and boring which Alistair Darling is like.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Sep 6, 2014)

So when Scotland says yes will this be the final death rattle of the British empire???

LOL @ David Cameron saying "The best years of Britain are ahead"


----------



## Kagekatsu (Sep 6, 2014)

makeoutparadise said:


> So when Scotland says yes will this be the final death rattle of the British empire???
> 
> LOL @ David Cameron saying "The best years of Britain are ahead"



The Empire is already dead, though certainly the end of a 300 year old political union.

Salmond and the SNP has gotten everyone hooked on the idea an independent Scotland will be rich off of North Sea oil reserves that will be sent to a sovereign wealth fund to pay off the lavish public spending they are proposing. Plus, their riding on the assumption that the rest of the UK will cave and grant them a currency union, and are threatening to default their share of the deft if roUK refuses. and they've stated repeatedly there will be no currency union.

If that happens, then capital is going to start flying out an indie Scotland fast as you see both investors avoiding Scotland like the plague while Scottish business owners consider moving south, where I'm certain the roUK will be welcoming them with open arms.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Sep 7, 2014)

Kagekatsu said:


> The Empire is already dead, though certainly the end of a 300 year old political union.
> 
> Salmond and the SNP has gotten everyone hooked on the idea an independent Scotland will be rich off of North Sea oil reserves that will be sent to a sovereign wealth fund to pay off the lavish public spending they are proposing. Plus, their riding on the assumption that the rest of the UK will cave and grant them a currency union, and are threatening to default their share of the deft if roUK refuses. and they've stated repeatedly there will be no currency union.
> 
> If that happens, then capital is going to start flying out an indie Scotland fast as you see both investors avoiding Scotland like the plague while Scottish business owners consider moving south, where I'm certain the roUK will be welcoming them with open arms.



at which point indie scottland might have buyer remorse?? and want to come back??


----------



## tari101190 (Sep 7, 2014)

Please don't go.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Sep 7, 2014)

makeoutparadise said:


> at which point indie scottland might have buyer remorse?? and want to come back??



Unlikely, though there's a possibility some regions of Scotland that are firmly against independence, specifically the lowland area south of Glasgow and the Shetland and Orkney islands may counter secede in response to a Yes vote.

As it seems the vote's going to be extremely close, the bigger question will be how both sides try to woo the opposing side afterwards. Whether its in the event of a No vote, to convince the Scots to trust Westminster for once and work for full devo max, or in the event of a Yes vote, convince business owners and investors to give the new Scottish nation a chance rather than leave for the roUK


----------



## wibisana (Sep 7, 2014)

I guess be part of bigger thing is not enough reason to keep union.
I mean UK is not called England and friends for reason


----------



## Kagekatsu (Sep 7, 2014)

Well, part of the reason some feel that Yes has been gaining as of late is because Better Together, the chief movement of the No campaign gets accused of being overly negative and patronizing. They mostly focus on the risks that will come with independence but often neglects to show the positive of remaining in the union. As such, the Yes campaign labels it as fearmongering and Tory propaganda, in contrast to the SNP's platform which has been nothing but promises that an iScotland would be a land of milk and honey.

Salmond is winning because he's saying what the people want to hear as opposed to what they need to hear.


----------



## GRIMMM (Sep 7, 2014)

There is a heavy amount of mis-information and baseless accusations in this thread. Hilarious that people still believe there is some sort of 'anti-English' sentiment behind the yes movement and that everyone voting yes must be a nationalist. I wasn't aware that UK equated to England. I think you'll find the problem most yes voters have is with the Westminster Govt and inequality across the board of the UK, not just in Scotland. 

I'd ask these posters to provide the evidence of their accusations please.

Also in regards to 'milk and honey' - Salmond has his vision, but even he has stated that it won't be like that, especially not initially if independence goes through and the setup of the country began. He has however said that Scotland can be a wealthy country in the long run with a fairer society. 

As for the EU, it has already been confirmed that Scotland wouldn't be put out and have to reapply, but instead it would be treated as a special case and the process would be much faster than the reapplication to the EU as a new member. This was the official statement from the new president of the EU. You can google it.

The oil posts about being 'rich of oil' and reliant on it are wrong too. Scotland would have enough wealth even without the oil thanks to our exports, industry and the renewable energy industry. Oil is just a bonus, and the fact another field has been found in the north sea that has 100 years worth of oil, and there is oil to be found beneath the Clyde that Scotland can't access due to the submarines parked there at the moment, it's looking quite good in terms of wealth for the country.

The debt was already decided on by the UK government that they would take on the debt and reject Scotland assets they have helped build up over 300 years in a union, which is a little like someone saying they're keeping everything in the event of a divorce. Salmond offered to take Scotland's share of the debt as long as they were given their part of the assets they are due. At no point was it a threat that 'Scotland would default on it's debt' - it is in fact the opposite, they offered to take debt, it is Westminster who have to make the decision on that.

Currency union was agreed on during the start of the campaign, even Darling confirmed in an interview that you can Google. Then as yes gained momentum suddenly the tone changed and it has been used as a political weapon against yes. It can be negotiated and if they stay true to their claims even after originally being for a currency union, and decide they don't want one, then they will have to deal with a massive crash and loss of over 10% of the pounds worth. I think in truth if yes went through then the markets would be immediately urging Westminster to have a union as I don't think they would be happy having to pay millions of extra tax on transactions,  and when have Westminster ever  been one to deny the wants of their rich business friends that run the market? - This is why the yes side see the CU as a scare tactic, because it's the equivalent of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Everything I've stated can be googled. I am however struggling to find all these supposed 'anti-English' sentiments that people hark on about when it comes to the yes campaign. I'm sure there have been 1 or 2 nutters that have their own opinion on England but that isn't representative of an entire movement, just as I've seen some individuals on the no side from England with their own opinion, but I don't equate that to 'the views of the entire no campaign'. Scottish people don't give a crap about the English people, just as I'm sure the English don't give a crap about the Scottish people. There is no hate there and it's an outdated view that just doesn't ring true anymore. If it was still true then surely I must hate my other half purely because she is English and I'm Scottish? What a load of utter pish and shite.

If anyone else wants more information on Scottish Independence and economy etc then I'd suggest Google for 'the wee blue book'.


----------



## GRIMMM (Sep 7, 2014)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> No. That was some random guy throwing the egg, not the official campaign. The only majorly dodgy thing I've seen from either campaign is snp allegedly using the civil service and taxpayers money to churn out pro-yes stuff.



I haven't seen anything about that in the news, link please? Also you are aware the yes campaign is independent from the SNP and thus does not have the same political rules attached as the Scottish Goverment who stopped pushing their political campaign weeks ago? Just as 'no thanks ukok better together 20 names' are separate. The yes campaign is funded by the public.

There was the email that was sent to all Scottish DWP staff members that the UK Govt got in trouble for and fined because it demanded they voted no which is of course illegal and undemocratic. This can be googled. (I can't link atm, on my terrible phone away from a PC).


----------



## Nemesis (Sep 7, 2014)

GRIMMM said:


> There is a heavy amount of mis-information and baseless accusations in this thread. Hilarious that people still believe there is some sort of 'anti-English' sentiment behind the yes movement and that everyone voting yes must be a nationalist. I wasn't aware that UK equated to England. I think you'll find the problem most yes voters have is with the Westminster Govt and inequality across the board of the UK, not just in Scotland.



 Considering scotland has more MPs per head than any other part of the UK it would be stupid for scottish people to think they are the least represented people in Westminster



> I'd ask these posters to provide the evidence of their accusations please.
> 
> Also in regards to 'milk and honey' - Salmond has his vision, but even he has stated that it won't be like that, especially not initially if independence goes through and the setup of the country began. He has however said that Scotland can be a wealthy country in the long run with a fairer society.



And how can it not be fair now?  It has the people to do it.  It is just a lot of scots have a  culture that can not and will not be changed just by voting yes.  They have the ability to change now into something they find fair.



> As for the EU, it has already been confirmed that Scotland wouldn't be put out and have to reapply, but instead it would be treated as a special case and the process would be much faster than the reapplication to the EU as a new member. This was the official statement from the new president of the EU. You can google it.



A) It is not up to us to google it.  Burden of fact is on you.  In fact the only ones that say that Spain will not are coming from SNP and other pro independent sources

B) Spain has already said it would likely Veto Scotland joining the EU http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/27/scottish-independence-spain-alex-salmond-eu 



> The oil posts about being 'rich of oil' and reliant on it are wrong too. Scotland would have enough wealth even without the oil thanks to our exports, industry and the renewable energy industry. Oil is just a bonus, and the fact another field has been found in the north sea that has 100 years worth of oil, and there is oil to be found beneath the Clyde that Scotland can't access due to the submarines parked there at the moment, it's looking quite good in terms of wealth for the country.



These companies have already said they are unlikely to stay in an independent Scotland from the uncertainty independence will give. 



> The debt was already decided on by the UK government that they would take on the debt and reject Scotland assets they have helped build up over 300 years in a union, which is a little like someone saying they're keeping everything in the event of a divorce. Salmond offered to take Scotland's share of the debt as long as they were given their part of the assets they are due. At no point was it a threat that 'Scotland would default on it's debt' - it is in fact the opposite, they offered to take debt, it is Westminster who have to make the decision on that.
> 
> Currency union was agreed on during the start of the campaign, even Darling confirmed in an interview that you can Google. Then as yes gained momentum suddenly the tone changed and it has been used as a political weapon against yes. It can be negotiated and if they stay true to their claims even after originally being for a currency union, and decide they don't want one, then they will have to deal with a massive crash and loss of over 10% of the pounds worth. I think in truth if yes went through then the markets would be immediately urging Westminster to have a union as I don't think they would be happy having to pay millions of extra tax on transactions,  and when have Westminster ever  been one to deny the wants of their rich business friends that run the market? - This is why the yes side see the CU as a scare tactic, because it's the equivalent of cutting off your nose to spite your face.



No the union has not already been decided. I even googled it since you are too lazy to provide sources yourself (which you have the burden of proof on) and closest thing is saying "Could be agreed." meaning there is a chance.  So no it has not been agreed and it is not in RoUK interest to share with Scotland.

If Scotland wants to be independent then it should like all new countries get themselves their own currency.  Not piggy back of one they want to split from.  You divorce from someone you split everything.  Scotland needs to take its share of the debt and show it can survive on its own.  That includes its own currency.



> Everything I've stated can be googled. I am however struggling to find all these supposed 'anti-English' sentiments that people hark on about when it comes to the yes campaign. I'm sure there have been 1 or 2 nutters that have their own opinion on England but that isn't representative of an entire movement, just as I've seen some individuals on the no side from England with their own opinion, but I don't equate that to 'the views of the entire no campaign'. Scottish people don't give a crap about the English people, just as I'm sure the English don't give a crap about the Scottish people. There is no hate there and it's an outdated view that just doesn't ring true anymore. If it was still true then surely I must hate my other half purely because she is English and I'm Scottish? What a load of utter pish and shite.
> 
> If anyone else wants more information on Scottish Independence and economy etc then I'd suggest Google for 'the wee blue book'.



Again not our job to google shit.  It is your job to provide evidence to back your arguments.  Cite or concede.


----------



## Rain (Sep 7, 2014)

I support.

Weaker UK is better UK.


----------



## GRIMMM (Sep 7, 2014)

Kagekatsu said:


> Pro-unionist MP Jim Murphy suspends campaign tour after getting egged.
> 
> Is it me, or is the behavior of the Yes campaign starting to make the Tea Party and the uber-left look nuanced?



Missing the fact that nearly all of the MSM newspapers haven't reported on the many incidents of yes voters being attacked, offices being bricked and faeces painted all over them, confrontations from the no side, including racism and religious slurs being used, but of course lets make a massive mountain out of a politician being egged by a random person who we don't even know is a yes voter.

The only thing that is known about him is he was an ex-labour voter. The yes campaign have spread images of him around and helped the police in an attempt to find this person and charge him, of course, you wouldn't see the MSM newspapers reporting that fact would you?



Nemesis said:


> Considering scotland has more MPs per head than any other part of the UK it would be stupid for scottish people to think they are the least represented people in Westminster.



That have absolutely no effect on policies, laws and who has been voted into power in Westminster despite being against several policies including the most recent bedroom tax. Nearly every MP in Scotland voted against this, and it made zero difference. I think it was 50 of the 53 MPs. The other fact about misrepresentation is the people of Scotland never voting for a Tory government and having to deal with them for the past 40 years. Great system, evidently, when an entire country doesn't even have a voice.



Nemesis said:


> And how can it not be fair now?  It has the people to do it.  It is just a lot of scots have a  culture that can not and will not be changed just by voting yes.  They have the ability to change now into something they find fair.



You tell me? Is this union fair at the moment? Is the wealth inequality fair? Is the poverty across the UK and the fact that the majority of the money that the UK deals with is kept to the SE of England? Trust me, Scotland aren't the only ones that believe this is unfair (most of North England are not happy with the inequality either).

By gaining independence Scotland has control of it's own tax and money, and can use it as it sees fit to make changes. It will be given the change to make changes that the people want, in a true democracy. The very changes that they will never be able to make as part of the UK, again, regardless of how many of our people and politicians vote.

Also what culture are you talking about? Are you about to make a sweeping generalisation about the Scottish people? Paint me not surprised.



> A) It is not up to us to google it.  Burden of fact is on you.  In fact the only ones that say that Spain will not are coming from SNP and other pro independent sources
> 
> B) Spain has already said it would likely Veto Scotland joining the EU http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/27/scottish-independence-spain-alex-salmond-eu



I have already explained in my second post why I cannot provide links at the moment. The problem with the Spain veto is that Scotland won't be "joining" as they are already a member under the UK, as I stated the EU president confirmed stating it is a special case and not a "fresh application to join the EU". It would not be a re-application to become a member again, so much as it is being put in a waiting room until things can be negotiated and worked out within the EU and Scotland. Also, why would the EU want to dispel Scotland, which is set to be a strong wealthy economy?

I am also more than certain that the whole Spain issue was talked about weeks ago and again this week and it turned out it was just some random Spanish politician who wasn't representative of the views of the country Spain who claimed that, but I'll have to check that up myself, I just remember reading it somewhere recently, probably the Guardian.



> These companies have already said they are unlikely to stay in an independent Scotland from the uncertainty independence will give.



If there are companies that want to leave Scotland over independence, then that is their choice, I have to question the validity of their claims after the vote takes place to see if they follow through, but really if they are willing to leave over it, let them go.

I also noticed it's an article that has been quoted from a study by the Daily Mail that was reported by the Huff, and was already proved to be false by more recent events in the media, including companies that were "accused of leaving Scotland in the event of a yes vote" by "no thanks ukok better together 20 names" stating the independence would have no effect on them and they had no plans to do what was said. This includes the most recent case of TESCO, which was in the news two days ago.

Next you'll be telling me the sky will fall if Scotland goes independent I'm assuming, much like the threat of aliens and the like?



> No the union has not already been decided. I even googled it since you are too lazy to provide sources yourself (which you have the burden of proof on) and closest thing is saying "Could be agreed." meaning there is a chance.  So no it has not been agreed and it is not in RoUK interest to share with Scotland.



I never said it was decided, I stated initially the UK parties, including Darling as part of "no thanks ukok better together 20 names" agreed to it, and then changed their tone to make it "undecided on" and to be used as a political weapon. I then stated why people and organisations across the UK and the world, including financial services/ombudsman (both UK and outwith the UK), Joseph Stiglitz (one of the top economists in the world), the yes side, and obviously Salmond believe it is a political bluff and a scare tactic. 



> If Scotland wants to be independent then it should like all new countries get themselves their own currency.  Not piggy back of one they want to split from.  You divorce from someone you split everything.  Scotland needs to take its share of the debt and show it can survive on its own.  That includes its own currency.



Except many countries who have went through Independence initially have a currency union with the mindset that they will set up a currency in the future, just like Ireland when it declared Independence? Basically you have given your opinion here, when laws state that you are incorrect. Just because you believe "Scotland must not have the pound or it isn't independent" doesn't make it fact or true, sorry. Also the fact the pound is a tradable currency that can be used by anyone, your statement doesn't hold up, I'm afraid.

If indeed there is no currency union, then Scotland will still use the pound. There is no doubt over this, and even Darling had to admit they could recently during the debate, but most yes voters already knew that fact. I just hope that it is truly in the "best interests of the UK" to lose 10% of the pounds worth and have to deal with a crash, and increased tax to businesses and corporations throughout the UK. I'm sure it's worth it though.

If you want to talk about splitting things during a divorce, maybe you should write to the UK Govt about splitting the assets then during this "divorce" (granted it happens), then we can talk about fair share of the debt, as at the moment it is down to the UK Govt what happens with the debt, not the Scottish Govt. The Scottish Govt has already stated it is willing to take it's share of the debt, but it is not their choice as the UK are posturing that they will "take the full debt and keep the assets".



> Again not our job to google shit.  It is your job to provide evidence to back your arguments.  Cite or concede.



Again, read my second post. I am currently unable to provide links until I get to a PC. My phone is shit and posting from it is very difficult, even quoting someone is a monumental task so you can only imagine trying to reply to your post just now. I can provide links if you really require them and googling is too hard, but I have a feeling that even if I posted them after reading your post that you wouldn't believe me anyway.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 7, 2014)

So basically GRIMMM'S posts amount to little more then: 'I've read articles that support my opinion but I won't post them because... I can't.'

Yeah...

Forgive us if this diminishes the creditability of your arguments.


----------



## GRIMMM (Sep 7, 2014)

MbS said:


> So basically GRIMMM'S posts amount to little more then: 'I've read articles that support my opinion but I won't post them because... I can't.'
> 
> Yeah...
> 
> Forgive us if this diminishes the creditability of your arguments.


I will try then, as I have offered to do so when I reach a PC, but you may need to format these if they don't post correctly.

Thanks for addressing my other points though.

Scottish Exports


Current Scotland Resources/Renewable Energy

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25451385

Scotland advising it will honour debt (after asset negotiation)
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/13/treasury-uk-debts-scottish-referendum

EU Membership "Special Case"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28311938

Racism/Religious slurs against Yes Supporters


Faeces Smeared


Yes voter attacked


Untapped Oil and Gas


Start Up costs - false information from UK Treasury corrected

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27962983

Darling's original Yes to Currency Union


Darling admits Scotland can use the pound


Scottish politicians vote on Bedroom tax (93% against from the country, still went through)


How Scottish votes make no difference to UK Governments


No Spanish Veto



Lies regarding TESCO and cost increases from BT

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29087393

The so called companies leaving (currency and money again) that is actually just a "may" not a "we will" - basically translates to "almost two-thirds of firms backed keeping the pound in a currency union with the rest of the UK"


Irish Independence model for Scotland
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-...dependence-could-work-for-scotland-too-2014-8

UK Lies regarding currency


Now I will ask you and other posters to provide evidence of the claims that have been made regarding Salmond, claims of the the anti-English sentiment that have been running throughout the thread and how a currency union isn't in the interests of the UK. Until proof is linked regarding all these statements I will have to assume everything that has been stated is baseless and just pure fantasy from posters here.

I hope you know linking these was an absolute nuisance for me. I may link more articles when I get home though.

Other sites with many articles for people to read.


----------



## Nemesis (Sep 7, 2014)

GRIMMM said:


> That have absolutely no effect on policies, laws and who has been voted into power in Westminster despite being against several policies including the most recent bedroom tax. Nearly every MP in Scotland voted against this, and it made zero difference. I think it was 50 of the 53 MPs. The other fact about misrepresentation is the people of Scotland never voting for a Tory government and having to deal with them for the past 40 years. Great system, evidently, when an entire country doesn't even have a voice.



But scottish people had the absolute effect on policies during the labour terms.  Both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are scottish through and through.  Not only that but on a clear scale of things a population less than London should not be able to dictate policy on an area that has over 50 million people.  

That is Democracy, one person one vote.  Now don't get me wrong I hate FPTP system, we would be better served under a PR system.  But you can't have Scotland saying it can't affect when same time it has lesser population than London.  By that alone London should have more say than Scotland.  Scotland with 6million should have 10% of the say.  London with 8million should have 13% say.

Even then why should Scotland have its own devolved Parliament without areas of England having their own (Note I am against an English Parliament in that England is too large and diverse, and more regional parliaments are better).  If anything Scotland is over representative in many areas.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Sep 7, 2014)

GRIMMM said:


> Missing the fact that nearly all of the MSM newspapers haven't reported on the many incidents of yes voters being attacked, offices being bricked and faeces painted all over them, confrontations from the no side, including racism and religious slurs being used, but of course lets make a massive mountain out of a politician being egged by a random person who we don't even know is a yes voter.
> 
> The only thing that is known about him is he was an ex-labour voter. The yes campaign have spread images of him around and helped the police in an attempt to find this person and charge him, of course, you wouldn't see the MSM newspapers reporting that fact would you?



So no comment on all the cybernats going around on social media and throwing the "If you're not with us, you're against us" card at anyone voting No? Remember how JK Rowling got called a c*** because she was donating to Better Together? Or how No signs are either being torn down or vandalized. Both sides have their fair share of idiots trying to make them look bad, but its Yes that seems convinced of its own moral superiority.




GRIMMM said:


> That have absolutely no effect on policies, laws and who has been voted into power in Westminster despite being against several policies including the most recent bedroom tax. Nearly every MP in Scotland voted against this, and it made zero difference. I think it was 50 of the 53 MPs. The other fact about misrepresentation is the people of Scotland never voting for a Tory government and having to deal with them for the past 40 years. Great system, evidently, when an entire country doesn't even have a voice.
> 
> You tell me? Is this union fair at the moment? Is the wealth inequality fair? Is the poverty across the UK and the fact that the majority of the money that the UK deals with is kept to the SE of England? Trust me, Scotland aren't the only ones that believe this is unfair (most of North England are not happy with the inequality either).
> 
> ...


You have a devolved parliament to make up your own laws, you're already getting subsidies from RoUK for free tuition and prescriptions, something England does not have. And this logic of "we never get the government we voted for" again makes no sense because you technically do have a regional government. I live in Montana, a state that is both awash in natural resources and primarily votes Republican, yet we've had a Democratic president for the past two election cycles and its likely to continue beyond that. Are you saying we should secede from our union as well?



GRIMMM said:


> I have already explained in my second post why I cannot provide links at the moment. The problem with the Spain veto is that Scotland won't be "joining" as they are already a member under the UK, as I stated the EU president confirmed stating it is a special case and not a "fresh application to join the EU". It would not be a re-application to become a member again, so much as it is being put in a waiting room until things can be negotiated and worked out within the EU and Scotland. Also, why would the EU want to dispel Scotland, which is set to be a strong wealthy economy?
> 
> I am also more than certain that the whole Spain issue was talked about weeks ago and again this week and it turned out it was just some random Spanish politician who wasn't representative of the views of the country Spain who claimed that, but I'll have to check that up myself, I just remember reading it somewhere recently, probably the Guardian.


That article referenced the Prime Minister of Spain, hardly a "random politician". Spain and countries that are experiencing separatists movements are going to veto Scotland's membership because they don't want to give the Catalonians and other groups any more momentum.The only thing I got from the EU president was that he was "sympathetic" to Scotland getting automatic readmission because he's from Luxembourg, a very small country. But the EU president's word is not law, especially since they're already having a moratorium on new members for five years.




GRIMMM said:


> If there are companies that want to leave Scotland over independence, then that is their choice, I have to question the validity of their claims after the vote takes place to see if they follow through, but really if they are willing to leave over it, let them go.
> 
> I also noticed it's an article that has been quoted from a study by the Daily Mail that was reported by the Huff, and was already proved to be false by more recent events in the media, including companies that were "accused of leaving Scotland in the event of a yes vote" by "no thanks ukok better together 20 names" stating the independence would have no effect on them and they had no plans to do what was said. This includes the most recent case of TESCO, which was in the news two days ago.
> 
> Next you'll be telling me the sky will fall if Scotland goes independent I'm assuming, much like the threat of aliens and the like?


. That includes business owners and tax payers in that survey.



GRIMMM said:


> I never said it was decided, I stated initially the UK parties, including Darling as part of "no thanks ukok better together 20 names" agreed to it, and then changed their tone to make it "undecided on" and to be used as a political weapon. I then stated why people and organisations across the UK and the world, including financial services/ombudsman (both UK and outwith the UK), Joseph Stiglitz (one of the top economists in the world), the yes side, and obviously Salmond believe it is a political bluff and a scare tactic.
> 
> Except many countries who have went through Independence initially have a currency union with the mindset that they will set up a currency in the future, just like Ireland when it declared Independence? Basically you have given your opinion here, when laws state that you are incorrect. Just because you believe "Scotland must not have the pound or it isn't independent" doesn't make it fact or true, sorry. Also the fact the pound is a tradable currency that can be used by anyone, your statement doesn't hold up, I'm afraid.


Ireland struggled for years after independence even with a currency union and then shifting to their own currency. It was only the EU and Euro that enabled the "Celtic Tiger" to rise and even then, they still needed a bailout after the recession. Also, Joseph Stiglitz is one of Salmond's economic advisers for the campaign, so of course he's going to say its a bluff. And yes, Darling said Scotland could use the pound, but there's a difference between sterlingization and currency union, something the SNP was determined to cloud. Without the BoE as a lender of last resorts, you're going to see interest rates skyrocket when the SNP tries to do all that lavish public spending they promised, with guarantees there will be no austerity or cuts to the NHS and that the oil fund will cover it. (And you say they're not promising utopia). Also, do you find it a little bit suspicious that all of a sudden, we're getting claims of new oil deposits in the North Sea, (with no mention on how they'll fund the construction of the facilities), or mentioning that the oil market is constantly fluctuating and that iScotland's oil will have to compete with Norway as well as in the incoming fracking boom in America?



GRIMMM said:


> If indeed there is no currency union, then Scotland will still use the pound. There is no doubt over this, and even Darling had to admit they could recently during the debate, but most yes voters already knew that fact. I just hope that it is truly in the "best interests of the UK" to lose 10% of the pounds worth and have to deal with a crash, and increased tax to businesses and corporations throughout the UK. I'm sure it's worth it though.
> 
> If you want to talk about splitting things during a divorce, maybe you should write to the UK Govt about splitting the assets then during this "divorce" (granted it happens), then we can talk about fair share of the debt, as at the moment it is down to the UK Govt what happens with the debt, not the Scottish Govt. The Scottish Govt has already stated it is willing to take it's share of the debt, but it is not their choice as the UK are posturing that they will "take the full debt and keep the assets".


The RoUK has agreed to guarantee Scotland's debts if they vote for independence. However, as stated previously, Salmond is threatening to default if they won't grant a currency union. Do you really want to know the havoc even threatening default will have on an indie Scotland's credit rating?


GRIMMM said:


> Again, read my second post. I am currently unable to provide links until I get to a PC. My phone is shit and posting from it is very difficult, even quoting someone is a monumental task so you can only imagine trying to reply to your post just now. I can provide links if you really require them and googling is too hard, but I have a feeling that even if I posted them after reading your post that you wouldn't believe me anyway.


Considering your just spouting the SNP party line of "It's all those evil Tories fault. Indie Scotland will be awesome and anyone who says otherwise is a Tory plant", I'm pretty certain those sources of yours are slanted in a way that supports your argument.


----------



## Blue (Sep 7, 2014)

> I live in Montana, a state that is both awash in natural resources and primarily votes Republican, yet we've had a Democratic president for the past two election cycles and its likely to continue beyond that. Are you saying we should secede from our union as well?



If you did we'd come and we'd kill you

Something I still think the UK should have learned from


----------



## Faither (Sep 7, 2014)

Posturing militarism is a thoroughly American response to due democratic process.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 7, 2014)

GRIMMM said:


> Scottish Exports



I can't see anything unless I 'Sign up'. Fail. 



> EU Membership "Special Case"
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28311938



It doesn’t prove _or_ deny anything about Scotland being a special case, at all. Meanwhile the process to join the EU remains the same and enshrined in Law with countries like Spain and Belgium set to oppose any attempt by Scotland to join.



> Racism/Religious slurs against Yes Supporters
> 
> 
> Faeces Smeared
> ...











> Untapped Oil and Gas



The article states Scotland might have. Nothing definitive to go on.



> Darling's original Yes to Currency Union
> 
> 
> Darling admits Scotland can use the pound



Scotland could 'keep the pound' but the question is whether this is in the form of a currency union. And the SNP's insistence that a CU will happen because 'it's best for Scotland' seems to forget that the rest of the UK will also want its say. Funny how Scots bleating about democracy forget that.



> Scottish politicians vote on Bedroom tax (93% against from the country, still went through)





The UK government has moved to neutralise the impact of the bedroom tax on the Scottish independence referendum by handing powers to the Scottish government that will allow it to mitigate the measure.



> How Scottish votes make no difference to UK Governments



I suppose this is why Scottish politicians can vote on English law while English politicians cannot vote on certain Scottish laws and have more  more MPs per head than any other part of the UK. 



> No Spanish Veto



Lol wrong.






> Lies regarding TESCO and cost increases from BT
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29087393



Tesco says it ‘won’t increase prices’, of course you don’t say such things. That’s suicide by any other name in retail.



> The so called companies leaving (currency and money again) that is actually just a "may" not a "we will" - basically translates to "almost two-thirds of firms backed keeping the pound in a currency union with the rest of the UK"







> Irish Independence model for Scotland
> http://www.businessinsider.com/the-...dependence-could-work-for-scotland-too-2014-8





Ireland has always been the bastion example Scottish nationalists aspire too. But Ireland's transition from poverty required several generations after independence and most importantly, Ireland only really achieved economic lift off in the 1980s thanks to the huge cash sums from the EU… and which would not be available to Scotland, heh.



> UK Lies regarding currency



UK lies.  





> Other sites with many articles for people to read.



Holy shit.  If I wanted to read propaganda I'd go to the SNP website.



> Now I will ask you and other posters to provide evidence of the claims that have been made regarding Salmond, claims of the the anti-English sentiment that have been running throughout the thread and how a currency union isn't in the interests of the UK. Until proof is linked regarding all these statements I will have to assume everything that has been stated is baseless and just pure fantasy from posters here.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Sep 7, 2014)

Handsome Dan said:


> If you did we'd come and we'd kill you
> 
> Something I still think the UK should have learned from



Gee, I wonder what would have happened if the UK had tried harder when a certain colony separated from them in the 18th century.


----------



## Easley (Sep 7, 2014)

The No campaign (Better Together) are looking pretty desperate right now. Salmond and his cronies don't need to do much against such incompetence. Ed Miliband is the worst of the lot. Whenever he opens his mouth the nationalist vote goes up 5%. His latest gaffe was about border guards. Idiot. The Labour party would be hit very hard by an independent Scotland. No "free" MPs just because Scottish voters dislike the Conservatives.

Even George Osborne is trying to 'encourage' a no vote by giving Scotland new powers. In other words; a bribe. Then they wonder why the Yes camp is leading, and will probably win since they have all the momentum.


----------



## Megaharrison (Sep 7, 2014)

I hope this goes through and this quasi third world ghetto known as Scotland can realize how much better off they were under the evil Brits.


----------



## Blue (Sep 7, 2014)

Faither said:


> Posturing militarism is a thoroughly American response to due democratic process.



No posturing involved

We just do it


----------



## masamune1 (Sep 7, 2014)

Megaharrison said:


> I hope this goes through and this quasi third world ghetto known as Scotland can realize how much better off they were under the evil Brits.



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRKhTvUUYMI[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## very bored (Sep 7, 2014)

Nemesis said:


> People are voting yes for many reasons including that part.
> 
> Some are voting yes because they generally believe Scotland will be better.
> Some are voting yes because of the anti English sentiment.
> ...





Megaharrison said:


> I hope this goes through and this quasi third world ghetto known as Scotland can realize how much better off they were under the evil Brits.



What do Scottish people think will happen if they gain independence?  From the outside, it sounds like they've been promised everything.


----------



## Nemesis (Sep 8, 2014)

Well Salmond is trying to sell Scotland as becoming and rather rapidly a well off scandinavian style country.  Now that for me IS a good thing to aspire to but I don't think Scotland in short to medium term can actually get to that.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Sep 8, 2014)

Megaharrison said:


> I hope this goes through and this quasi third world ghetto known as Scotland can realize how much better off they were under the evil Brits.


Funny thing is the SNP loves to claim that since their a supposed net contributor to the British economy, and that its the roUK that will be worse off without North Sea oil. Despite roUK is already jumping on the fracking bandwagon and actually considering building more nuclear plants. The SNP on the hand extend that asinine "no nukes" policy of theirs to include nuclear energy since they have the Greens on their side.


----------



## dr_shadow (Sep 8, 2014)

Dagens Nyheter here in Sweden described the domino effect pretty well:

2014 - Scotland leaves the UK.
2015 - Tories win the English elections easily. Cameron maybe resigns in shame though. Tory power cemented for the near future.
2017 - England leaves the EU, without the pro-EU Scottish vote.

Then add: Someone in the UN General Assembly motions for England to be removed from the UN Security Council.

I didn't know the Scots had such a disproportionate share of Labor and pro-EU voters.


----------



## Hozukimaru (Sep 8, 2014)

mr_shadow said:


> Dagens Nyheter here in Sweden described the domino effect pretty well:
> 
> 2014 - Scotland leaves the UK.
> 2015 - Tories win the English elections easily. Cameron maybe resigns in shame though. Tory power cemented for the near future.
> ...




Maybe Scotland will enter the EU then.

I don't think that such a major change will happen in the short-term but do you think that a country could replace the UK in the UN Security Council?


----------



## dr_shadow (Sep 8, 2014)

Hozukimaru said:


> Maybe Scotland will enter the EU then.
> 
> I don't think that such a major change will happen in the short-term but do you think that a country could replace the UK in the UN Security Council?



India.

1.2 billion people
10th largest economy
Has nukes


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Sep 8, 2014)

Brazil has also been trying to get into the UN council for ages. And I think South Africa too.

Though we don't have nukes. So India is more likely.


----------



## Blue (Sep 8, 2014)

Security Council should just be trashed. UK, France and Russia aren't even relevant anymore and we don't need India or Brazil vetoing anything their little meat brains don't feel like dealing with.

Either reform the SC as the US, the EU, and China, or trash it and settle things with majority votes.


----------



## TasteTheDifference (Sep 8, 2014)

People in England don't seem even remotely interested in or bothered by these events, ive never heard anyone mention in it IRL, the Westminster parties have barely said anything beyond making a few statements about monetary policy, even my scottish parents couldnt seem to care less


----------



## Megaharrison (Sep 8, 2014)

Dragon D Luffy said:


> Brazil has also been trying to get into the UN council for ages. *And I think South Africa too.*
> 
> Though we don't have nukes. So India is more likely.



This made me laugh hard. Algeria, Nigeria, and Morocco are legit stronger and more relevant than South Africa.


----------



## Nordstrom (Sep 8, 2014)

Dragon D Luffy said:


> Gee, I wonder what would have happened if the UK had tried harder when a certain colony separated from them in the 18th century.



What's deeply ironic is that said colony proceeded to invade THEM only to get their asses handed to them on a silver platter.



And that time where Canada was friendly with Cuba next to America.



Megaharrison said:


> I hope this goes through and this quasi third world ghetto known as Scotland can realize how much better off they were under the evil Brits.



Scotland is going to join the NAM? 



Handsome Dan said:


> No posturing involved
> 
> We just do it



Which shows how much of a joke your style of democracy is. Hell, you've got two parties to pick from. Given how much of a joke the Republicans are now, the US is, right now, a _de facto_ single party state.

Look in the mirror, it isn't pretty.



mr_shadow said:


> Dagens Nyheter here in Sweden described the domino effect pretty well:
> 
> 2014 - Scotland leaves the UK.
> 2015 - Tories win the English elections easily. Cameron maybe resigns in shame though. Tory power cemented for the near future.
> ...



And I'd be happy with this.



Handsome Dan said:


> Security Council should just be trashed. UK, France and Russia aren't even relevant anymore and we don't need India or Brazil vetoing anything their little meat brains don't feel like dealing with.
> 
> Either reform the SC as the US, the EU, and China, or *trash it and settle things with majority votes.*



While I disagree with the vast majority of your post, I found the last phrase oddly interesting.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 8, 2014)

Billions of pounds wiped from value of Scottish firms after yes vote leads independence poll.

And the Scottish train wreck continues to derail off track. 



Kagekatsu said:


> Funny thing is the SNP loves to claim that since their a supposed net contributor to the British economy



It's depressing, and funny. Figures for 2012-13 have shown the UK and Scottish government spent ?65.2 billion that year in Scotland, against the ?53 billion Scots raised in tax revenues, creating a budget deficit of 8.3% for GDP.




Also relevant:  Alas, those poor oppressed Scots, wub wub.



> and that its the roUK that will be worse off without North Sea oil. Despite roUK is already jumping on the fracking bandwagon and actually considering building more nuclear plants. The SNP on the hand extend that asinine "no nukes" policy of theirs to include nuclear energy since they have the Greens on their side.



An interesting but often unforeseen titbit that pro-separatist Scots neglect is that International law suggests that maritime borders follow land ones, and as the border between Scotland and England runs diagonally from north-east to south-west instead of a perceived horizontal line, this means that some oil the they believe is rightfully theirs, would actually be England's.

Anyhow, much of this _Scottish_ oil is in the waters around the Shetland Islands, who ironically don't want to be part of an independent Scotland and would much prefer sovereignty for themselves. It'll be funny  to see the SNP say no to them after all the wailing and stomping about their own 'FREEDOM!', heh.

And the economic viability of the oil is - surprise - misleading. A gushing claim made by the Scottish oil industry and what GRIMMM tried justifying but failed is that ?1trillion reserves of oil and gas could _maybe_ still be in Scottish waters with enough to last for '100 years'.


----------



## Velocity (Sep 8, 2014)

TasteTheDifference said:


> People in England don't seem even remotely interested in or bothered by these events, ive never heard anyone mention in it IRL, the Westminster parties have barely said anything beyond making a few statements about monetary policy, even my scottish parents couldnt seem to care less



I think it's because there's no way Scotland could survive if it went solo, so everyone just assumes Scotland won't vote yes for independence. Personally, I can see why they might want autonomy - it is stupid that they have basically no control or say whatsoever in what government runs their country. They may have a significantly smaller population compared to England, but that shouldn't mean their collective votes count for less.

If we introduced a better voting system, one that gave each country an equal say in which political party runs the country regardless of population, I think it would help a lot. To be completely honest, our biggest problem as a country has always been that England basically never gives anyone an equal say or fair representation in politics.

I hope they don't vote yes in the end, but I can understand if they do. Regardless of the outcome, I think it's important our government takes steps to give the other countries of the UK better representation. We're supposed to be a united kingdom, not "England and the other three (four if you're insane and count Cornwall)".


----------



## Kagekatsu (Sep 8, 2014)

Velocity said:


> I think it's because there's no way Scotland could survive if it went solo, so everyone just assumes Scotland won't vote yes for independence. Personally, I can see why they might want autonomy - it is stupid that they have basically no control or say whatsoever in what government runs their country. They may have a significantly smaller population compared to England, but that shouldn't mean their collective votes count for less.
> 
> If we introduced a better voting system, one that gave each country an equal say in which political party runs the country regardless of population, I think it would help a lot. To be completely honest, our biggest problem as a country has always been that England basically never gives anyone an equal say or fair representation in politics.
> 
> I hope they don't vote yes in the end, but I can understand if they do. Regardless of the outcome, I think it's important our government takes steps to give the other countries of the UK better representation. We're supposed to be a united kingdom, not "England and the other three (four if you're insane and count Cornwall)".


Hasn't there been some calling for devolution of certain regions of England? Particularly Cornwall and Northern England?


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 8, 2014)

Velocity said:


> I think it's because there's no way Scotland could survive if it went solo,



Scotland could survive. They'd basically just be Poland.

There's no way a country of 5 million people can they pay for hospitals, medicine, schools, police, colleges, universities, social security and welfare, etc as they currently are without the UK to fall back on.

They would not be able to maintain their free university education, medical prescriptions, and high levels of social care for the elderly unless they raise a larger work force (most likely from immigration), taxes would have to rise and tighter fiscal responsibility to accommodate these infrastructures, the latter two _supposedly_ being the reason SNP they want out of the UK in the first place.

Nor can a small country in the northern extremity of Europe can attract business and industry which will prefer London. Any time


----------



## dr_shadow (Sep 8, 2014)

MbS said:


> Scotland could survive. They'd basically just be Poland.
> 
> There's no way a country of 5 million people can they pay for hospitals, medicine, schools, police, colleges, universities, social security and welfare, etc as they currently are without the UK to fall back on.
> 
> ...



Norway says hello.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 8, 2014)

mr_shadow said:


> Norway says hello.



Fuck Norway.

Norwegians subside their services with higher taxation. If Scots want the same quality of services as they currently do as part of the UK then their taxes will have to rise to accommodate them after independence because they don't have a work force or GDP output that can shoulder it.

Unless those barrels of magical oil suddenly rise to the surface.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Sep 8, 2014)

mr_shadow said:


> Norway says hello.



Far different circumstances, for one, Norway has a lot more oil from which to draw a revenue fund compared to indie Scotland.


----------



## Nordstrom (Sep 8, 2014)

Velocity said:


> I think it's because there's no way Scotland could survive if it went solo, so everyone just assumes Scotland won't vote yes for independence. Personally, I can see why they might want autonomy - it is stupid that they have basically no control or say whatsoever in what government runs their country. They may have a significantly smaller population compared to England, but that shouldn't mean their collective votes count for less.
> 
> If we introduced a better voting system, one that gave each country an equal say in which political party runs the country regardless of population, I think it would help a lot. To be completely honest, our biggest problem as a country has always been that England basically never gives anyone an equal say or fair representation in politics.
> 
> I hope they don't vote yes in the end, but I can understand if they do. Regardless of the outcome, I think it's important our government takes steps to give the other countries of the UK better representation. We're supposed to be a united kingdom, not *"England and the other three (four if you're insane and count Cornwall)"*.



Those have always been my gripe with unions. It started with "Russia and everybody else" for the USSR, continued on with "DF, Quintana Roo, Monterrey and all those other guys... elsewhere" with Mexico and ends with "Both coasts, the south and whoever happens to be in between" for the United States.

Ironically, despite being vastly different, Quebec and British Canada do not seem to have nearly as much of a problem.



mr_shadow said:


> Norway says hello.



And Iceland... And Malta... And the UAE... And Finland... And about the vast majority of over developed countries. All who happen to have populations between 2 and 11 million.


----------



## Velocity (Sep 8, 2014)

mr_shadow said:


> Norway says hello.



Norway is five time's the size of Scotland and has twice the GDP. They can afford what they are able to due to the natural resources they can export. So when Norway split from Sweden a century ago, they were already relying more on foreign trade than they were Sweden.


----------



## TasteTheDifference (Sep 8, 2014)

If you want an unbiased look at Scotland's projected finances you should read this (btw fuck you for making me want to read this while the tennis is on )



So what people are saying about Scotland's current fiscal policy being unsustainable are right, even using favourable projections regarding North Sea oil and net migration it'll still have to cut its expenditure to make ends meet, but being forced to move your spending in line with rUK isn't really a proper basis for not going for independence, it's not _all_about the money


----------



## Kagekatsu (Sep 9, 2014)

Cameron, Clegg and Milliband cancel Prime Minister Quatuond to go to Scotland and campaign against independence....

....Welp, that's pretty much it for the No campaign.


----------



## Nemesis (Sep 9, 2014)

Cameron going north of the border is going to harm the no Campaign easily.  No one in Scotland can stand him or the Conservative party.  Hell that is one of the reasons there is a lot of no voters in the first place.  They buy into that somehow having only one conservative MP in scotland makes him an illegitimate PM for the whole of the UK.



> If we introduced a better voting system, one that gave each country an equal say in which political party runs the country regardless of population, I think it would help a lot. To be completely honest, our biggest problem as a country has always been that England basically never gives anyone an equal say or fair representation in politics.



Ok why should Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland who combined have a population similar to London have equal say to the whole of England when it comes to the UK.  Democracy is about having one man one vote.  So 50 million out vote 10 million then tough the 50 million win out. (Unless it regards to rights of the people which should never be put to public vote.  They are rights that should never be taken away.)  I'm sorry but the 3 combined should have just a little more say in the UK than London.


----------



## Blue (Sep 9, 2014)

Scotland should become the 51st state. They're all crying because they're doing slightly better per-capita than the UK as a whole, but they'd be like the 15th poorest state.

Just make sure they know that you can check into the Hotel Columbia, but you can't check out.


----------



## Nordstrom (Sep 9, 2014)

I really don't see what the fuss is all about. This was actually postponed hundreds of years ago because the Scots went bankrupt trying to establish a colony smack in the middle of the Darien Gap!


----------



## Velocity (Sep 10, 2014)

Nemesis said:


> Ok why should Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland who combined have a population similar to London have equal say to the whole of England when it comes to the UK.  Democracy is about having one man one vote.  So 50 million out vote 10 million then tough the 50 million win out. (Unless it regards to rights of the people which should never be put to public vote.  They are rights that should never be taken away.)  I'm sorry but the 3 combined should have just a little more say in the UK than London.



Democracy is about everyone getting an equal say. The way the system currently works, the people of the UK outside of England may as well not vote because their votes don't really matter. As you say, it's their 11 million votes against our 53 million. Our current system basically tells those eleven million people that they don't get to decide who runs their countries because their votes count for less than 16% of the total.

It's not really fair and the lack of proper representation in Parliment is what started all that trouble with British colonists across the Atlantic over 250 years ago.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Sep 10, 2014)

Nemesis said:


> Cameron going north of the border is going to harm the no Campaign easily.  No one in Scotland can stand him or the Conservative party.  Hell that is one of the reasons there is a lot of no voters in the first place.  They buy into that somehow having only one conservative MP in scotland makes him an illegitimate PM for the whole of the UK.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok why should Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland who combined have a population similar to London have equal say to the whole of England when it comes to the UK.  Democracy is about having one man one vote.  So 50 million out vote 10 million then tough the 50 million win out. (Unless it regards to rights of the people which should never be put to public vote.  They are rights that should never be taken away.)  I'm sorry but the 3 combined should have just a little more say in the UK than London.



I don't think a huge amount of the yes campaign think it is undemocratic for the tories to be in charge. Just that if they have a radically different political landscape to the rest of the UK then it benefits them to leave. I don't really see any problem with this line of thinking, I just think that the benefits of leaving don't outweigh to costs.


----------



## Roman (Sep 10, 2014)

Velocity said:


> Democracy is about everyone getting an equal say. The way the system currently works, the people of the UK outside of England may as well not vote because their votes don't really matter. As you say, it's their 11 million votes against our 53 million. Our current system basically tells those eleven million people that they don't get to decide who runs their countries because their votes count for less than 16% of the total.
> 
> It's not really fair and the lack of proper representation in Parliment is what started all that trouble with British colonists across the Atlantic over 250 years ago.



I'm with jetwaterluffy here. I don't disagree with this reasoning per se, tho this is hardly enough to justify leaving since the costs definitely outweigh the benefits.


----------



## Sasuke_Bateman (Sep 10, 2014)

[YOUTUBE]Xan2xU-ZFic[/YOUTUBE]

Won't be losing sleep If they go


----------



## Nemesis (Sep 10, 2014)

Velocity said:


> Democracy is about everyone getting an equal say. The way the system currently works, the people of the UK outside of England may as well not vote because their votes don't really matter. As you say, it's their 11 million votes against our 53 million. Our current system basically tells those eleven million people that they don't get to decide who runs their countries because their votes count for less than 16% of the total.
> 
> It's not really fair and the lack of proper representation in Parliment is what started all that trouble with British colonists across the Atlantic over 250 years ago.



Yes it is fair, what isn't fair is for my vote to be worth 1/10 of a scottish person.  Even now scotland get MORE MPs per head than England does.  So no a true democratic system is 1 person 1 vote.  All votes are equal.  There should be no democratic state where a place with 1/10 of the population should get equal say in how things run as the other 9/10s.


----------



## Hozukimaru (Sep 10, 2014)

Scotland's independence is an English trick so that England gets 12 points in eurovision from Scotland so that it doesn't finish in the last places again next year.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Sep 10, 2014)

MbS said:


> Fuck Norway.
> 
> Norwegians subside their services with higher taxation. If Scots want the same quality of services as they currently do as part of the UK then their taxes will have to rise to accommodate them after independence because they don't have a work force or GDP output that can shoulder it.
> 
> Unless those barrels of magical oil suddenly rise to the surface.



High taxation seems like a fair price to pay for living in the most developed country in the world. And I think that's exactly what the Scottish want, since apparent their population is mostly left-wing.

At least if it that place wasn't a fucking glacier...


----------



## Cheeky (Sep 10, 2014)

Sasuke_Bateman said:


> [YOUTUBE]Xan2xU-ZFic[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> Won't be losing sleep If they go



[YOUTUBE]fX0ig3wRgRc[/YOUTUBE]

Can see why they'd want to leave you


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 10, 2014)

Dragon D Luffy said:


> High taxation seems like a fair price to pay for living in the most developed country in the world. And I think that's exactly what the Scottish want, since apparent their population is mostly left-wing.
> 
> At least if it that place wasn't a fucking glacier...



Heh, you're funny.



Scots don?t want tax increases, except higher taxation exclusively of the rich.


----------



## Nemesis (Sep 11, 2014)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29151798 



> Royal Bank of Scotland has confirmed it has made contingency plans to move its headquarters from Scotland to London if there is a Yes vote in the referendum.
> 
> A Treasury source told the BBC that it had discussed the plans with RBS.
> 
> ...



RBS (Royal Bank of SCOTLAND) planning to pull our of Scotland if a yes vote goes through.  Lloyd's moving some of it stock too.  Seems like more businesses and banks likely to follow.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Sep 11, 2014)

It's all scaremongering, amirite? 

TBF, they were also saying this during the run up to the devolution, though of course the circumstances here are far different.

 Too early to tell of course, but Yes may have possibly peaked a bit early.


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Sep 11, 2014)

Velocity said:


> I think it's because there's no way Scotland could survive if it went solo, so everyone just assumes Scotland won't vote yes for independence. Personally, I can see why they might want autonomy - it is stupid that they have basically no control or say whatsoever in what government runs their country. They may have a significantly smaller population compared to England, but that shouldn't mean their collective votes count for less.
> 
> If we introduced a better voting system, one that gave each country an equal say in which political party runs the country regardless of population, I think it would help a lot. To be completely honest, our biggest problem as a country has always been that England basically never gives anyone an equal say or fair representation in politics.
> 
> I hope they don't vote yes in the end, but I can understand if they do. Regardless of the outcome, I think it's important our government takes steps to give the other countries of the UK better representation. We're supposed to be a united kingdom, not "England and the other three (four if you're insane and count Cornwall)".



No this is dumb.

You should get as much say as your population percentage allows, that kind of thinking gives you stupid shit like Tasmania having equal say in the Senate, despite having the smallest area and a population smaller than most big cities.

On the other hand Scotland comes across as basically a seperate country most of the time, so the problem isn't so much representation it's the fact that they can't self govern and pick for themselves.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Sep 11, 2014)

MbS said:


> Heh, you're funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Scots don?t want tax increases, except higher taxation exclusively of the rich.


Yeah, they don't want tax increases. But they don't want a continuation of the cuts either. They have to have one, so which one do you think they want less?

Anyway:


> Cameron: Don't vote Yes to kick the 'effing Tories'
> 
> Kate Devlin
> UK Political Correspondent
> ...


----------



## Nemesis (Sep 11, 2014)

Kagekatsu said:


> It's all scaremongering, amirite?



Essentially what he said when he was brought up these facts and kept getting applause for it.


----------



## Saishin (Sep 11, 2014)

> *Catalans call for 'yes' vote in Scotland as they march for independence from Spain*
> 
> Hundreds of thousands of Catalans filled the streets of Barcelona on Thursday demanding the chance to hold a Scottish-style referendum on independence.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 11, 2014)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> Yeah, they don't want tax increases. But they don't want a continuation of the cuts either. They have to have one, so which one do you think they want less?



What I think is the Scots want their cake but can't eat it.


---


It’s not like I believe the SNP wants independence anyway. As I correctly predicted before Cameron and the rest in Westminster pissed themselves into a desperate frenzy promising more powers to the Scottish parliament, the referendum has always _really_ been about maximum devolution.


*Spoiler*: _I really need to start mass producing these_ 




Something in a Union Jack perhaps.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 11, 2014)

Breaking news: 

So, uh, yeah... didn't see that coming.


----------



## Blue (Sep 11, 2014)

MbS said:


> *Spoiler*: _I really need to start mass producing these_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I honestly don't know a single one of your positions, besides "America sux" which you're clearly misinformed and delusional about.

But I mean "this is a bad idea" isn't very hard to predict. This isn't really about Scotland being better off outside the UK - it's not. It's about whether national pride is worth the inevitable damage.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 11, 2014)

Handsome Dan said:


> I honestly don't know a single one of your positions, besides "America sux" which you're clearly misinformed and delusional about.
> 
> But I mean "this is a bad idea" isn't very hard to predict. This isn't really about Scotland being better off outside the UK - it's not. It's about whether national pride is worth the inevitable damage.



"this is a bad idea" isn't what I predicated however. _But_ I do agree with your last sentiment anywho.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Sep 11, 2014)

You're out of your mind if you think the SNP don't want independence, but if they lose this referendum the slimy cunts will obviously spin it as "we would never have got devo max if we hadn't have pushed London into blah blah".


----------



## Nemesis (Sep 11, 2014)

And likely use devo max to push scotland into independence in all but name if they are able to keep themselves as the leaders of the scottish parliament.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 12, 2014)

The SNP will take independence if they can get it, sure. But whether the vote goes Yes or No; they still walk away with something. Arguably it’s even better for Scots if they vote no: most likely they’ll eventually get the benefits of running their own affairs like an independent country while still retaining the benefits of being in the UK. That and the SNP’s logic and defence are so mind numbly bad I can’t possibly take them serious.


----------



## Mael (Sep 12, 2014)

Because everyone likes a good political cartoon.


----------



## Nemesis (Sep 12, 2014)

Mael said:


> Because everyone likes a good political cartoon.



That's Scaremongering Mael


----------



## Kagekatsu (Sep 12, 2014)

Mael said:


> Because everyone likes a good political cartoon.



Alex Salmond's response

"IT'S OUR POOOND" (And that is not a typo)

"SOVERIGN MANDATE OF SCOTLAND"

"WESTMINSTER SCAREMONGERING AND BULLYING"

"VOTE FOR YES IS VOTE FOR TEAM SCOTLAND"


----------



## Juda (Sep 12, 2014)

Mael said:


> Because everyone likes a good political cartoon.



Thats a very accurate cartoon you got right there


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Sep 13, 2014)

Just for fun:

[YOUTUBE]W6vDzf-wSbk[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 14, 2014)

^

"I've lived in America most of my life so I've seen first hand how not to run a country."

Only funny part.


It's also funny he's wearing a kilt as a supposed solidarity of nationalism when the Kilt - a world recognised symbol of Scottish identity - was invented by an English man.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Sep 14, 2014)

The irony of this whole referendum, the nationalists claim they don't want to be under a Tory government ever again. Yet the SNP were once considered "Tartan Tories" and actually contributed to Thatcher becoming PM.


----------



## Nordstrom (Sep 15, 2014)

MbS said:


> It's also funny he's wearing a kilt as a supposed solidarity of nationalism when the Kilt - a world recognised symbol of Scottish identity - was invented by an English man.



You mean the small kilt. The long kilt, and hence, the kilt as a whole, was invented in Scotland.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 15, 2014)

Sleipnyr said:


> You mean the small kilt. The long kilt, and hence, the kilt as a whole, was invented in Scotland.



Ugh. Like almost every creation since it was first made, the kilt has been modified over succeeding generations. Without the original you’d never have the later alterations. So Scots didn’t invent anything, just as you don’t say a Windows XP is a completely new invention to a Windows 98.


----------



## Admiral Kizaru (Sep 15, 2014)

Kagekatsu said:


> The irony of this whole referendum, the nationalists claim they don't want to be under a Tory government ever again. Yet the SNP were once considered "Tartan Tories" and actually contributed to Thatcher becoming PM.



The whole, _"we want to elect the government that represents us" _and _"we never voted for the Tories"_ line that I hear from a lot of nationalists is preposterous. It's like they don't understand how a democracy is supposed to work - you don't always get who you vote for.

We had 14 years of Labour rule prior to the current Tory led coalition of which Scotland voted overwhelmingly for every time, electing numerous Labour MP's with the last Labour prime minster being one himself. And now only 4 years into the Conservatives taking over and it seems nearly half the Scots are prepared to abandon a 300 year old alliance which has served the entire British isles so well just because they hate the Tories that much. Breath taking short-termism from a lot of the yes campaign. 

It isn't helped by 16 - 18 year old's being allowed to vote either, most of whom have limited life experience and probably have no recollection of the political situation pre 2010 and assume that the Tories will always be the face of the union. It's not surprising that Salmond cynically lobbied hard to get them included in the electorate.

The sad thing is that regardless of whatever way the vote turns out on Thursday, the polarisation and the ever increasing venomous nature of the campaign is going to leave a scar in Scotland. If the polls are correct, there are going to be close to 50% of people very disappointed and bitter about the result. I blame this on the Yes campaign who've with their "rent-a-mob's" have attacked dissenting voices and prevented proponents of the Union from making their arguments - case in point, what happened to Jim Murphy. Very disgusting and it's the type of stuff you would perhaps expect in places like China and Russia, not civilised democracies like Scotland. 

And Alex Salmond himself, instead of addressing the multitude of criticisms and problems with separation has decided to adopt the effective political tactic of ignoring the crux of the issues and labeling any dissension as "scaremongering" and "bluff and bluster" from Westminster. So instead of an honest and intellectual debate on the referendum and the consequences of independence, what it's descended into is a vicious "street brawl" campaign, propped up by short term faux nationalism and anti English/Tory sentiment. The ultimate losers in all of this however, will be the people of Scotland.


----------



## Admiral Kizaru (Sep 15, 2014)

Velocity said:


> I think it's because there's no way Scotland could survive if it went solo, so everyone just assumes Scotland won't vote yes for independence. *Personally, I can see why they might want autonomy - it is stupid that they have basically no control or say whatsoever in what government runs their country. They may have a significantly smaller population compared to England, but that shouldn't mean their collective votes count for less.
> *
> If we introduced a better voting system, one that gave each country an equal say in which political party runs the country regardless of population, I think it would help a lot. To be completely honest, our biggest problem as a country has always been that England basically never gives anyone an equal say or fair representation in politics.
> 
> I hope they don't vote yes in the end, but I can understand if they do. Regardless of the outcome, I think it's important our government takes steps to give the other countries of the UK better representation. We're supposed to be a united kingdom, not "England and the other three (four if you're insane and count Cornwall)".



The bold is fucking silly. 

Look, this isn't 1980's Apartheid South Africa we're talking about here. The Scots are a free people, equal citizens of a 300 year old union with the same rights and voting power as any other citizen of the union, no matter where they come from. The 2010 election may not have reflected Scotland's wishes but the past three national elections prior to that certainly did. 

They already have a significant amount of autonomy and devolution with their own parliament to symbolise that. And they been promised much more power even in the event of a No vote. The fact they're allowed to have this referendum to self determine their own future should be enough evidence to show that they're not some "oppressed" and "voiceless" group of people within the Union. 

If anything it's the English who are the least fairly represented what with them not having their own exclusive parliament and with Scottish and other national MP's allowed to vote on legislation concerning only England.


----------



## Lawrence777 (Sep 15, 2014)

Mael said:


> Because everyone likes a good political cartoon.


----------



## Juda (Sep 15, 2014)

*"Scottish independence: Queen urges people to 'think carefully about future'" 
*




> The Queen has said she hopes "people will think very carefully about the future" ahead of the Scottish independence referendum.
> 
> The comment was made to a well-wisher outside church near her Balmoral estate in Aberdeenshire.
> 
> ...


http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29200359


----------



## Admiral Kizaru (Sep 16, 2014)

Ed Miliband becomes the latest victim of the psychotic and thuggish Yes Camp yobs. 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...rer-scottish-independence-edinburgh-walkabout


One word from Alex Salmond to quell his hordes would solve the problem but as it's been painfully made aware already, free speech and open debate are not items high on Alex Salmond's vision for Scotland.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Sep 16, 2014)

Admiral Kizaru said:


> Ed Miliband becomes the latest victim of the psychotic and thuggish Yes Camp yobs.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...rer-scottish-independence-edinburgh-walkabout
> 
> ...



Come on, salmond has made words to "quell his hoards" in the past. This isn't a centrally planned thing, this is a group of nuts acting independently.


----------



## Admiral Kizaru (Sep 16, 2014)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> Come on, salmond has made words to "quell his hoards" in the past. This isn't a centrally planned thing, this is a group of nuts acting independently.



Except it has been orchestrated campaign from the nationalists. 

They're actively telling their supporters to attend and disrupt "No" campaign events. It's been well documented in the media and there's even direct evidence implicating them going as far to provide logistical info to organise the mobs. 



Loose enough wording to not directly implicate them in inciting violence but clever enough to get the intended job done.  

Now, I don't think there's been a directive issued down from Salmond to do this, but as the leader of the SNP and of the Yes movement he has ultimate responsibility for the tone set by his campaign. Clear punishment for the instigators and a clear message to let the other side campaign in peace would be enough but he of course hasn't done that, instead attempting to laugh of the issue by creating false equivalences by stating, "_there are idiots on both side"_. 

It's disgusting and it's ugly and it ultimately reflects badly on the independence side. Silencing the other side and preventing them from canvassing votes and support isn't how a fair election should be fought. 

This isn't the first time either. Nigel Farage was  last year and forced to take shelter in a police van after he was attacked by a similar nationalist mob. Alex Salmond of course refused to criticise the mob, instead coming out with this statesman like comment, _"We can frankly do without Ukip who dislike everybody and know absolutely nothing about Scotland."_

Despise him as much as you want and disagree with politics as but he has a right to speak and campaign for his party in the UK. We live in a open democracy.


----------



## Nemesis (Sep 16, 2014)

Admiral Kizaru said:


> Ed Miliband becomes the latest victim of the psychotic and thuggish Yes Camp yobs.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...rer-scottish-independence-edinburgh-walkabout
> 
> ...



Not in Parliament in 2002/2003 build up to Iraq war
Staunch Critic of Iraq war.
Gets blamed for Iraq war.
Nationalists blame English Westminster for Iraq war
Forgetting Tony Blair, prime minister in 2002/2003 and most of his Cabinet were scottish born and raised.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 16, 2014)

> Well, we're almost there....time for some last minute thoughts.
> 
> The argument for independance has already been won. Indeed, it could be argued that the argument was won before the discussion even started.There is no strong case against voted for independance, and 'Project Fear' (which is, again, the unofficial name for the No Campaign behind closed doors) has run a campaign of smear and misinformation. They have failed to produce any viable argument against a yes vote and, at this time, all the information that has been made available to me makes me firmly believe that an independant Scotland is not only economically viable, but that it is in the fact the only way to ensure our country has a long term future.
> 
> ...







I'm almost sorry to see the Referendum nearly over. The Yes camp have provided me much laughs for the last couple of weeks.

And why can't Yes morons get it through their heads they will no longer be in the EU if they decide to leave the UK? What in the hell makes them think they're such a special case they'll remain by default or they'll just be wavered through? Yes ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".), stop flattering yourselves.


----------



## Nemesis (Sep 16, 2014)

The guy (or girl) is a loon, they believe the whole everything will be roses and land of milk and hunny if they get independence and any thought that contradicts Salmond is fear mongering.  Even using words like project fear for the no campaign.

(On a less than serious note.  How long have me and MBS actually been on the same side of something *blinks*)


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 16, 2014)

London is a black hole, yet they want to remain in currency union with it. They want to remain as part of the EU, but leaving the UK will also mean leaving the EU. Don’t want cuts to their welfare and social services? Leaving the UK will guarantee it. Label the brutal truth as fear mongering just because it's convenient to avoid answering the tough questions.

Gee Scotland, didn't really think this through did you?



Nemesis said:


> (On a less than serious note.  How long have me and MBS actually been on the same side of something *blinks*)



We have - perhaps - a few things we agree on I'm sure - maybe; such as the UK remaining in the EU, just from opposing points of view.


----------



## Admiral Kizaru (Sep 16, 2014)

Nemesis said:


> Not in Parliament in 2002/2003 build up to Iraq war
> Staunch Critic of Iraq war.
> Gets blamed for Iraq war.
> Nationalists blame English Westminster for Iraq war
> Forgetting Tony Blair, prime minister in 2002/2003 and most of his Cabinet were scottish born and raised.



I can understand them calling him a "fucking liar" - he's a politician, lying and deceit is in his DNA but "serial murderer"????

The only thing Ed has murdered are Labour's chances of getting a large majority in next year's election. 



Nemesis said:


> The guy (or girl) is a loon, they believe the whole everything will be roses and land of milk and hunny if they get independence and any thought that contradicts Salmond is fear mongering.  Even using words like project fear for the no campaign.



It's madness. There's only one day left and the nationalists still have no answers or definitive solutions to even the most basic of independence issues such as currency or EU membership. Two issues which will have massive implications on the Scottish economy through trade and public finances if not clarified and settled on quickly. This is despite them seeking independence for decades now ........ and yet scarily close to 50% of the Scottish population are still likely to vote yes midst all this uncertainty. 

They're being led down a road of no return by a campaign and a man that's running on anti English and anti Westminster/Tory sentiment, whilst diverting them from the real issues that they need to answer.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Sep 16, 2014)

The ?bernats are also hypocrites for playing the scaremongering card when they, without a hint of irony, have been going on about how the Tories are going to dismantle the NHS through privatization unless Scotland votes Yes.

Never mind that under devolution, Scotland has full control of NHS anyway.


----------



## Easley (Sep 17, 2014)

*Final day of campaigning ahead of vote.*



> Both sides in the Scottish referendum debate are making their final pitch to voters on the last day of campaigning.
> 
> It comes as the latest polls suggested the result remained too close to call, with a slender lead for a "No" vote.
> 
> ...



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29231440

The vote could go either way but I think 'Yes' is the slight favorite. Don't ask me why, it's just a feeling.


----------



## Naya (Sep 17, 2014)

So is it going to happen tomorrow?


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Sep 17, 2014)

MbS said:


> I'm almost sorry to see the Referendum nearly over. The Yes camp have provided me much laughs for the last couple of weeks.
> 
> And why can't Yes morons get it through their heads they will no longer be in the EU if they decide to leave the UK? What in the hell makes them think they're such a special case they'll remain by default or they'll just be wavered through? Yes ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".), stop flattering yourselves.


What makes you think that they will stay in the EU is they vote No? 


Admiral Kizaru said:


> Except it has been orchestrated campaign from the nationalists.
> 
> They're actively telling their supporters to attend and disrupt "No" campaign events. It's been well documented in the media and there's even direct evidence implicating them going as far to provide logistical info to organise the mobs.
> 
> ...


Or they are just mocking the No campaign with that post. Salmond _has_ spoken out out against aggression, I heard him do so on television. Scotland would be better off part of the UK, but that doesn't mean that the Yes campaign are the Brotherhood of Evil.


----------



## Easley (Sep 17, 2014)

Nana Tsu said:


> So is it going to happen tomorrow?


Yes, the referendum is tomorrow. And the UK (possibly minus Scotland) will just have to accept the result, for better or worse.

If the Scots vote to leave, all I can say is good luck. They can't change their minds later.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 17, 2014)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> What makes you think that they will stay in the EU is they vote No? .



It?s getting real messy.

Cameron?s arrogance allowing the SNP to dictate the terms of the Referendum has given Scots a sense of entitlement that?s both amusing and wearing thin. 

It may be less lawyerly reasoning and more messy and flexible EU politics that win over. The EU would be in uncharted waters. The UK government will not want Scotland not to be part of the EU: to help smooth out the economy and avoid the situation of an international boundary at the border.

Whether it can be done in 18 months to coincide with a formal independence declaration, as Scot nationalists are asserting, is another matter. They would face a huge task of unravelling the UK in that time.

Ultimately however Jos? Manuel Barroso's view, shared by his soon to be successor Jean-Claude Juncker and most EU politicians, is that broadly, as a new state, Scotland would be outside the EU and would have to apply to join. Acceptance needs unanimity and Spain and Belgium and others fearful of setting secessionist precedent will veto it.

Plus assuring Spain and Belgium and other countries with separatist problems that if Scotland was allowed to join, and only Scotland, other separatist states would not be allowed to reapply ? just won?t cut it.  Scotland will set a dangerous precedent. Once you turn that valve on you won?t turn it off.

Scotland could _maybe_ possibly join one day in the far off future ? but not before the damage has already be done. But don't expect a red carpet rolled out anytime soon Scots.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Sep 17, 2014)

MbS said:


> It?s getting real messy.
> 
> Cameron?s arrogance allowing the SNP to dictate the terms of the Referendum has given Scots a sense of entitlement that?s both amusing and wearing thin.
> 
> ...


That wasn't my question. What makes you think that, if they vote no, the UK won't leave the EU anyway?


----------



## Nemesis (Sep 17, 2014)

It pretty well could and that would be even more messy short term.  If the UK vote to leave it could cause the Pro EU Scots to call for another snap referendum.  In which the yes vote would win.  Right now everything is going to be a mess with the narrow of the vote.  Even with extra devolved powers there will be many that will likely protest the result (not talking about Salmond, but there are few extremists out there).  Salmond with Devo Max with an SNP majority might in many ways turn Scotland independent in all but name as well.


----------



## Admiral Kizaru (Sep 17, 2014)

Easley said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29231440
> 
> The vote could go either way but I think 'Yes' is the slight favorite. Don't ask me why, it's just a feeling.



All the polls point to a small but stubborn NO lead of roughly 4 - 6 %. Betfair have paid out for a No win already. 

I actually believe it will end up being more than a 10% win and could even reach close to 20% (60% No to 40% Yes). 

Whilst the Yes campaign seem to have the most vocal, energetic and passionate supporters with the most exuberant events to exemplify that, there's a silent majority who probably don't feel the need to parade their opinions in public and rather be dictated by the facts. 

And as it is right now, the YES campaign is based on pure emotion; all the facts and logical reasoning are with NO. 



jetwaterluffy1 said:


> Or they are just mocking the No campaign with that post. Salmond _has_ spoken out out against aggression, I heard him do so on television. Scotland would be better off part of the UK, but that doesn't mean that the Yes campaign are the Brotherhood of Evil.



What part of publishing the event schedule and subtly encouraging people to show up constitutes mocking? 

Coming out with tepid criticism whilst simultaneously trying to create false narrative of it just being _"idiots on both side"_ is not sufficient either. He bears ultimate responsibility for the YES campaign and hasn't done enough to take the nastiness out of his side, mainly because it's been in the benefit for the YES campaign so far.  

There is one side that has been particularly vitriolic in their methods and the evidence is clear for all to see:  



I said it before but the increasing fractious nature of the campaign has already caused significant possibly irreparable damage to Scotland. Instead of uniting the country he allegedly loves, Salmond has split it apart and made the entire atmosphere poisonous.  



jetwaterluffy1 said:


> What makes you think that, if they vote no, the UK won't leave the EU anyway?



Two reasons:

- The Conservatives are odds on to lose the next general election to Labour (especially if Scotland remains part of the union and their votes count) and hence they'll be no referendum as Labour support Europe.

- Even if there is a referendum similar to the current one, I rather suspect that despite whatever the Daily Mail or UKIP prophesise a majority will vote to remain part of the EU once the fallout and benefits are better explained. Right now, without any of the effects of leaving Europe seeming real most people are letting the anger of anecdotal horror stories (as well as genuine concerns) from Europe cloud their judgement.


----------



## Easley (Sep 17, 2014)

Admiral Kizaru said:


> All the polls point to a small but stubborn NO lead of roughly 4 - 6 %. Betfair have paid out for a No win already.
> 
> I actually believe it will end up being more than a 10% win and could even reach close to 20% (60% No to 40% Yes).


A win by that margin isn't impossible but a close result is the most likely outcome. More than 5% would surprise me. The polls are pretty accurate imo, it all depends on the "don't knows".



> Whilst the Yes campaign seem to have the most vocal, energetic and passionate supporters with the most exuberant events to exemplify that, there's a silent majority who probably don't feel the need to parade their opinions in public and rather be dictated by the facts.


I doubt Scotland has a silent majority. The people opposing independence are firmly entrenched in the No camp. 



> And as it is right now, the YES campaign is based on pure emotion; all the facts and logical reasoning are with NO.


Pure emotion is a powerful motivator. I hope the logical people decide to vote.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Sep 17, 2014)

Generally speaking, these types of referendums usually see a swing towards the status quo, emphasis on usually in this case.


----------



## Saishin (Sep 17, 2014)

> *Quebec nationalists flock to Scotland in hope of witnessing separatist history*
> 
> Separatists from Quebec advised SNP to be wary of Yes campaign tactics as they hope that Scottish vote will reinvigorate their flagging independence movement
> 
> ...


----------



## Naya (Sep 17, 2014)

Wish luck to Scotland tomorrow (if I am not mistaking).


----------



## the_notorious_Z.É. (Sep 17, 2014)

First Scotland, then Catalonia, followed by the Basque country, Galicia and Crimea, Venice, Florence, Rome and Athens go city state on us and Sparta makes a comeback, it's like we're back to the middle ages.


----------



## Saishin (Sep 17, 2014)

the_notorious_Z.?. said:


> First Scotland, then Catalonia, followed by the Basque country, Galicia and Crimea, Venice, Florence, Rome and Athens go city state on us and Sparta makes a comeback, it's like we're back to the middle ages.


Portugal will be the only united master country left


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 17, 2014)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> That wasn't my question. What makes you think that, if they vote no, the UK won't leave the EU anyway?



This is what happens when I don’t pay attention to unimportant people.

To answer your question: there won’t be a simple Yes or No EU referendum. Expect some weasel worded alternative: should we hand over more powers to the EU, would you consider leaving the EU a possibility, bla bla, etc. And its really that simple. None of the major political parties remotely trust Joe Public to make the correct answer and put it on the ballot.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Sep 17, 2014)

How will the results come out? Region by region overnight or in one final result on Friday?

How are the jocks on here voting?


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 17, 2014)

^

After votes have been tallied, each local authority will announce its result after consulting the chief counting officer in Edinburgh. After all 32 LA are known the final declaration will be made at the Royal Highland Centre outside Edinburgh. We can expect it sometime on Friday morning.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Sep 17, 2014)

Cheers. All-nighter it is.


----------



## Savior (Sep 17, 2014)

Freedom!

How can anyone be against independence. Especially in the case of Scotland. Long overdue.


----------



## Mael (Sep 17, 2014)

Savior said:


> Freedom!
> 
> How can anyone be against independence. Especially in the case of Scotland. Long overdue.



Blind idealism...how cute.

Oh I dunno, economic pitfalls and the loss of an entire monetary system that has propped you up since you're not economically viable on your own unless you're taking out shitloads of loans without much sustainability?


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 17, 2014)

A Canadian wants to preach about freedom with the skelton of Quebec in the closet?

I dunno, guy is pretty obviously a troll. And how the hell he got into my fiends list I haven't a clue.


----------



## Savior (Sep 17, 2014)

Mael said:


> Blind idealism...how cute.
> 
> Oh I dunno, economic pitfalls and the loss of an entire monetary system that has propped you up since you're not economically viable on your own unless you're taking out shitloads of loans without much sustainability?



Of course there will be challenges but a nation should expect them when gaining its independence. If I'm Scottish I will gladly take a few difficult years if it means that my children and grandchildren can grow up in an independent nation.


----------



## Mael (Sep 17, 2014)

Savior said:


> Of course there will be challenges but a nation should expect them when gaining its independence. If I'm Scottish I will gladly take a few difficult years if it means that my children and grandchildren can grow up in an independent nation.



A few difficult years?

Try decades.

Just stahp.


----------



## Savior (Sep 17, 2014)

Mael said:


> A few difficult years?
> 
> Try decades.
> 
> Just stahp.



You don't know the timeframe. We can't predict the future. It's not always just about economics. Sometimes it's about having your own country. Your own head of state. Cutting the link from the past and moving forward. Why do you think so many countries gained independence from England in the past ?


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 17, 2014)

It's always about economics.


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 17, 2014)

at the people whom think going independent will be good for Scotland, they will become the most irrelevant nation on the planet, surpassing Africa, unless a violent movement springs up there after they break from England. (Assuming that the yes vote goes through)


----------



## Savior (Sep 17, 2014)

Chelydra said:


> at the people whom think going independent will be good for Scotland, they will become the most irrelevant nation on the planet, surpassing Africa,)



Stellar logic there mate. Africa is a nation apparently.


----------



## Mael (Sep 17, 2014)

Savior said:


> You don't know the timeframe. We can't predict the future. It's not always just about economics. Sometimes it's about having your own country. Your own head of state. Cutting the link from the past and moving forward. Why do you think so many countries gained independence from England in the past ?



This isn't South Sudan, kid.

Scotland won't survive because it lacks the resources for its own economy and cutting itself off from the Pound Sterling cuts itself from a very strong currency.  Yes, it is about economics.  Economics determines standards of living which determines social stability.  Economics means a fuckton, not petty idealism.  

Now you're either trolling or really stupid atm.


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 17, 2014)

Savior said:


> Stellar logic there mate. Africa is a nation apparently.



Its easier to lump them all together, but yes Africa as a _continent_ is irrelevant.  Nice try at deflection though.


----------



## Savior (Sep 17, 2014)

Obviously economics is part of it and it isn't all gloom or doom or they would never be having this vote in the first place. You don't think there are economists and experts in every field in Scotland who are behind the Independence movement? If it really was such a risky proposition then it wouldn't even be considered and voted on.


----------



## Mael (Sep 17, 2014)

Savior said:


> Obviously economics is part of it and it isn't all gloom or doom or they would never be having this vote in the first place. You don't think there are economists and experts in every field in Scotland who are behind the Independence movement? If it really was such a risky proposition then it wouldn't even be considered and voted on.



You just said it's not all about economics but it really is.  Yeah, in Scotland, where emotions run high but logic may run very low.

Let's not forget the immediate debt repayment:


Plus the world isn't too keen on it:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/17/us-scotland-independence-world-idUSKBN0HC1CQ20140917

So boo fucking hoo if there's a no.


----------



## Admiral Kizaru (Sep 17, 2014)

Savior said:


> Cutting the link from the past and moving forward. Why do you think so many countries gained independence from England in the past ?



Don't conflate British colonies with an equal partner in the Union!! 

It's was perfectly fair and reasonable that foreign colonies who were on the other side of the world, passionately sought independence from Great Britain. They were seen as subservient to the homeland and didn't have any representation at Westminster. It was always going to be unfair for us to expect the same sort of relationship going into the modern 21st century. Since then some have them since have gone onto prosper (Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc) whilst still maintaining strong relationships with us and others have gone the complete the complete opposite direction (Sri Lanka [British Ceylon], Zimbabwe [Rhodesia] etc).

This is a wholly different situation. Scotland are an equal partner in a union of nations with the same rights and a democratic level of representation in parliament. A union in which all sides have evenly shared in the highs and lows of and has consequentially served all us well for more than 300 years. There is absolutely no sense of "mothering" here - Scotland contributes as much to it's upkeep as it proportionally should; it owns a part of it.


----------



## Megaharrison (Sep 17, 2014)

I hope the Scots win so I can watch their rotten little country turn itself into Venezuela.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Sep 17, 2014)

MbS said:


> A *Canadian* wants to preach about freedom with the skelton of Quebec in the closet?
> 
> I dunno, guy is pretty obviously a troll. And how the hell he got into my fiends list I haven't a clue.



 The difference here, Scotland is it's own country and isn't located within another one.

Quebec need us a lot more than how the Scots needs to stay within the UK.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 17, 2014)

Admiral Kizaru said:


> Scotland are an equal partner in a union of nations with the same rights and a democratic level of representation in parliament.



It's not even remotely equal. You must have missed the part where Scottish MP's can vote on English laws but not vice versa.

And if the Scots vote no, Cameron and co have green lit them receive ?7 billion in perpetuity despite new tax raising powers. The Welsh are already getting pretty pissy about more money being allocated to Scotland at the expense of the rest of the UK. I hope the wildings vote Yes and piss off into oblivion.



Danger Doom said:


> The difference here, Scotland is it's own country and isn't located within another one.
> 
> Quebec need us a lot more than how the Scots needs to stay within the UK.



Scotland isn't its own country. It's not a sovereign nation.


----------



## Savior (Sep 17, 2014)

> Yes. The type of welfare state that Scotland would like to sustain (and perhaps grow) would be expensive, and those who campaign against secession have argued that an independent Scotland wouldn't be able to afford it. "The experts at the impartial Institute for Fiscal Studies have been very clear that a separate Scotland would need to make around ?6 billion ($9.8 billion) of cuts to things like benefits, pensions and our NHS in the first few years after separation," a Better Together spokesperson told the Guardian this year.
> 
> Another report from the British Treasury found that each Scottish citizen would be ?1,400 ($2,200) better off every year if Scotland stayed within the United Kingdom.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 17, 2014)

Oh alright, I'll bite.

'Scotland pays her way'.  *Repeat*: Figures for 2012-13 have shown the UK and Scottish government spent ?65.2 billion that year in Scotland, against the ?53 billion Scots raised in tax revenues, creating a budget deficit of 8.3% for GDP.






> But supporters of Scottish independence dispute these figures and point out that Scotland is actually in pretty good financial shape. The SNP has cited recent data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that Scotland's gross domestic product (GDP) per head was a healthy ?23,300 ($38,069). That's higher than France, Italy, Japan and, yes, the rest of the United Kingdom.



Yes, because that's part of being in the UK with access to the British work force. If Scotland pulls out of the UK business, banks and jobs flock south.


----------



## Nemesis (Sep 17, 2014)

Savior said:


> You don't know the timeframe. We can't predict the future. It's not always just about economics. Sometimes it's about having your own country. Your own head of state. Cutting the link from the past and moving forward. Why do you think so many countries gained independence from England in the past ?



Considering the head of state (The Queen) is half Scottish from birth.  Two of the previous three head of governments (prime ministers) were scottish.  Cameron himself is 1/4 Scottish minimum, it seems it isn't a lack of scottish people at the location of head of the country is an issue.

Also no country has ever become independent from England.  They all became independent from the UK.  Different constitutional states.  Unless you're one of those who thinks the UK is England and everyone under the thumb being dragged along by oppressive overlords.


----------



## Jagger (Sep 17, 2014)

Megaharrison said:


> I hope the Scots win so I can watch their rotten little country turn itself into Venezuela.


I wouldn't go that far to wish something like that.


----------



## Velocity (Sep 17, 2014)

I really hope they vote no. Shouldn't we be breaking down the borders between countries, rather than putting more up?

I'm pretty sure Scotland needs England more than England needs Scotland, too, and this whole thing will only cause animosity between the two countries if we end up splitting. I mean, why would England support Scotland during the transition or allow them to continue to use our currency? I'm pretty sure that's something we, the English voters, would have a say on (maybe we'd even have a referendum on it ) and we're not a charity. We're hardly going to be okay with giving money to a country that apparently hates us so much they want nothing to do with us.

...and Jagger totally edited.


----------



## Jagger (Sep 17, 2014)

You swift bastard. 

I thought he might my comment seriously, so I changed it.


----------



## Nordstrom (Sep 18, 2014)

Savior said:


> Freedom!
> 
> How can anyone be against independence. Especially in the case of Scotland. Long overdue.



About 300 years or so overdue.



Mael said:


> Blind idealism...how cute.
> 
> Oh I dunno, economic pitfalls and the loss of an entire monetary system that has propped you up since you're not economically viable on your own unless you're taking out shitloads of loans without much sustainability?



Mael, this isn't necessarily true. Independence alone shouldn't make for more than a short dip and this has been explained everywhere and even BBC is keen on mentioning it. However, I do indeed hold fears that they may not agree to a currency with the UK if they do win independence.

That said, devo max in and on itself is a huge improvement, so Scotland already won... Whether what they are winning is purely political and social or purely economical is what yes and no will decide.



Savior said:


> Of course there will be challenges but a nation should expect them when gaining its independence. If I'm Scottish I will gladly take a few difficult years if it means that my children and grandchildren can grow up in an independent nation.



That's what moves many to vote yes.



Chelydra said:


> Its easier to lump them all together, but yes Africa as a _continent_ is irrelevant.  Nice try at deflection though.



South Africa would LOVE to have a long conversation with you.



Megaharrison said:


> I hope the Scots win so I can watch their rotten little country turn itself into Venezuela.



That will never happen. You could take away their oil and leave them with no currency and they will still be better of than most of Latin America with the exception of the South Cone.



MbS said:


> It's not even remotely equal. You must have missed the part where Scottish MP's can vote on English laws but not vice versa.
> 
> And if the Scots vote no, Cameron and co have green lit them receive ?7 billion in perpetuity despite new tax raising powers. The Welsh are already getting pretty pissy about more money being allocated to Scotland at the expense of the rest of the UK. I hope the wildings vote Yes and piss off into oblivion.
> 
> ...



A constituent country IS a country. You mean "sovereign state".



Jagger said:


> I wouldn't go that far to wish something like that.



I could be the worse Stalinist the world has seen and I wouldn't either. Hopefully, Scotland only sinks to Czech Republic tier and rebounds to become Ireland the Second.


----------



## Mider T (Sep 18, 2014)

Savior said:


> Freedom!
> 
> How can anyone be against independence. Especially in the case of Scotland. Long overdue.



When you're already a first class citizen; and your short and long term livelihood will be lessened.  Every independence movement doesn't deserve to get their own country, they have to earn it.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Sep 18, 2014)

> Mael, this isn't necessarily true. Independence alone shouldn't make for more than a short dip and this has been explained everywhere and even BBC is keen on mentioning it. However, I do indeed hold fears that they may not agree to a currency with the UK if they do win independence.
> 
> That said, devo max in and on itself is a huge improvement, so Scotland already won... Whether what they are winning is purely political and social or purely economical is what yes and no will decide.


Which is why the common sense solution is for Scotland to vote No and negotiate with London for devo max powers. 

If Scotland votes Yes, they will be out of the EU, no exceptions no matter how much the SNP claims they'll get special treatment. They will have to re-apply and go through the admission process like every other candidate state, and Spain and Brussels are almost certain to veto. Even in the best case, EU commissioners are giving iScotland a decade before they can return to the EU.

And all three major parties have ruled out a currency union with Scotland, which means if they opt for sterlingization, using the pound regardless of a CU, that would leave them without a lender of last resort and the ability to set its own interest rates. Plus, Salmond is threatening to default on Scotland's share of the UK debt if roUK refuses. He does that, and investors will be avoiding Scotland like the plague.

Finally, the SNP have been touting the line of about how the oil fund will pay everything off even though most experts agree that the North Sea oil reserves are already being depleted and the price of oil is dropping considerably. Does Salmond really think Scottish oil will be able to compete with American fracking, what about when Britain decides to join the bandwagon as I hear there are plenty of shale oil deposits in Yorkshire and elsewhere.

Plus, if Yes wins, they will be doing it with the thinnest of mandates and with nearly half the citizenry voting against it. If the economy tanks, what's stopping the thousands of Scottish business owners and financial sector companies who will leave the ship and move to England? Most of the major banks are already preparing contingencies. And that's not counting the ubernationalist and anti-English rhetoric that's bound to create some lingering bitterness across the border.

If Scotland votes Yes, I will wish them the best of luck. But the transition from a semi-autonomous region of the UK to a fully independent state won't be as smooth and painless as Salmond, Sturgeon, and Irvine Welsh are proposing, and nor is it going to be the magical panacea for all of Scotland's various social ills.


----------



## Easley (Sep 18, 2014)

*Voting under way in referendum*



> People in Scotland have begun voting on whether the country should stay in the UK or become an independent nation.
> 
> Voters will answer "Yes" or "No" to the referendum question: "Should Scotland be an independent country?"
> 
> ...



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29238890

The moment of truth for Scotland.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Sep 18, 2014)




----------



## kluang (Sep 18, 2014)




----------



## Nordstrom (Sep 18, 2014)

Kagekatsu said:


> Which is why the common sense solution is for Scotland to vote No and negotiate with London for devo max powers.
> 
> If Scotland votes Yes, they will be out of the EU, no exceptions no matter how much the SNP claims they'll get special treatment. They will have to re-apply and go through the admission process like every other candidate state, and Spain and Brussels are almost certain to veto. Even in the best case, EU commissioners are giving iScotland a decade before they can return to the EU.
> 
> ...




It won't be as smooth as many make it to be, of course. However, it stands to reason that after the initial "time to start sorting things out" period, they may be able to potentially develop further than if they went together with the UK (what happened to Norway and Ireland) and rise further.

Then again, devo max does allow for some growth enhancements while skirting the risks of independence. Their growth may not be as fast, but it may potentially be great and without the risks, they could become wealthier (think Geneva).

As it stands however, it's now a very simple choice: Running the risk and taking a dip before taking off for real or choosing to play it safe and experience moderate, albeit safeguarded growth.

Given yes also answers a rather bitter historical and cultural question, I side with them, but I won't look at no votes in a bad light either. Just like in lose-lose situations, this situation is a win-win for Scotland. It just happens to be a choice between risks and high gains, and no risk and decent gains.

Same as with us over here in Cat. The push for independence alone is going to force Madrid to relent or offer devo max as well.



Easley said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29238890
> 
> The moment of truth for Scotland.



Good luck to everyone. Respect for the end result, and if yes, wins, congratulations to Scotland and welcome to the International Community.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Sep 18, 2014)

Savior said:


> You don't know the timeframe. We can't predict the future. It's not always just about economics. Sometimes it's about having your own country. Your own head of state. Cutting the link from the past and moving forward. Why do you think so many countries gained independence from England in the past ?


The only country I can think of that gained independence from the UK was Ireland. The British empire breaking up is hardly the same thing.


Chelydra said:


> at the people whom think going independent will be good for Scotland, they will become the most irrelevant nation on the planet, surpassing Africa, unless a violent movement springs up there after they break from England. (Assuming that the yes vote goes through)


Come on, independence won't be beneficial for Scotland but I wish people would stop pretending it is going to become an apocalypse.  It isn't.


MbS said:


> Oh alright, I'll bite.
> 
> 'Scotland pays her way'.  *Repeat*: Figures for 2012-13 have shown the UK and Scottish government spent ?65.2 billion that year in Scotland, against the ?53 billion Scots raised in tax revenues, creating a budget deficit of 8.3% for GDP.
> 
> ...


Those figures are misleading because the entire of the UK is in a budget deficit, not just Scotland. Factor that out and the difference is not as significant.


Velocity said:


> I really hope they vote no. Shouldn't we be breaking down the borders between countries, rather than putting more up?
> 
> I'm pretty sure Scotland needs England more than England needs Scotland, too, and this whole thing will only cause animosity between the two countries if we end up splitting. I mean, why would England support Scotland during the transition or allow them to continue to use our currency? I'm pretty sure that's something we, the English voters, would have a say on (maybe we'd even have a referendum on it ) and we're not a charity. We're hardly going to be okay with giving money to a country that apparently hates us so much they want nothing to do with us.
> 
> ...and Jagger totally edited.


We won't be "giving money" to scotland in the case of a currency union. Would the eurozone be giving money to us if we joined the euro?


Anyway, is anyone doing any exit polls in this referendum? I know exit polls are uncommon outside a general election, but it would be nice to know what they are voting.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Sep 18, 2014)

No exit polling I think.

Here are all the final polls - YES:

Ipsos MORI (phone) 49%
ICM (phone) 49%
TNS (face to face) 49%
YouGov (online) 48%
Panelbase (online) 48%
ICM (online) 48%
Opinium (online) 48%
Survation (online) 48%
Survation (phone) 47%%


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Sep 18, 2014)

And a final poll for Scots outside of Scotland (to clarify, they don't have a vote):

46% YES
54% NO


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 18, 2014)

Sleipnyr said:


> A constituent country IS a country. You mean "sovereign state".



It always impresses me how your twenty quote responses add absolutely _nothing_ to a discussion, as minor semantic nick picking is all you have to offer which doesn't even change the point of my post.

--

Plus since we're lingering on the topic, San Marino, the Vatican, Lesotho and the Gambia are within other countries yet sovereign. Quebec could be too. Ah, but that's different to Canadians, the problems in their backyard now and it's ...'not the same'. Typical.


----------



## Sasuke_Bateman (Sep 18, 2014)

Is this important or not? No one I know ever talks about it  

 I kind of care because I love the flag, It's beautiful I don't want it to be changed, otherwise doesn't matter to me


----------



## Nordstrom (Sep 18, 2014)

MbS said:


> It always impresses me how your twenty quote responses add absolutely _nothing_ to a discussion, as minor semantic nick picking is all you have to offer which doesn't even change the point of my post.
> 
> --
> 
> Plus since we're lingering on the topic, San Marino, the Vatican, Lesotho and the Gambia are within other countries yet sovereign. Quebec could be too. Ah, but that's different to Canadians, the problems in their backyard now and it's ...'not the same'. Typical.



I'm correcting your incorrect use of words. You said Scotland isn't a country, which is false. You meant to say Scotland isn't a sovereign state, which is true.

Don't confuse being an enclave with being within another country. They are not a constituent of the country like Scotland is. The Vatican is "a country surrounded by Italy". Scotland is a country within another country, the United Kingdom" which is a sovereign state as well.

I'm not attempting to change the point of your post, but I'm correcting that before people start picking up on Scotland like they did on Palestine in the Israel thread.


----------



## Nordstrom (Sep 18, 2014)

Oh, and MbS! Quebec had their chance, and they voted no.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 18, 2014)

Sleipnyr said:


> I'm correcting your incorrect use of words. You said Scotland isn't a country, which is false. You meant to say Scotland isn't a sovereign state, which is true.
> 
> Don't confuse being an enclave with being within another country. They are not a constituent of the country like Scotland is. The Vatican is "a country surrounded by Italy". Scotland is a country within another country, the United Kingdom" which is a sovereign state as well.
> 
> I'm not attempting to change the point of your post, but I'm correcting that before people start picking up on Scotland like they did on Palestine in the Israel thread.



Ah, it is semantics you're nit picking at, in which case you still haven't added anything.



			
				Danger Doom's original comment said:
			
		

> *The difference here, Scotland is it's own country* and isn't located within another one



Scotland _is_ a country, but not it is not its own country because its not a sovereign state.

Not unless they vote YES. And if they vote No, they'll be one in all but name.

Thank you for playing the game Sleipnyr, and good bye.



Sleipnyr said:


> Oh, and MbS! Quebec had their chance, and they voted no.



Yeah, because Canada did what the UK is doing with the Scots and bribed them with sweet promises at the last moment. The Colony can take heed that for the first time in forever the UK is following its example in something. Stick that on your maple leaf.


----------



## Nordstrom (Sep 18, 2014)

MbS said:


> Ah, it is semantics you're nit picking at, in which case you still haven't added anything.



No. I'm just preventing people from being misled by biased commentary from you.



> Scotland _is_ a country, but not it is not its own country because its not a sovereign state.
> 
> Not unless they vote YES. And if they vote No, they'll be one in all but name.
> 
> Thank you for playing the game Sleipnyr, and good bye.



You fool. 



> Scotland isn't its own country. It's not a sovereign nation.



From the way you were talking, it seems you don't spare from your bias. Sorry, not falling for that one. They are a country and you said they aren't. I win by default.



> Yeah, because Canada did what the UK is doing with the Scots and bribed them with sweet promises at the last moment. The Colony can take heed that for the first time in forever the UK is following its example in something. Stick that on your maple leaf.



Mine?! Afraid that I'm right below you, snobs.

Also, you're missing the point. This is good for Scotland. Regardless of the outcome.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 18, 2014)

Sleipnyr said:


> No. I'm just preventing people from being misled by biased commentary from you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




God, you're dumb. Coming from the guy who says Chicago feels peaceful and Moscow is a heaven what can you expect.

None of your points refutes mine or even attempts to address them, just the typical deflection crap I've come to expect from you, ni?o. The child who wants his cake but can't eat it. Run along now, shoo.


----------



## Blue (Sep 18, 2014)

I don't think anything Sleip has ever said has ever been true.


----------



## Nordstrom (Sep 18, 2014)

MbS said:


> God, you're dumb. Coming from the guy who says Chicago feels peaceful and Moscow is a heaven what can you expect.
> 
> None of your points refutes mine or even attempts to address them, just the typical deflection crap I've come to expect from you, ni?o. The child who wants his cake but can't eat it. Run along now, shoo.



And you're the typical hysterical woman who can't get her priorities straight. But before I point out how painful the process must've been for you, I shall point out that I'm addressing only your point.

You said Scotland isn't a country. I said they are. You attack me for saying by changing things so that you refer to "it's own country". You didn't say that in your initial post either. You seem to be biased by posting to your favor.

But I think I shall point this out now: I realize I'm discussing with a complete retard who can't even say things the way they are.



> *Scotland isn't its own country.* It's not a sovereign nation.



How should I point this out.

"Isn't it's own country" is false as well. I shall remind you that:



> Constituent country is a term sometimes used in contexts in which a country makes up a part of a larger political entity, such as a sovereign state. The term constituent country does not have any defined legal meaning, and is used simply to refer to a country which is a constituent part of something else.
> 
> A country is a region identified as a distinct entity in political geography. A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated peoples with distinct political characteristics.



So next time, don't say it isn't it's own country. It is. They are. But they ultimately respond before the Union.

I'm not attempting to address any of your points at all. I'm just making sure your misleading post doesn't misleads others into believing how you believe things are or should be.


----------



## Blue (Sep 18, 2014)

Cases in point


----------



## Nordstrom (Sep 18, 2014)

Handsome Dan said:


> I don't think anything Sleip has ever said has ever been true.



I don't think the person who ran away from his own country has any right to talk on this issue.


----------



## Blue (Sep 18, 2014)

Sleipnyr said:


> I don't think the person who ran away from his own country has any right to talk on this issue.



The trend continues

Being Cuban-American doesn't mean I was born in Cuba.


----------



## The Faceless Man (Sep 18, 2014)

I hope they get independence. If they want it.
They can join EU and NATO after that. And their economy is stable.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 18, 2014)

Sleipnyr said:


> And you're the typical hysterical woman who can't get her priorities straight. But before I point out how painful the process must've been for you, I shall point out that I'm addressing only your point.
> 
> You said Scotland isn't a country. I said they are. You attack me for saying by changing things so that you refer to "it's own country". You didn't say that in your initial post either. You seem to be biased by posting to your favor.
> 
> ...



Work with me now.

Scotland ISN'T its _own_ country.

_Its own_.

_It's _a country.

But it ISN'T its own country.

Because it isn't a sovereign nation.

The United Kingdom is a sovereign nation, which Scotland _is_ a _part _of.

All you're doing is nit piking irrelevant shit.


----------



## Nordstrom (Sep 18, 2014)

Handsome Dan said:


> The trend continues
> 
> Being Cuban-American doesn't mean I was born in Cuba.



Something I've noticed among Cuban Americans of all kind is how they seem to despise every single thing about the government of Cuba, even when it's showing signs of reform and slowly letting go of their grasp on power and they also seem to aim this resentment towards it's allies.

I'm not talking out of my ass. I have friends who've met with Cuban Americans and they all seem to hold similar views. Ironically, I have friends on the actual island and by Caribbean standards, they aren't faring horribly bad (though they could fare much better).

It is your blatant provocation and insulting that's annoying me. If you have nothing better to do other than throw around insults and badmouthing me, there's this brilliant thing called the ignore list which you can use.



The Faceless Man said:


> I hope they get independence. If they want it.
> They can join EU and NATO after that. And their economy is stable.



Indeed. I don't think it'll be the end of the world if Scotland goes full independent. Unlike most people on NF that seem to harbor a deep hatred for anything that undermines the status quo and attempts to trigger non gradual change.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 18, 2014)

No one is seriously saying it'll be end of the world if Scotland goes independent. Just their arguments for independence are retarded when their reasons amount to: we want to protect our NHS: you already have control over it, England doesn't have say what you do with it. We want to remain part of the EU and NATO, leaving the UK will guarantee you aren't. We want to control how our taxes are spent, you do. Is it really worth throwing all that away for cuts and austerity and economic uncertainty? Because magical oil isn't going to turn Scotland into the land of milk and honey and Salmond shits gold.

If Scots go independent, Idiots who advocate Scottish independence now will no doubt be whining years later that the UK should help Scotland out because we killed Mel Gibson and ruined any real chance Scotland had of Independence. Despite Scotland prospering under the UK. The whole under dog scenario is in affect here with 'downtrodden' Scots as the protagonists, when it shouldn't be.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Sep 18, 2014)

Not to mention, the SNP's coalition will not survive a Yes vote. You've got Greens supporting independence since they want the Trident nukes moved out, yet Salmond is putting all of Scotland's economic chips into oil, y'know, that dirty fossil fuel said to be contributing to climate change? You have hardcore leftists thinking an independent Scotland will finally bring about a true socialist state, while the SNP are endorsing lowering corporate taxes in the hopes of attracting investors to the new country. Let's not forget the SNP itself was fairly on the right during the 70's and 80's, hence the old nickname of Tartan Tories.

Yes supporters say independence will finally give the Scottish people a government they voted for. Well guess what, when the SNP coalition fractures, you're going to get a lot of people who won't be getting what they voted for anyway.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Sep 18, 2014)

It's looking like it's going to be a stupidly high turnout going off reports from some councils. 97% of the electorate have registered to vote.

Whatever the result turns out to be - this referendum has unquestionably been fantastic for the vitality of democracy up there. Everyone I know is saying it's nothing like they (or their parents) have ever seen before.


----------



## -JT- (Sep 18, 2014)

If Scotland leave, we can kiss goodbye to the Unicorn on our coat of arms/passport, as the lion represents England and the unicorn Scotland. 

#keeptheunicorn!!!


*Spoiler*: __ 



In seriousness, I do want Scotland to stay. I do believe that we're better together


----------



## Son of Goku (Sep 18, 2014)

[YOUTUBE]SVaslN1NiT0[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## dr_shadow (Sep 18, 2014)

I think I'm leaning towards independence.

I'm ultimately for a federal EU, but I think the constituent member states of the EU should as far as possible be based on ethnic and religious borders. So the EU states that are already multiethnic can be dissolved into their constituent parts to let the various ethnicities become direct subjects of the union without an intermediate level of administration.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Sep 18, 2014)

mr_shadow said:


> I think I'm leaning towards independence.
> 
> I'm ultimately for a federal EU, but I think the constituent member states of the EU should as far as possible be based on ethnic and religious borders. So the EU states that are already multiethnic can be dissolved into their constituent parts to let the various ethnicities become direct subjects of the union without an intermediate level of administration.



Why on Earth do you want that?


----------



## dr_shadow (Sep 18, 2014)

erictheking said:


> Why on Earth do you want that?



'cause Europe can't geopolitically keep up with the US, China, India, Russia or Brazil unless we team up.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Sep 18, 2014)

mr_shadow said:


> 'cause Europe can't geopolitically keep up with the US, China, India, Russia or Brazil unless we team up.



Not the issue of a federal EU - everything else.


----------



## SLB (Sep 18, 2014)

mr_shadow said:


> I think I'm leaning towards independence.
> 
> I'm ultimately for a federal EU, but I think the constituent member states of the EU should as far as possible be based on ethnic and religious borders. So the EU states that are already multiethnic can be dissolved into their constituent parts to let the various ethnicities become direct subjects of the union without an intermediate level of administration.



isn't scotland fairly similar to england in the regard of ethnic and religious bordering?


----------



## The Faceless Man (Sep 18, 2014)

Sleipnyr said:


> Indeed. I don't think it'll be the end of the world if Scotland goes full independent. *Unlike most people on NF that seem to harbor a deep hatred for anything that undermines the status quo and attempts to trigger non gradual change.*



People are afraid of change... smart people are in a overwhelming minority.
Why would NF be any different ?


----------



## Mael (Sep 18, 2014)

The Faceless Man said:


> People are afraid of change... smart people are in a overwhelming minority.
> Why would NF be any different ?



Sometimes change isn't for the better, case in point Crimea.

But lo the idealists will always be this obtuse.


----------



## Blue (Sep 18, 2014)

The Faceless Man said:


> People are afraid of change... smart people are in a overwhelming minority.
> Why would NF be any different ?




ahahahahahaha Shin and Sleip talking about being smart

I'm dying here

It's like a monkey turning to another monkey and going "everyone's stupid. Everyone but us."

And the other monkey is a rock hahahaha


----------



## Son of Goku (Sep 18, 2014)

Mael said:


> Sometimes change isn't for the better, case in point Crimea.



Not really.


----------



## SLB (Sep 18, 2014)

kinda not worth putting shin on super ignore when y'all quote him


----------



## Blue (Sep 18, 2014)

Moody said:


> kinda not worth putting shin on super ignore when y'all quote him



My bad, hoss. Back to Skyrim.


----------



## Son of Goku (Sep 18, 2014)

Handsome Dan said:


> The UK should do everything politically and economically possible to prevent any referendum from succeeding.
> 
> *And if it does anyway, should just go ahead and annex Scotland because no, you don't get to leave unions.*



Dumbest post in this thread, bar none. Coming from an Colonist American makes it all the dumber.


----------



## Orochimaru (Sep 18, 2014)

Go Scotland!


----------



## Mael (Sep 18, 2014)

*Why does Scotland want to leave?*



> As a foreigner, it?s often hard to view the cause of Scottish independence as anything but hopelessly impenetrable. By definition, any fight in which one rich, democratic, first world nation seeks to secede from another will be fought over exceedingly small beans ?usually a constitutional power imbalance between federal and local political authorities that?s more theoretically problematic than anything  ? simply because there?s little else left. Ably represented by both a parliament of their own and 59 seats in London, no Scot even rhetorically purports to being ?oppressed? by the English in any genuine way ? their nationalist movement is merely born from a people whose patriotic ambition is too great to be realized as a minority, even a disproportionately powerful one, within a shared-power state. Theirs is a uniquely 21st century movement of liberation, where worries of aesthetics and self-actualization sit in place of war and tyranny.
> 
> As the only other G7 nation with a viable separatist movement, Canadian elites tend to take special interest in Scottish nationalism (often to an embarrassing degree, as was the case with the Globe and Mail?s painfully patronizing ?open letter to Scotland from your Canadian cousins?) and the parallels between Scotch separatism and the French-Canadian variety are broad indeed.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mael (Sep 18, 2014)

Son of Goku said:


> Not really.



A certain airliner's passengers' families would like to speak with you on that but keep wanking Putin and Russia, yo.


----------



## Son of Goku (Sep 18, 2014)

Mael said:


> A certain airliner's passengers' families would like to speak with you on that but keep wanking Putin and Russia, yo.



I'm sorry I thought you said Crimea, must've heard you wrong then. 




Besides, the jury is still out (and may forever be out) on who was responsible for the crashdown.


----------



## Blue (Sep 18, 2014)

Son of Goku said:


> Besides, the jury is still out (and may forever be out) on who was responsible for the crashdown.



Is this guy serious


----------



## Mael (Sep 18, 2014)

Son of Goku said:


> I'm sorry I thought you said Crimea, must've heard you wrong then.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Crimea started the whole mess when the Kremlin decided to sneak in for a land grab.  

It came from a Buk fired by separatists.  Cut the bullshit.


----------



## Son of Goku (Sep 18, 2014)

Mael said:


> Crimea started the whole mess when the Kremlin decided to sneak in for a land grab.



You don't honestly think that this "mess" started with Crimea, do you?



> It came from a Buk fired by separatists.  Cut the bullshit.



And that's probably not even a western lie. But the role of the Ukrainian fighter jet remains unsolved.


----------



## Blue (Sep 18, 2014)

Son of Goku said:


> And that's probably not even a western lie. But the role of the Ukrainian fighter jet remains unsolved.



He's serious, wow


----------



## Blue (Sep 18, 2014)

Goku, look, I know the jackbooted zionist thugs dropped you on your head when you were a baby, so I'll try to keep this simple

The West (capital letters, baby!) has what's called a "free press". That means the media can and will say whatever the fuck it wants to.

_As long as there's proof._

You better believe that every network would absolutely fucking _trip over themselves_ to report something dramatic like the Ukranians shooting down an airliner to frame the Russians. Their ratings would _explode_.

Problem is: It's a fantasy. It's delusional bullshit you probably inhaled from RT or something that doesn't concern itself with troublesome things like proof, evidence, the barest suggestions of reality, etc.


----------



## Son of Goku (Sep 18, 2014)

Handsome Dan said:


> I'm dying here



Don't tease.


edit:



Handsome Dan said:


> Goku, look, I know the jackbooted zionist thugs dropped you on your head when you were a baby, so I'll try to keep this simple
> 
> The West (capital letters, baby!) has what's called a "free press". That means the media can and will say whatever the fuck it wants to.
> 
> ...



Which is why the US Media bought into the Iraq-WMD crap and sold it to the public, allowing hardly any voices of dissent? 

In 2003 70% of Americans believed Iraq was in involved in the 9/11 attacks. In 2005 85% of US Soldiers in Iraq believed that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. And according to a CNN poll from 2011 43% of Americans still believed that crap. The Bush Administration did a tremendous job there and the "free press" was their accomplice.

Your "free press"  is owned by giant corporations who, regarding foreign policy at least, share common goals with your government (be it "D" or "R"). 

The rest of the west isn't as far gone yet, but is getting there.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Sep 18, 2014)

It should be noted that SoG is likely rooting for independence because Salmond recently equated Israel with ISIS.


----------



## Son of Goku (Sep 18, 2014)

Kagekatsu said:


> It should be noted that SoG is likely rooting for independence because Salmond recently equated Israel with ISIS.



Likely, but untrue.


"Alex Salmond tells BBC that Muslims aren’t responsible for IS, just as Scottish Jews weren’t responsible for Israeli policies this summer"

But I agree with him nonetheless.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Sep 18, 2014)

Moody said:


> isn't scotland fairly similar to england in the regard of ethnic and religious bordering?


Yep, it's fairly similar. It does have a presbyterian established church instead of an anglican one though (although that is mainly symbolic, you can see it in people's identified denomination), and you could make an argument about an ethnicity difference if you are counting celtic.


----------



## Nemesis (Sep 18, 2014)

^ And no one should.  The biological make up of England/Scotland/Wales/Ireland is completely similar.  Test after test has been done and the people who live here mostly have a genetic similarity to the Basque groups.   

Celtic groups never settled on the Islands and the term Celt was never even mentioned for ancient Britains till the 17th century and that was just to take a shot at England.  Basically when it came to Roman, Anglo/Saxon, Norman invasions.  It is mostly the rulers that took over but didn't do much to the genetic make up of the people.


----------



## Savior (Sep 18, 2014)

Mael said:


> You just said it's not all about economics but it really is.  Yeah, in Scotland, where emotions run high but logic may run very low.
> 
> Plus the world isn't too keen on it:
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/17/us-scotland-independence-world-idUSKBN0HC1CQ20140917
> ...



Get outta here. Who cares what the world thinks if you're Scottish? The world doesn't approve of many things the U.S. does but guess what? The U.S. does it anyway due to self interest.


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 18, 2014)

Except in this case Scotland is a little kid that does not know yet what is in its best interests.


----------



## Savior (Sep 18, 2014)

Chelydra said:


> Except in this case Scotland is a little kid that does not know yet what is in its best interests.



I'm sure back in the days of the American Revolution there were many grey haired British men saying the same about America.


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 18, 2014)

Thing is we had the resources and the land to make it  Scotland does not.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Sep 18, 2014)

Chelydra said:


> Except in this case Scotland is a little kid that does not know yet what is in its best interests.



But more likely than not, the No campaign will win this. Are you saying it shouldn't?


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 18, 2014)

Yes Scotland should remain with England, its in everyone's best interest, even Scotland's, whether people know it or not.


----------



## Nemesis (Sep 18, 2014)

Savior said:


> I'm sure back in the days of the American Revolution there were many grey haired British men saying the same about America.



Except in the case that it is a completely different world than in 1776.  Scotland doesn't have much going for it and if the Yes vote came out it would basically have to negotiate in the weak position against a British government that will be looking out for BRITISH interests which might at some points go against the scottish one.

Then of course you have to have diplomatic relations with out countries.  Many of which will take the whole "Yeah we're not paying our debts." thing in a less than friendly manner.  Also a lot of businesses are threatening to pull themselves out of Scotland and go to London if a yes vote goes through.

Scotland also has issues with Alcohol and Obesety that you don't see much of in the rest of Europe.  That is a health ticking timebomb, you have the SNP claiming the maritime borders between Scotland and RoUK will go in an East/West direction and not follow the land border.  The maritime border following the land one happens in every other country, why would it be different here?

The only thing going for the yes campaign right now is that in the last 24 hours Andy Murray said he was supporting the yes campaign.  Big deal, if the no campaign had someone with charisma as their voice then it would have been a 70% to 80% no vote.  But charisma rules over facts in the minds of the people these days, which is why it is so close.


----------



## Savior (Sep 18, 2014)

Mider T said:


> When you're already a first class citizen; and your short and long term livelihood will be lessened.  Every independence movement doesn't deserve to get their own country, they have to earn it.



Know what's better than a "first class citizen"? A first class citizen of an independent nation. Why should Scotland not have its independence when so many other countries and islands in the commonwealth have it?


----------



## Nemesis (Sep 18, 2014)

Because the other countries never had representation in London.  Scotland does, more so than any other part of the UK.


----------



## Mael (Sep 18, 2014)

Savior said:


> Know what's better than a "first class citizen"? A first class citizen of an independent nation. Why should Scotland not have its independence when so many other countries and islands in the commonwealth have it?



>Acting like Scots are somehow enslaved by the British. 

You're exactly the kind of ultralib nonsensical thinking that JJ McCullough ties with the Quebec separatists.


----------



## Savior (Sep 18, 2014)

Mael said:


> >Acting like Scots are somehow enslaved by the British.
> 
> You're exactly the kind of ultralib nonsensical thinking that JJ McCullough ties with the Quebec separatists.



The Quebec separatists were fools. They were lucky the vote never went through and thankfully the younger generation is smarter so we will never see such an incident. A large part of the backlash against Scottish independence is out of fear of instability which is a shame. Then you have Spain and Belgium who are especially worried giving their own circumstances. Sadly, the reality has been constantly twisted.


----------



## Savior (Sep 18, 2014)

The Yes argument is based on positivity and optimism.

The No side pushes fear and negativity.


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 18, 2014)

The no side pushes common sense dude. The yes side promotes blind idealism.


----------



## Mael (Sep 18, 2014)

Savior said:


> The Yes argument is based on positivity and optimism.
> 
> The No side pushes fear and negativity.



Wow this isn't obtuse.


----------



## Savior (Sep 18, 2014)

Mael said:


> Wow this isn't obtuse.



It's the truth. I was looking at what many Scottish people were thinking about the 2 campaigns and this was an easy conclusion to make.


----------



## Jagger (Sep 18, 2014)

Sasuke_Bateman said:


> Is this important or not? No one I know ever talks about it
> 
> I kind of care because I love the flag, It's beautiful I don't want it to be changed, otherwise doesn't matter to me


Well, it's important if you know the right people. I think it's the same case for every new that isn't internation such as the IS' attacks and butchering across the Middle East, but, for example, the Fergurson riots were not known that much outside of the US.


----------



## Mael (Sep 18, 2014)

Savior said:


> It's the truth. I was looking at what many Scottish people were thinking about the 2 campaigns and this was an easy conclusion to make.



So to you, economic logic means negativity.


----------



## Blue (Sep 18, 2014)

Nemesis said:


> Scotland also has issues with Alcohol



That explains this referendum


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 18, 2014)

Mael said:


> So to you, economic logic means negativity.



Its so much easier just to sweep inconvenient facts under the rug when they clash with your idealism.


----------



## Nemesis (Sep 18, 2014)

Savior said:


> It's the truth. I was looking at what many Scottish people were thinking about the 2 campaigns and this was an easy conclusion to make.



Savior are you Alex Salmond?

Seriously the negetivity is just the no campaign being truthful.  Hell its job really is to basically say staying together is better than leaving.  It is up to the yes campaign to prove that leaving is better.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 18, 2014)

Savior said:


> The Quebec separatists were fools. They were lucky the vote never went through and thankfully the younger generation is smarter so we will never see such an incident. A large part of the backlash against Scottish independence is out of fear of instability which is a shame. Then you have Spain and Belgium who are especially worried giving their own circumstances. Sadly, the reality has been constantly twisted.





MbS said:


> Plus since we're lingering on the topic, San Marino, the Vatican, Lesotho and the Gambia are within other countries yet sovereign. Quebec could be too. Ah, but that's different to Canadians, the problems in their backyard now and it's ...'not the same'. Typical.





Saviour's just another Canuck butt hurt the US managed to get away while Canada was ridden by the British for so long. Cute really.


----------



## The Faceless Man (Sep 18, 2014)

Handsome Dan said:


> ahahahahahaha Shin and Sleip talking about being smart
> 
> I'm dying here
> 
> ...



You do realize how you look from this post ?

1.You dont know me
2. If you think you know me then my troll power are fucking amazing.
3. Look at you're post from a stranger perspective and see who looks more idiotic here.



Moody said:


> kinda not worth putting shin on super ignore when y'all quote him



To much blender and KP made you just as smart as them.
RIP moody.
Good naruto fan... now just another weirdo.



Mael said:


> Sometimes change isn't for the better, case in point Crimea.
> 
> But lo the idealists will always be this obtuse.



You can't compare Crimea with this. That was done by force with putin making them vote.


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 18, 2014)

> Voters in the referendum do not have to be British citizens; Commonwealth, *Irish and EU citizens* who live in Scotland and are registered to vote there can cast a ballot. However, *Scots living outside Scotland do not have a say.*



Thats not fishy as hell.


----------



## The Faceless Man (Sep 18, 2014)

Chelydra said:


> Thats not fishy as hell.



Why ? I hate when people outside my country decide stuff for my country.
Because of them we got a shitty ass president for 5 years.

They dont suffer. But we do.


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 18, 2014)

Because Scottish citizens outside their country are still citizens of Scotland. And all citizens deserve the right to vote on such an important matter.

Absentee Ballots are a very democratic thing 

And to top it off you have non scotts being allowed to determine your countries future as well, so you could and will have random people coming just to vote yes and then leave Scotland to its fate. (Irish and EU citizens)


----------



## Roman (Sep 18, 2014)

The Faceless Man said:


> Why ? I hate when people outside my country decide stuff for my country.
> Because of them we got a shitty ass president for 5 years.
> 
> They dont suffer. But we do.



Even Italy makes it so Italians living abroad are able to vote for important things like this. A country trying to go completely independent not catering for all citizens is frankly quite telling.


----------



## The Faceless Man (Sep 18, 2014)

Chelydra said:


> *Because Scottish citizens outside their country are still citizens of Scotland. And all citizens deserve the right to vote. *
> 
> Absentee Ballots are a very democratic thing
> 
> And to top it off *you have non scotts being allowed to determine your countries future* as well, so you could and will have random people coming just to vote yes and then leave Scotland to its fate. (Irish and EU citizens)



Yes i get that still. I belive its an awful decision. As someone who is not living in that place to get a vote. Cuz they have no repercusion for their vote or any responsibility

Yeah but those people do live there... their action impact their life. 

I put more value and those things then "wow im a scottish person... i live in america i will vote but hey there is 0 impact on my life here"

just my 2 cents



Freedan said:


> Even Italy makes it so Italians living abroad are able to vote for important things like this. A country trying to go completely independent not catering for all citizens is frankly quite telling.



Many do this not just Italians. Still its not a good thing. Those who dont live there dont get any impact.


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 18, 2014)

That maybe your two cents but that is not how a democracy works, or should work. All citizens deserve a say whether they are there or not, _especially_ for such a weighty decision, and blaming absentee voters for a president you don't like is silly since there is not enough absentees to clench a majority either way.


----------



## The Faceless Man (Sep 18, 2014)

Chelydra said:


> That maybe your two cents but that is not how a democracy works, or should work. All citizens deserve a say whether they are there or not, _especially_ for such a weighty decision, *and blaming absentee voters for a president you don't like is silly since there is not enough absentees to clench a majority either way*.



I get you're point... democracy its not perfect tho 

No, in my country the president won by a slide with voters from Diaspora. They are not even close to this country and i dont like that they got a vote since they dont suffer any damn consequences.

And yeah now they hate him to after he was elected.


----------



## Godaime Tsunade (Sep 18, 2014)

Its tough. 

On one hand, I feel as though Scotland leaving the UK will damage it's reputation. Generally, most people elsewhere in Europe and indeed the rest of the world, only know of Scotland's history, culture and even (for the less geographically minded) _existence_ because it is part of the UK. Once it becomes independent it turns into a random little country floating on the side, and I can see it's tourism industry suffering a lot by consequence. There's also the matter of the EU, which, if Scotland were to be removed from, would surely dent it's status amongst _all_ other European countries, not just ones in the UK.

On the other hand, I love how patriotic the people of Scotland are that they would actually _want_ to be independent in the first place. If the Scottish people are fully aware of all the negatives in having their country become it's own constitution, but _still_ are insistent on the YES vote, then who are we to judge? If this is what the people want, and if this is what gives them the country that they actually desire, then an independent Scotland is surely for the best.​​


----------



## Jagger (Sep 18, 2014)

So we're obtaining the results tomorrow, I assume?


----------



## The Faceless Man (Sep 18, 2014)

The news are out here. It says Exit-Poll... 54% NO  and only 46% Yes
That means No independence for them


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 18, 2014)

Jagger said:


> So we're obtaining the results tomorrow, I assume?



The consensus is early tomorrow morning 'around 'breakfast time', presumably around or before 9:00 AM.

UK time of course.


----------



## Savior (Sep 18, 2014)

The Faceless Man said:


> The news are out here. Its says Exit-Poll... 54% NO  and only 46% Yes
> That means No independence for them



If true, then it's their loss.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 18, 2014)

No, it's England's loss. And Wales, and Northern Ireland.


----------



## The Faceless Man (Sep 18, 2014)

Savior said:


> If true, then it's their loss.





MbS said:


> No, it's England's loss. And Wales, and Northern Ireland.



http://www.theguardian.com/politics...esults-live-coverage-of-the-independence-vote




> Latest polling
> Polls for the Scottish referendum continue to indicate a narrow lead for the No campaign.
> The final poll ahead of voting ending is by Ipsos Mori for tonight's Evening Standard:
> ? Ipsos Mori: Yes 47%, No 53%
> ...


----------



## The Faceless Man (Sep 18, 2014)

Its confirmed all over the place.


----------



## Mael (Sep 18, 2014)

Savior said:


> If true, then it's their loss.



Unless you follow common sense.


----------



## Nordstrom (Sep 18, 2014)

mr_shadow said:


> 'cause Europe can't geopolitically keep up with the US, China, India, Russia or Brazil unless we team up.



Shadow knows 



The Faceless Man said:


> People are afraid of change... smart people are in a overwhelming minority.
> Why would NF be any different ?



That's how it is in a world that holds on to memories of year 2000, when it looked the world was set on Western assimilation.

Too bad any kind of assimilation without comprehension is a juvenile fantasy.



Mael said:


> Sometimes change isn't for the better, case in point Crimea.
> 
> But lo the idealists will always be this obtuse.



But is every case of a secession in here that much of a problem for everyone? Nobody had a bloody problem when Kosovo seceded from Serbia!

The Scots are given the option. If they want to run the risk and suffer for their land, so be it. I'd do the same.



MbS said:


> No one is seriously saying it'll be end of the world if Scotland goes independent. Just their arguments for independence are retarded when their reasons amount to: we want to protect our NHS: you already have control over it, England doesn't have say what you do with it. We want to remain part of the EU and NATO, leaving the UK will guarantee you aren't. We want to control how our taxes are spent, you do. Is it really worth throwing all that away for cuts and austerity and economic uncertainty? Because magical oil isn't going to turn Scotland into the land of milk and honey and Salmond shits gold.
> 
> If Scots go independent, Idiots who advocate *Scottish independence now will no doubt be whining years later that the UK should help Scotland out because we killed Mel Gibson and ruined any real chance Scotland had of Independence.* Despite Scotland prospering under the UK. The whole under dog scenario is in affect here with 'downtrodden' Scots as the protagonists, when it shouldn't be.



Then tell them this: Your country, your government, your problems.

They can't expect to leech off the UK if they do go independent.



Handsome Dan said:


> ahahahahahaha Shin and Sleip talking about being smart
> 
> I'm dying here
> 
> ...



Am I really attempting to analyze an argument from the man who says Fox News is balanced and fair?



Son of Goku said:


> Dumbest post in this thread, bar none. Coming from an Colonist American makes it all the dumber.



I suspect the man descends from William Walker or McCarthy.



Son of Goku said:


> I'm sorry I thought you said Crimea, must've heard you wrong then.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It isn't. The rebels almost certainly shut it down believing the thing was an Ukrainian surveillance craft.



Handsome Dan said:


> Goku, look, I know the jackbooted zionist thugs dropped you on your head when you were a baby, so I'll try to keep this simple
> 
> The West (capital letters, baby!) has what's called a "free press". That means the media can and will say whatever the fuck it wants to.
> 
> ...



That same free press also allows the existence of something called bias. I'm not saying controlled press is any better, but with stuff like the Huffington Post, New York Times and Fox out there, you have to go through yellow press and many sites filled to the brim with shite to find something decent.

Also, ITT: The man who doesn't knows the meaning of the word "fair".



Chelydra said:


> Except in this case Scotland is a little kid that does not know yet what is in its best interests.



Sophism.



Chelydra said:


> Thing is we had the resources and the land to make it  Scotland does not.





Chelydra said:


> Yes Scotland should remain with England, its in everyone's best interest, even Scotland's, whether people know it or not.



Paternalism.



Savior said:


> The Quebec separatists were fools. They were lucky the vote never went through and thankfully the younger generation is smarter so we will never see such an incident. A large part of the backlash against Scottish independence is out of fear of instability which is a shame. Then you have Spain and Belgium who are especially worried giving their own circumstances. Sadly, the reality has been constantly twisted.



Well, we will do it regardless of the risks and what Rajoy says. That man can't do shit to save his life.



Godaime Tsunade said:


> Its tough.
> 
> On one hand, I feel as though Scotland leaving the UK will damage it's reputation. Generally, most people elsewhere in Europe and indeed the rest of the world, only know of Scotland's history, culture and even (for the less geographically minded) _existence_ because it is part of the UK. Once it becomes independent it turns into a random little country floating on the side, and I can see it's tourism industry suffering a lot by consequence. There's also the matter of the EU, which, if Scotland were to be removed from, would surely dent it's status amongst _all_ other European countries, not just ones in the UK.
> 
> On the other hand, I love how patriotic the people of Scotland are that they would actually _want_ to be independent in the first place. If the Scottish people are fully aware of all the negatives in having their country become it's own constitution, but _still_ are insistent on the YES vote, then who are we to judge? If this is what the people want, and if this is what gives them the country that they actually desire, then an independent Scotland is surely for the best.​​



I support them.



Jagger said:


> So we're obtaining the results tomorrow, I assume?



As usual.



Savior said:


> If true, then it's their loss.





MbS said:


> No, it's England's loss. And Wales, and Northern Ireland.



It's both's loss.


----------



## The Faceless Man (Sep 18, 2014)

*Friday's i front page - "Scotland writes history"*




*And more stuff *


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 18, 2014)

Sleipnyr said:


> I support them.



Between you, Kim Jong-un and the Ukrainian Separatists, Salmond must consider himself lucky having such foreign support.


----------



## Nordstrom (Sep 18, 2014)

^ Given I'm a Catalan independence support, it makes no sense not to.


----------



## masamune1 (Sep 18, 2014)

If the polls are saying "No", then this proud Scot got _exactly_ what he wanted.


----------



## The Faceless Man (Sep 18, 2014)

Well the chooice was made. There may be some doubts and people will complain.


----------



## SternRitter (Sep 18, 2014)

Pretty surreal that I'll wake up in the morning and my country may or may not be independent.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 18, 2014)

The Faceless Man said:


> *Well the chooice was made.* There may be some doubts and people will complain.



Whoa, hold on there. After all the votes in the 32 Scottish local authorities been tallied will the final result be declared. Sit back, it's going to be a long night.


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 18, 2014)

Polls are closed and the counting begins. I shall stay tuned.


----------



## The Faceless Man (Sep 18, 2014)

MbS said:


> Whoa, hold on there. After all the votes in the 32 Scottish local authorities been tallied will the final result be declared. Sit back, it's going to be a long night.



like the video i posted said... there is no way the balance could be broken at this point. 54% is a "dead sentence"

even in the worse case... 51% would still say NO

I was hoping they would get independence but oh well. Maybe they will try again after 30 years.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 18, 2014)

The Faceless Man said:


> Maybe they will try again after 30 years.



The likely hood of a future referendum resulting in a Yes vote are just as unlikely, possibly even more so.

After this debacle, the next government will have learnt from the mistakes Cameron and co made  - of which there are plenty the No camp made - and avoid them. Cameron, that inbred twat, is a man who lives in the moment. He has foresight that stops at the immediate end of his beak nose and it shows with how he's handled the whole thing. Plus Scots will also be given more sovereign powers, they'll be an independent country in all but name.

Plus the UK government would have to consent to holding a referendum - and if the mood entitles a break away looking likely, you can count on the government taking the same route as Spain with Catalonia and refusing a referendum altogether.

The Scots are part of the UK: _forever_.


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 18, 2014)

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-scotland-29130277

Live feed, its just talking points though.



> But is every case of a secession in here that much of a problem for everyone? Nobody had a bloody problem when Kosovo seceded from Serbia!



No fucking shit, it weakened Russian interests and there was a fucking genocide going on there that was sponsored by the Serbian government. Same with South Sudan, a protracted civil war and deliberate genocide by government forces is one of the few remaining legit reasons for a province to leave a country.

 Get your pro Russian head out of your ass and try and look at things objectively.


----------



## Nemesis (Sep 18, 2014)

News coming in seems yes campaign might be doing worse than what the yougov 54% no have come out.  No campaign is confident of Falkirk which was meant to be a yes stronghold.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Sep 18, 2014)

MbS said:


> The likely hood of a future referendum resulting in a Yes vote are just as unlikely, possibly even more so.
> 
> After this debacle, the next government will have learnt from the mistakes Cameron and co made  - of which there are plenty the No camp made - and avoid them. Cameron, that inbred twat, is a man who lives in the moment. He has foresight that stops at the immediate end of his beak nose and it shows with how he's handled the whole thing. Plus Scots will also be given more sovereign powers, they'll be an independent country in all but name.
> 
> ...



There is no "forever" in history.


----------



## The Faceless Man (Sep 18, 2014)

MbS said:


> The likely hood of a future referendum resulting in a Yes vote are just as unlikely, possibly even more so.
> 
> After this debacle, the next government will have learnt from the mistakes Cameron and co made  - of which there are plenty the No camp made - and avoid them. Cameron, that inbred twat, is a man who lives in the moment. He has foresight that stops at the immediate end of his beak nose and it shows with how he's handled the whole thing. Plus Scots will also be given more sovereign powers, they'll be an independent country in all but name.
> 
> ...



Well one day a big union will happen. Something like United States of Europe
And all the bullshits of every nation will go away.

Many states could get regional inndependence all under the USE

I just hope on that day the Germany and Russia will not be manipulative super powers that suck the life out of people like they are today.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Sep 18, 2014)

YES are gonna hammer it in Glasgow. Saw a few polls where bleedin Rangers fans came out with an indy majority. Fair play.


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 18, 2014)

Not really from all accounts every thing is rather close.

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-scotland-29130277


----------



## Nemesis (Sep 18, 2014)

Glasgow may have gone yes from initial reports according to the BBC.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Sep 18, 2014)

Not surprising, that's pretty much been Yes' main stronghold. The key will be by how much


----------



## Nordstrom (Sep 18, 2014)

Chelydra said:


> No fucking shit, it weakened Russian interests and there was a fucking genocide going on there that was sponsored by the Serbian government. Same with South Sudan, a protracted civil war and deliberate genocide by government forces is one of the few remaining legit reasons for a province to leave a country.
> 
> Get your pro Russian head out of your ass and try and look at things objectively.



Apparently, weak Russia is good because according to you, West stronk is good.

I cannot see things the way you're asking me, even if you tell me to be objective (and I am). However, they separated because of issues. I understand that, but why shouldn't Scotland? According to them, they have issues with the UK (even if they are nowhere near as horrible as those in the Balkans).


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 18, 2014)

Well we now have electoral fraud in Glasgow already. Ten votes so far.

Anyways live commentary until results start coming in:

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-scotland-29130277


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Sep 18, 2014)

Clackmannanshire and Orkney to declare in 10-15 minutes.

edit: Clackmannanshire in 5 minutes. Expected YES.


----------



## Easley (Sep 18, 2014)

hmm, I thought I'd be able to do an all-nighter, but that last glass of wine says otherwise. Hope I wake up to an intact union. Wipe the smirk off Salmond's face, Scotland!

Good night.


----------



## Nemesis (Sep 18, 2014)

First one is in and no wins in a supposed Yes stronghold
16,350 yes
19,036 no


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Sep 18, 2014)

Clackmannanshire - NO.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Sep 18, 2014)

Can't believe I fannied out of putting a few ton on NO this morning.


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 18, 2014)

We go a first declaration it was a no vote in Clackmannanshire. 56% to 46%


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Sep 18, 2014)

Orkney should be declaring before 2 a.m. Polling has shown they're about 5% more NO than the national average so I'd expect about 56 to 44 NO.


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 18, 2014)

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-29264278

Declaration times, no speculations though.


----------



## Nemesis (Sep 18, 2014)

No wins by huge margin in Orkney.  No surprise there since Orkney was planning to run out of Scotland if yes won overall.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Sep 18, 2014)

~ 65% NO in Orkney.


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 18, 2014)

Holy shit 10,004 NO to 4,883 yes


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Sep 18, 2014)

Chelydra said:


> Holy shit 10,004 NO to 4,883 yes



One of the very most anti-independence regions though, no surprise at all.


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 18, 2014)

Yup, we need the big regions to declare before anything serious can be guessed at.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Sep 18, 2014)

Well, it's looking like 'NO' at the moment, but yeah the big results will all start coming out from 3 a.m (an hour's time).


----------



## Megaharrison (Sep 18, 2014)

According to scots on MP.net the makeup of a future Scottish military has been detailed:



> 2,500 soldiers + 500 reserve.
> "Light" armour.
> 
> 2 Handed down frigates
> ...



Doesn't sound like they have the personnel/budget for this sort of plan though.


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 18, 2014)

erictheking said:


> Well, it's looking like 'NO' at the moment, but yeah the big results will all start coming out from 3 a.m (an hour's time).



Ah you see to me it looks like nothing right now, not till we get the larger regions should one begin to worry/celebrate the potential result. So relax and watch history unfold.

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-scotland-29130277


----------



## Mider T (Sep 18, 2014)

How are you guys getting these stats?  I thought there were no exit polls?


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 18, 2014)

BBC is live covering this, you can get them right from the website but yes _I_ want to know where erictheking gets his stats as well.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29263022

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-scotland-29130277


----------



## Jagger (Sep 18, 2014)

Sleipnyr said:


> I don't think the person who ran away from his own country has any right to talk on this issue.


This is one of the worst comments you've ever done. 

>Implying he was born in Cuba.
>Implying any sane person/family wouldn't run away fom Cuba to the USA to have a better life quality, better education and better incomes. 
>Implying Cuba isn't a shithole.
>Implying more dumb stuff.


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 18, 2014)

*Supposedly* an other win for NO in East Renfrewshire.



> Labour's Jim Murphy tweets: Looks like a very big win for No in our local authority of East Renfrewshire on over 90% turnout.


----------



## Nordstrom (Sep 18, 2014)

> This is one of the worst comments you've ever done.
> 
> >Implying he was born in Cuba.
> >Implying any sane person/family wouldn't run away fom Cuba to the USA to have a better life quality, better education and better incomes.
> ...



Given there are still 10,000,000 people in there and that includes friends of mine that don't live in a shithole (though it isn't exactly a wonderful paradise either) I'm not wrong when it comes to that.

I just noticed that most Cuban Americans despise Cuba instinctively.


----------



## Mider T (Sep 18, 2014)

Jagger said:


> This is one of the worst comments you've ever done.
> 
> >Implying he was born in Cuba.
> >Implying any sane person/family wouldn't run away fom Cuba to the USA to have a better life quality, better education and better incomes.
> ...



That's pretty much Sleip's running gag, dunno a single person who takes him seriously.


----------



## Nordstrom (Sep 18, 2014)

Mider T said:


> That's pretty much Sleip's running gag, dunno a single person who takes him seriously.



A lot. Just not conservatives and anti leftists.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Sep 18, 2014)

Mider T said:


> How are you guys getting these stats?  I thought there were no exit polls?



There aren't. Orkney and Clackmannanshire have been declared. Turnouts for many others have also been declared, but the final results won't be coming out until about 30 minutes +.



Chelydra said:


> BBC is live covering this, you can get them right from the website but yes _I_ want to know where erictheking gets his stats as well.
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29263022
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-scotland-29130277



BBC Scotland (television). Have to be a Briton to access it.


----------



## The Faceless Man (Sep 18, 2014)

The NO party won. Go home guys there is nothing to see here.


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 18, 2014)

The Faceless Man said:


> The NO party won. Go home guys there is nothing to see here.



Sheesh, its way to soon for this, even though I am a "NO" supporter its WAY too soon to declare victory or defeat.


----------



## Jagger (Sep 18, 2014)

Sleipnyr said:


> Given there are still 10,000,000 people in there and that includes friends of mine that don't live in a shithole (though it isn't exactly a wonderful paradise either) I'm not wrong when it comes to that.
> 
> I just noticed that most Cuban Americans despise Cuba instinctively.


Maybe because they're brainwashed believing that the current government is way better than any other that applies capitalism such as the USA or don't have enough to leave the country, don't want to leave family behind along in the island or simply don't want to start from zero somewhere else.

Maybe because it's terrible while compared to a first world country such as the US?


----------



## Mider T (Sep 18, 2014)

Apparently saying US > Cuba is "sucking US' cock".  That's some NK level propaganda right there.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Sep 18, 2014)

Everything I'm seeing is screaming NO here. Be interesting tomorrow anyway.


----------



## Jagger (Sep 18, 2014)

erictheking said:


> How about you fuck off and go suck Uncle Sam's cock in another thread sunshine?
> 
> Ta.


It's better than sucking Cuba's dick though.


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 18, 2014)

Oh I am so staying up to watch all this happen. From what I am seeing on the BBC website NO seems likely for a few more wins shortly.


----------



## Nemesis (Sep 18, 2014)

Eilean votes no.  This place was meant to be a sure win for yes.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Sep 18, 2014)

Mider T said:


> Apparently saying US > Cuba is "sucking US' cock".  That's some NK level propaganda right there.



This forum is desperately missing a cringe emoticon. 

Why can't you lowlives read the thread title and fucking stick to it?


----------



## Mider T (Sep 18, 2014)

^It was a response to your comment, which wasn't on topic in itself.

Scots are smarter than stereotyped that's for sure.


----------



## Jagger (Sep 18, 2014)

erictheking said:


> This forum is desperately missing a cringe emoticon.


So it can be used everytime someone reads your posts?


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 18, 2014)

*Supposedly* Fife is going to vote NO.


----------



## Jagger (Sep 18, 2014)

At this point, I think it's become a bit too obvious the 'No' option is going to win.

Surprises might happen, but unlikely, imo.


----------



## Nemesis (Sep 18, 2014)

Well BBC.  Yes supporter "UKIP are racist." UKIP MEP "You're racist." well we know how it devolves down to.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Sep 18, 2014)

Mider T said:


> ^It was a response to your comment, which wasn't on topic in itself.
> 
> Scots are smarter than stereotyped that's for sure.



My comment was a response to said irrelevant discussion, and an attempt to reconfigure it to relevancy.

But it looks like the absolute joke of a mod in this section has decided the irrelevant discussion is entirely relevant and my attempt to reconfigure it back on topic had to be deleted. 

Isn't that funny? The only political forum on here is controlled by a rabid partisan.  



Jagger said:


> So it can be used everytime someone reads your posts?



Everyone'll be free to use it sunshine, your "Yes Boss" posts may form quite a large proportion of them though.


----------



## Nemesis (Sep 18, 2014)

No wins Inverclyde by a majority of about 60.  Was meant to be a no stonghold with heavy labour votes.


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 18, 2014)

Inverclyde has declared NO it was 50.1% to 49.9% A really close shave for NO votes.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Sep 18, 2014)

Could've won a ton here.


----------



## Tyrael (Sep 18, 2014)

Inverclyde NO means that YES is pretty much done already.


----------



## Jagger (Sep 18, 2014)

Chelydra said:


> Inverclyde has declared NO it was 50.1% to 49.9% A really close shave for NO votes.


That's actually a lot closer than I thought.


----------



## Juda (Sep 18, 2014)

I hope people vote no. And im happy people are coming back to there senses.


----------



## Tyrael (Sep 18, 2014)

Juda said:


> I hope people vote no. And *im happy people are coming back to there senses.*



Now that's just silly talk.

Both are legitimate choices - I'm a NO voter, but this constant demeaning of either side of the argument just sullies the whole debate.


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 18, 2014)

We have our first YES vote in Dundee. And a NO vote in Renfrewshire.


----------



## Tyrael (Sep 18, 2014)

YES win Dundee. Who'd'a thunk it? Renfrewshire win No.


----------



## Nemesis (Sep 18, 2014)

Dundee yes will pulls yes back over 49%.  A large place as well with 57% yes, could have a few more twists yet.


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 18, 2014)

WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE RESULT

"Yes" wins by 33,720 votes to 28,776. That is 54% for "Yes" and 46% for "No".

Midlothian voted NO


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Sep 18, 2014)

W. Dunbartonshire in.

New balance 49.8% YES 50.2% NO.


----------



## Tyrael (Sep 18, 2014)

'nother YES scalp, West Dumbartonshire. Midlothian went NO.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Sep 18, 2014)

Midlothian in.

Big NO win.


----------



## Tyrael (Sep 18, 2014)

Wish the BBC would stop talking about the campaigns - watching politicians pat themselves on the back for making a lot of noise whilst people made up their own minds makes me wish nobody would win this.


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 18, 2014)

East Lothian voted NO 44,283 votes

Stirling voted NO 37,133


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Sep 18, 2014)

YES getting an absolute hiding tbf.


----------



## Tyrael (Sep 18, 2014)

erictheking said:


> YES getting an absolute hiding tbf.



Clackmannanshire set the tone really. Was already an uphill struggle for YES after the first declaration.

Pitlochrie, Falkirk, Edinburgh and Glasgow all projected for NO now.


----------



## Mider T (Sep 18, 2014)

>Edinburgh and Glasgow projected for NO

It's over, England won.


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 18, 2014)

Falkirk voted NO 58,030


----------



## Tyrael (Sep 18, 2014)

Mider T said:


> It's over, England won.



Someone is on the wind-up.

Or maybe you need to wiki the UK.


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 18, 2014)

Angus has voted NO 45,192 votes Aberdeen voted NO with 84,000+ Dumfries has voted NO 70,039


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Sep 18, 2014)

Glasgow for a NO. Mental 



Tyrael said:


> Someone is on the wind-up.
> 
> Or maybe you need to wiki the UK.



He's not on the wind-up, he's just a septic.


----------



## Mider T (Sep 18, 2014)

Tyrael said:


> Someone is on the wind-up.
> 
> Or maybe you need to wiki the UK.



Nah I'm good, England won.


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 18, 2014)

The No's are slamming it right now.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Sep 18, 2014)

Oof. Proper battering this.


----------



## Juda (Sep 18, 2014)

Tyrael said:


> Now that's just silly talk.
> 
> Both are legitimate choices - I'm a NO voter, but this constant demeaning of either side of the argument just sullies the whole debate.



Point taken, I apologize.


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 18, 2014)

some dude is blaming the "British establishment"


----------



## Tyrael (Sep 18, 2014)

Juda said:


> Point taken, I apologize.



No need to apologise, it's something that is easy to get drawn into. An aggressive and bitty tone has really characterised both sides of the argument recently, which really detracts from the whole process, and it's something that a lot of people have been guilty of.


----------



## Nemesis (Sep 18, 2014)

I think we can safely say barring some major shock in Glasgow and Edinburgh that no have won.


----------



## Nordstrom (Sep 18, 2014)

> Maybe because they're brainwashed believing that the current government is way better than any other that applies capitalism such as the USA or don't have enough to leave the country, don't want to leave family behind along in the island or simply don't want to start from zero somewhere else.
> 
> Maybe because it's terrible while compared to a first world country such as the US?



Or simply put, they are still better than many countries in Central America and some are fine with how things are run.

For Christ's sake! Going by your logic, every single person in Africa who could would be moving to the US. Some don't live a better life than in there, but it's fine for them!

This is not a conspiracy Jagger, and no, I'm not saying US > Cuba is sucking the US's cock, but people shouldn't be frowned upon for refusing to attack Cuba as it is.

Plus, Raul is already letting others into power and starting to dismount the dictatorship.

As it stands, I think he's aiming for an Evo style leadership.

Also, how many total No votes so far?


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 18, 2014)

670,354 No votes, NO is doing really well.

Gasglow voted YES


----------



## Mider T (Sep 18, 2014)

You realize that all Cubans have to do is go to America and they're set?  It's not as easy for Africans.


----------



## Tyrael (Sep 18, 2014)

YES wins big in Glasgow. There you go.


----------



## Mider T (Sep 18, 2014)

How did it win big when it was just close as hell?


----------



## Tyrael (Sep 18, 2014)

Estimations and predictions were wrong.


----------



## Nemesis (Sep 18, 2014)

But not big enough Edinburgh is almost certain to go yes.  To be fair everywhere else doesn't count cause too few people.


----------



## Tyrael (Sep 18, 2014)

Well NO is still 200K ahead.


----------



## Mider T (Sep 19, 2014)

So I ask again, where are these stats coming from?


----------



## Nemesis (Sep 19, 2014)

Counties and cities are declaring their local results.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Sep 19, 2014)

NO's got it ffs. Livid I didn't bet this morning.


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 19, 2014)

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29263022

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-scotland-29130277


----------



## Mider T (Sep 19, 2014)

I guess 40 years isn't enough to change people's opinions, NO FTW!


----------



## Linkdarkside (Sep 19, 2014)

Tyrael said:


> Estimations and predictions were wrong.



of course they are, often polls only ask question to less than 1% of the population and in specific location.


----------



## Nemesis (Sep 19, 2014)

erictheking said:


> NO's got it ffs. Livid I didn't bet this morning.



Wouldn't have mattered.  Everywhere had already payed out for people that bet NO 2-3 days ago.


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 19, 2014)

BBC is predicting a NO victory.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Sep 19, 2014)

Nemesis said:


> Wouldn't have mattered.  Everywhere had already payed out for people that bet NO 2-3 days ago.



No, some did. I was looking at odds this morning and some were not bad considering. Nearly did it but bottled it SMFH.


----------



## Savior (Sep 19, 2014)

Chelydra said:


> BBC is predicting a NO victory.



They are very happy.


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 19, 2014)

Well BBC just declared it. 



> Scotland will vote to stay in the United Kingdom after rejecting independence, the BBC has predicted.
> 
> With 26 out of the country's 32 council areas having declared after Thursday's vote, the "No" side has a 54% of the vote, with the "Yes" campaign on 46%.
> 
> ...



http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-29270441

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-scotland-29130277


----------



## Megaharrison (Sep 19, 2014)

Shame, I wanted Scotland to regret their actions. Tears of failure are much sweeter than tears of defeat.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Sep 19, 2014)

Megaharrison said:


> Shame, I wanted Scotland to regret their actions. Tears of failure are much sweeter than tears of defeat.



Eh, just check the other cybernats on Twitter that are now accusing Westminster of rigging the vote.You won't be disappointed.


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 19, 2014)

Megaharrison said:


> Shame, I wanted Scotland to regret their actions. Tears of failure are much sweeter than tears of defeat.



One dude on the BBC was claiming that England mobilized the bankers and business and forced them to intimidate their employees.

Anyways the capital of Scotland has voted NO.

I think I can safely say common sense has prevailed.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Sep 19, 2014)

Edinburgh and Aberdeen declare No

GG Salmond

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN9EC3Gy6Nk[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Linkdarkside (Sep 19, 2014)

Kagekatsu said:


> Edinburgh and Aberdeen declare No
> 
> GG Salmond
> 
> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN9EC3Gy6Nk[/YOUTUBE]



They should change God save the Queen to God Save Britain rather than referring to god saving one person.


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 19, 2014)

Well Fife put the nail in the coffin for the YES movement. Scotland has ensured its economic and political stability for years to come.

And CNN is behind on this


----------



## Linkdarkside (Sep 19, 2014)

i wonder if Britain gonna still be a unitary country.


----------



## SternRitter (Sep 19, 2014)

Ah well, it would have been fun to see a yes vote hah. Voted yes myself, As long as Westminster don't try and fuck us over now then I don't really mind the no vote. 

Imo there shouldn't have been a vote at all, either way it went has just brought negativity into Britain.
Although being the first country in history to deny independance has a bad ring to it.


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 19, 2014)

SternRitter said:


> Ah well, it would have been fun to see a yes vote hah. Voted yes myself, As long as Westminster don't try and fuck us over now then I don't really mind the no vote.
> 
> Imo there shouldn't have been a vote at all, either way it went has just brought negativity into Britain.
> Although being the first country in history to deny independance has a bad ring to it.



Not really, accepting independence when it will clearly lead to your country's downfall is not a good thing to do, so it could be seen as common sense dictating the choice of the people.


----------



## SternRitter (Sep 19, 2014)

Chelydra said:


> Not really, accepting independence when it will clearly lead to your country's downfall is not a good thing to do, so it could be seen as common sense dictating the choice of the people.



Oh don't get me wrong I agree 100%, I only voted yes because you can't trust Westminster to make good on their word so I thought what the hell. The no vote was certainly the sane choice and right thing to do.

Now there's nothing to do but sit back and see if we actually get any powers from Westminster, wouldn't suprise if they shafted us in every way possible either though.


----------



## Nordstrom (Sep 19, 2014)

Mider T said:


> You realize that all Cubans have to do is go to America and they're set?  It's not as easy for Africans.



Well, you could say the same for Europe and Algeria, yet they still have the vast majority of their population.



Chelydra said:


> 670,354 No votes, NO is doing really well.
> 
> Gasglow voted YES



Well, it seems that in their quest for votes they neglected the rest of the country 



SternRitter said:


> Ah well, it would have been fun to see a yes vote hah. Voted yes myself, As long as Westminster don't try and fuck us over now then I don't really mind the no vote.
> 
> Imo there shouldn't have been a vote at all, either way it went has just brought negativity into Britain.
> Although being the first country in history to deny independance has a bad ring to it.



It sounds like a really bad page in history


----------



## Saishin (Sep 19, 2014)

Those 55% of traitors


----------



## SternRitter (Sep 19, 2014)

Saishin said:


> Those 55% of traitors



The witchhunt has begun.


----------



## Saishin (Sep 19, 2014)

SternRitter said:


> The witchhunt has begun.


Anyway the referendum has showed an unexpected division on this matter,half Scottish don't want the independence,I would have expected more unity by the Scottish for a Yes vote on this issue 

Did you vote?


----------



## Mider T (Sep 19, 2014)

Sleipnyr said:


> Well, you could say the same for Europe and Algeria, yet they still have the vast majority of their population.



Wtf are you talking about?  Oh yeah, you're Sleipnyr so you probably don't know.


----------



## SternRitter (Sep 19, 2014)

Saishin said:


> Anyway the referendum has showed an unexpected division on this matter,half Scottish don't want the independence,I would have expected more unity by the Scottish for a Yes vote on this issue
> 
> Did you vote?



I did, voted yes.

Basicaly I don't see how people can trust Cameron to be true to his word and give us more power and influence. I can see everything getting flung our way now and there's nothing we can do about it because the no vote has passed. 

In short:
Yes vote = We last about a year or two and eventually go into ruin
No vote = We get used as the whipping boys, eventually recieve huge financial cuts and have our rescources leeched to further fund the fatcats. (Implying Westminster don't keep their word which is 50/50)

Either way we die and I'd rather have been independent when it happens.


----------



## Lance (Sep 19, 2014)

This reminded me of the time when Quebec voted to seperate from Canada in two occasions.
All the talk for the build up. There practically were celebration all over the place, when the actual day came....

lelNope. We is staying here.


----------



## Mider T (Sep 19, 2014)

Saishin said:


> Anyway the referendum has showed an unexpected division on this matter,half Scottish don't want the independence,I would have expected more unity by the Scottish for a Yes vote on this issue
> 
> Did you vote?



How was it unexpected?  Did you see how many people called "No"?


----------



## Cromer (Sep 19, 2014)

Linkdarkside said:


> i wonder if Britain gonna still be a unitary country.



What am I supposed to be seeing here?

Edit: a map of unitary states, eh?


----------



## Roman (Sep 19, 2014)

Mider T said:


> How was it unexpected?  Did you see how many people called "No"?



Yeah, you can't really say it was unexpected when until recently, every poll showed a very small divide between the yes and the no sides.

I'm glad NO won out in the end tho.


----------



## Juda (Sep 19, 2014)

Cromer said:


> What am I supposed to be seeing here?
> 
> Edit: a map of unitary states, eh?



The common wealth


----------



## Roman (Sep 19, 2014)

Juda said:


> The common wealth



Dude.







I mean seriously, Canada/Australia aren't even highlighted. It should be obvious.


----------



## Juda (Sep 19, 2014)

Freedan said:


> Dude.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My bad , im not familiar with how these things work again .When she said "unitary" I figured she was talking about the commonwealth idk why


----------



## Bishamon (Sep 19, 2014)

Ooooh, twist



There's a "Yes" vote on a "No" pile

And there's also this vid, which is apparently being actively blocked from sharing



Can't exactly say I'm surprised but, still, I wonder if this will scoop under the radar or not...


----------



## Roman (Sep 19, 2014)

^It could just be a human error. In a similar manner, there may well be NO votes on the yes pile.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 19, 2014)

​
1865: The US triumphs
2014: The UK triumphs

1995: Canada… meh

And so ends the most anti-climatic of referendums.

The tears of the Cybernats and Yes campaign are delicious and salty.

Imma start flogging my T-Shirts now.



SternRitter said:


> I did, voted yes.
> 
> Basicaly I don't see how people can trust Cameron to be true to his word and give us more power and influence. I can see everything getting flung our way now and there's nothing we can do about it because the no vote has passed.
> 
> ...



This is a bad post and you should feel bad.

It's just beyond stupid.



Gwynbleidd said:


> Ooooh, twist
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ah, it already begins. The Scots were robbed.

The Lost cause begins.

No chance you didn’t recently hear about some Yes braggart on Twitter boasting he had a friend counting the votes who would ‘forget' to include No Votes?

Can't exactly say I'm surprised but, still, I wonder if this will scoop under the radar or not...


----------



## Bishamon (Sep 19, 2014)

Freedan said:


> ^It could just be a human error. In a similar manner, there may well be NO votes on the yes pile.



True, but in a matter as fatally important to a whole country (and other countries)? Errors should be unacceptable, extreme caution and multiple re-checking should be done before giving any result. And again, in a matter as important as this, the votes in favor of being conservative just so happen to get an accidental lead? Unlikely. Still, I think I'll lean towards the "Error" side, because unless the people rigging it were idiots, how on earth would people rigging the voting leave votes blatantly stating "Yes" where they're supposed to say "No" at the very top of the pile and out in the open? Where anyone can just walk in take a picture and BOOM! Bust they fuckin' ass. And should this become known, who could know how many "Yes" votes are in the "No" side against the amount of "No"s on "Yes". Could this prompt a recount? Well, we don't have any answers and who knows if we will, so I'm just speculating...

Still, the woman in the video on my post was pretty fishy, I can't think of a legitimate reason for why she would do that, but I'd have to read more into it.


----------



## Nordstrom (Sep 19, 2014)

Mider T said:


> Wtf are you talking about?  Oh yeah, you're Sleipnyr so you probably don't know.



I'm not talking about that idiotic policy dammit. I'm showing you that there are people in Cuba NOT INTERESTED IN LEAVING! What part of that do you have a problem getting through your thick Tea Party, yellow skull?!

Do you have a metal barrier in your head or something?

Same reason the UK is better of than Spain but Spain as a country isn't empty as everyone and their mother flocks to better off island.



And I can particularly say the next one to be true from what I could see while there:



> Most Cubans who once lived in shanties now live in institutional apartment buildings, just like most Spaniards.





SternRitter said:


> I did, voted yes.
> 
> Basicaly I don't see how people can trust Cameron to be true to his word and give us more power and influence. I can see everything getting flung our way now and there's nothing we can do about it because the no vote has passed.
> 
> ...



If the British don't go devomax as promised, you get to riot and force your way. There's this thing called the Scotland Act...



Revampstyles said:


> This reminded me of the time when Quebec voted to seperate from Canada in two occasions.
> All the talk for the build up. There practically were celebration all over the place, when the actual day came....
> 
> lelNope. We is staying here.



Er, now that we think about it, forget it!

Chickening out at the last moment 

That said, when does the betamax devomax thing begins? Also, how longer will this thread stay open.


----------



## stream (Sep 19, 2014)

The difference in votes was pretty clear. This is not something that could have been changed short of a wide-scale fraud campaign.

That was the best option in my opinion… a clear vote, but close enough that Cameron has to keep at least some of his promises.


----------



## Nordstrom (Sep 19, 2014)

That said, if polls are true...



Look who's really getting independence!


----------



## tari101190 (Sep 19, 2014)




----------



## dr_shadow (Sep 19, 2014)

Juda said:


> My bad , im not familiar with how these things work again .When she said "unitary" I figured she was talking about the commonwealth idk why



Unitary state is the opposite of federal state.

In a *unitary* state, power originates at the national level and can be delegated to the regional and local levels. The national government can take back those powers if needed.

In a *federal* state, power originates at the local or regional level and is partially delegated to the national government. The national government can not remove any powers from regional governments, but the regional governments can remove powers from the national government.

So in effect:

*Unitary* governments can do anything they haven't explicitly forbidden themselves from doing.

*Federal* governments can not do anything that is not explicitly allowed.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Sep 19, 2014)

Chelydra said:


> Thats not fishy as hell.


EU and Commonwealth citizens could always vote in elections if they lived in the UK (and Ireland is in the UK anyway). I don't know why you haven't bolded commonwealth citizens, considering that means people from e.g. Pakistan can vote in our elections if they live here. I'd support the Irish voting here far more than commonwealth citizens.


SternRitter said:


> Pretty surreal that I'll wake up in the morning and my country may or may not be independent.


Youy would never have done that. It was not going to be independent for two years if the yes campaign won.


Linkdarkside said:


> of course they are, often polls only ask question to less than 1% of the population and in specific location.


Thery usually question 1000 people, but so long as you aren't doing a census-type operation, the proportion of the population in the poll has no bearing on its accuracy. The randomness or weighting of the sample and the absolute size of the sample does, the _proportional_ size of the sample doesn't.


Chelydra said:


> Well BBC just declared it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Looks like they did well on predictions then.


Linkdarkside said:


> They should change God save the Queen to God Save Britain rather than referring to god saving one person.


No, that takes away the entire point of a national anthem in the first place. The point of a national anthem is celebrating the historic tradition of the country. God save Britain has no historic tradition in Britain, if you are changing it, change it to Land of Hope and Glory or something. It actually has a better tune as well.


SternRitter said:


> Ah well, it would have been fun to see a yes vote hah. Voted yes myself, As long as Westminster don't try and fuck us over now then I don't really mind the no vote.
> 
> Imo there shouldn't have been a vote at all, either way it went has just brought negativity into Britain.
> Although being the first country in history to deny Independence has a bad ring to it.


Scotland isn't the first country to deny Independence. Quebec beat them to that.


Saishin said:


> Anyway the referendum has showed an unexpected division on this matter,half Scottish don't want the independence, *I would have expected more unity by the Scottish for a Yes vote on this issue*
> 
> Did you vote?


Why? Every poll, ever, has shown either a clear lead for no independence or a 50:50 split. When this campaign started the no vote was much bigger.


SternRitter said:


> I did, voted yes.
> 
> Basicaly I don't see how people can trust Cameron to be true to his word and give us more power and influence. I can see everything getting flung our way now and there's nothing we can do about it because the no vote has passed.
> 
> ...


>Implying you need Cameron to do anything.

The tories are not winning the next election, if they get in, they are getting in on a coalition. If that happens, the Lib Dems and maybe the SNP and/or UKIP will have a say on what happens next (although if UKIP become part of the coalition it isn't looking good for you). Anyway, based on statements today, cameron seems to want to hold to his promises, even if against some tory rebels.


Gwynbleidd said:


> Ooooh, twist
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't know what happens in a referendum, but in general elections members of the local parties are supposed to check the votes as they are being counted. So what this means is not only the pollsters messed up, so did the yes campaign members.


----------



## Lucaniel (Sep 19, 2014)




----------



## BedBathAndBeyond (Sep 19, 2014)

Gwynbleidd said:


> Ooooh, twist
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> To clarify, ballot papers have not yet been sorted into Yes/No and are just resting on table where No will go once sorted. No need to worry.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Sep 19, 2014)

So they were there and they didn't mess up, at least in that respect. Okay.


----------



## Saishin (Sep 19, 2014)

SternRitter said:


> *I did, voted yes.*
> 
> Basicaly I don't see how people can trust Cameron to be true to his word and give us more power and influence. I can see everything getting flung our way now and there's nothing we can do about it because the no vote has passed.
> 
> ...


William Wallace would be proud 

Maybe the Scottish preferred the convenience over independence,which is okay,I mean they have chosen freely so it is a decision to respect in the end.
Anyway I was saying they chosen convenience probably because with the independence they would have lost many advantages like the welfare and other services given mainly by the British government  


Gwynbleidd said:


> Ooooh, twist
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Illuminati did that,this explain why the No won 


Mider T said:


> How was it unexpected?  Did you see how many people called "No"?





jetwaterluffy1 said:


> Why? Every poll, ever, has shown either a clear lead for no independence or a 50:50 split. When this campaign started the no vote was much bigger.


I didn't follow all the story,I'm just saying that this 50/50 is quite curious,with all the national pride that Scottish have and all the claims to have the independence I would have expected more you know,I would have expected more unity in the yes vote,oh well I guess times changed,probably they are okay with just a more autonomy,which is something that Cameron has promised now,start a devolution that concern not only Scotland but all the nations forming the UK.


----------



## Easley (Sep 19, 2014)

I'm surprised by the margin. The polls pointed to a No victory but this wasn't even close. The Yes camp were crushed. Still, 45% isn't a trivial number and I guess those people will be very upset. I hope they respect the result.


----------



## Jagger (Sep 19, 2014)

Had Scotland voted 'Yes', The Queen would have commanded an invasion.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Sep 19, 2014)

Easley said:


> I'm surprised by the margin. The polls pointed to a No victory but this wasn't even close. The Yes camp were crushed. Still, 45% isn't a trivial number and I guess those people will be very upset. I hope they respect the result.



55-45 sounds close to me. But a swing towards the status quo is the usual in referendums, this doesn't surprise me.


----------



## Orochimaru (Sep 19, 2014)

I can't even begin to describe my disappointment.


----------



## Nemesis (Sep 19, 2014)

Gwynbleidd said:


> Ooooh, twist
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That is simple.  When the picture was taken the votes had not been sorted out into yes and no piles.   They were basically dumped on tables to be sorted.  Just some opportunistic person trying to call out voter fraud where there is none.


----------



## Linkdarkside (Sep 19, 2014)

i am glad that Scotland voted no,it could have opened a can of worms around the world on secessionist and separatist groups/movements.


----------



## Nemesis (Sep 19, 2014)

Salmond quits as SNP leader after no win.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29277527



> Alex Salmond is to step down as first minister of Scotland after voters decisively rejected independence.
> 
> He will also resign as leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP) after the "No" side won Thursday's referendum by 2,001,926 to 1,617,989 for "Yes".
> 
> ...


----------



## Mael (Sep 19, 2014)

Good...fuck him and his awful comparisons.


----------



## SternRitter (Sep 19, 2014)

Top tweet in the last hour is from Alastair Ross: "BBC is reporting Labour leader Ed Miliband will not sign up to the PM's plan to give more powers to the Scottish Parliament #indyref" It was retweeted 510 times.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-scotland-29130277

Well, that didn't take very long.


----------



## Orochimaru (Sep 19, 2014)




----------



## Orochimaru (Sep 19, 2014)




----------



## Blue (Sep 19, 2014)

Nemesis said:


> Salmond quits as SNP leader after no win.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29277527



[YOUTUBE]barWV7RWkq0[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Sep 19, 2014)




----------



## Blue (Sep 19, 2014)

You should count the votes, JSJ.

...You can count to 10, right?


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Sep 19, 2014)

Handsome Dan said:


> You should count the votes, JSJ.
> 
> ...You can count to 10, right?



Yeah every ten I'll mark it down and start over.


----------



## Chelydra (Sep 19, 2014)

SternRitter said:


> Top tweet in the last hour is from Alastair Ross: "BBC is reporting Labour leader Ed Miliband will not sign up to the PM's plan to give more powers to the Scottish Parliament #indyref" It was retweeted 510 times.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-scotland-29130277
> 
> Well, that didn't take very long.



Meh he can say what he likes, if there is a majority willing to back the PM's plan I am sure they can just push it past that wanker. And they probably will since not going along with this also means slighting the other nations in the UK.


----------



## Nemesis (Sep 19, 2014)

It is likely because Labour has their own plan to give more powers to Scotland.  Problem is both sides have back benchers that want something in return.


----------



## Saishin (Sep 19, 2014)

> *Scottish independence 'like collapse of Communism'*
> 
> Disaster on the scale of the meltdown following the collapse of Communism has been averted with a No vote, according to one senior European Union official
> 
> ...


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 19, 2014)

Are you implying fowl play here?

Because its' the Scots who handled the counting.

If they can't run a referendum then what in the hell makes them think they can run a sovereign country?


----------



## Saishin (Sep 19, 2014)

> *EU's Barroso says Scotland vote good for 'stronger Europe'*
> 
> BRUSSELS: Scotland's rejection of independence from Britain will help forge a "united, open and stronger" European Union, European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso said on Friday.
> 
> ...



Read more at:


----------



## Savior (Sep 19, 2014)

So how many other nations when given the chance to vote for their independence, voted No?


----------



## Mael (Sep 19, 2014)

Savior said:


> So how many other nations when given the chance to vote for their independence, voted No?



Who cares?


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 19, 2014)

Savior said:


> So how many other nations when given the chance to vote for their independence, voted No?



Er, Quebec?


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Sep 19, 2014)

MbS said:


> Are you implying fowl play here?
> 
> Because its' the Scots who handled the counting.
> 
> If they can't run a referendum then what in the hell makes them think they can run a sovereign country?



I'm not saying so much fowl play but a recount should be done. The amount of people who wanted independence was astronomic. I was quite surprised to hear they didn't get it. 

Fowl play? Who knows.

Recount? Do it a 2nd and even 3rd time to make sure.


----------



## Savior (Sep 19, 2014)

Mael said:


> Who cares?



I care. It is telling isn't it?


----------



## Nemesis (Sep 19, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> I'm not saying so much fowl play but a recount should be done. The amount of people who wanted independence was astronomic. I was quite surprised to hear they didn't get it.
> 
> Fowl play? Who knows.
> 
> Recount? Do it a 2nd and even 3rd time to make sure.



You do realise that even during the first count that people double and triple check to make sure.  This is not some sort of very close run contest like Florida 2000.  This is a 10% difference, a recount is not going to make a difference at all.  The yes vote lost because they did not win the argument.  And even if they did win it would have been because They won Glasgow and Dundee by bigger margins.  You'd right now be seeing places like Orkney, Shetland, the borders at least thinking "Hang on, we didn't vote for this maybe we should slip away and remain in UK.".


----------



## Mael (Sep 19, 2014)

Savior said:


> I care. It is telling isn't it?



You're just buttflustered the people chose logic and economic stability over feels.


----------



## Savior (Sep 19, 2014)

Mael said:


> You're just buttflustered the people chose logic and economic stability over feels.



I'm disappointed but I believe in democracy so I am fine with it. Overall it was a positive experience for the people of Scotland who I care about unlike you.


----------



## Nordstrom (Sep 19, 2014)

Jagger said:


> Had Scotland voted 'Yes', The Queen would have commanded an invasion.



And that would've been hilarious, given she's the only one that would keep her Scottish powers.



jetwaterluffy1 said:


> 55-45 sounds close to me. But a swing towards the status quo is the usual in referendums, this doesn't surprise me.



It also reflect the opinion polling results. It seems the average opinion was towards a no vote and so it happened.



Linkdarkside said:


> i am glad that Scotland voted no,it could have opened a can of worms around the world on secessionist and separatist groups/movements.



The evil part of me secretly hoped for that.



Mael said:


> Good...fuck him and his awful comparisons.



Don't diss the man! At least he didn't go full Chavez.


Yes, actually this is true. Scotland had the choice and they decided, so they are still free.

If Scotland seceded anyways, that would be opposition to the will of Scotland.



Nemesis said:


> It is likely because Labour has their own plan to give more powers to Scotland.  Problem is both sides have back benchers that want something in return.



I don't see why an English Parliament is a problem. A federated UK would probably stop having these sorts of secessionist problems.



Savior said:


> So how many other nations when given the chance to vote for their independence, voted No?



The vast majority. Independence votes are actually rare.



Mael said:


> Who cares?



A lot of people.

Also, I should remind everyone that Catalonia, without the peaceful Scottish precedent, is actually likely to open a far worse can of worms, given that unlike in Scotland, yes has a majority here. If Rajoy doesn't relent and he attempts to mount armed or economic opposition and pressure, respectively, that'll actually fuel secessionism of a more violent kind.

That said, I can't help but feel like laughing. The EU just admitted the collapse of the USSR was a really bad thing. They're missing the point where the British Empire collapsed first though, so the UK already underwent one dissolution.


----------



## baconbits (Sep 19, 2014)

Savior said:


> So how many other nations when given the chance to vote for their independence, voted No?



True, but this really wasn't a vote for independence, because there isn't any tyranny that's going on and no Freedoms were at stake.

This was simply people in love with the ideal of independence but without the realism to understand what that would entail.


----------



## Mael (Sep 19, 2014)

Savior said:


> I'm disappointed but I believe in democracy so I am fine with it. Overall it was a positive experience for the people of Scotland who I care about unlike you.



Good for you, kiddo, to care about all of them.  I did too which is why I am glad they decided to stay within the UK but with additional powers.

That's how it is done nowadays in climates such as theirs (so you don't give me some excuse of South Sudan which is a lot more legitimate to break away), not some secessionist bullshit.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 19, 2014)

Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> I'm not saying so much fowl play but a recount should be done. The amount of people who wanted independence was astronomic. I was quite surprised to hear they didn't get it.
> 
> Fowl play? Who knows.
> 
> Recount? Do it a 2nd and even 3rd time to make sure.



Westminster gave the SNP free reign over how to hold the Referendum - and they seized it.

It's funny how the SNP tried everything rigging the referendum heavily in their favour, phrasing the question to invoke patriotism, choosing Yes for approval of an independent Scotland - seizing positive goodwill associated with 'yes', barring Scots outside the country voting, getting the voting age lowered - and refusing to hold an no exit poll.

It's this absence of an exit poll that means we don't have a post-vote analysis of how the referendum was decided.

Kinda fishy eh? You'd think they were expecting some other result to win.


----------



## Mider T (Sep 19, 2014)

Why are people saying "fowl play" it's "foul".  Come on English, work right.

Also Salmond is butthurt as hell


----------



## Nemesis (Sep 19, 2014)

Sleipnyr said:


> I don't see why an English Parliament is a problem. A federated UK would probably stop having these sorts of secessionist problems.



While I agree with a federated UK, the problem with an English parliament is that England is just too large within the UK for it to work.  The UK is about 61-62m people.  While England holds at least 55m.  London itself holds almost as many people as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland combined.

Also you have an issue that an English parliament is going to be likely Conservative lead 90% of the time (With or without UKIP support).  North of England, plus Cornwall and Devon are going to hate it for that reason since they are overwhelmingly Labour and Liberal strongholds.

While a federation is needed I think instead of an English parliament something more like the image I am about to post will be much better although I would add a few boundry line changes like Split the north up into a few more parts). And will listen to the needs closer to the people in the areas. (Can't find a better sized image so warning on hugeness)


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Sep 19, 2014)

Nemesis said:


> You do realise that even during the first count that people double and triple check to make sure.  This is not some sort of very close run contest like Florida 2000.  This is a 10% difference, a recount is not going to make a difference at all.  The yes vote lost because they did not win the argument.  And even if they did win it would have been because They won Glasgow and Dundee by bigger margins.  You'd right now be seeing places like Orkney, Shetland, the borders at least thinking "Hang on, we didn't vote for this maybe we should slip away and remain in UK.".



I suppose. It just seems weird that the people who wanted it seemed like they outnumbered those who didn't. Either way they should stay a united people in my eyes.


----------



## Jagger (Sep 19, 2014)

Stay salty, JSJ.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Sep 19, 2014)

Jagger said:


> Stay salty, JSJ.



Copy as salty as salt water taffy.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 19, 2014)

So anyway. Giving more powers to the Scots hasn’t gone down well – on either side. These bribes have done little to nothing to appease Scot nationalists, who consider them insulting and patronising. But they're losers so they can eat a dick. The real winners are the Scots who voted No.

Predictably and probably long over do there’s been a clamour for more devolution from Northern Ireland, Wales and England. Cameron has hinted and his backbenchers demanding that Scottish MP’s will not able to vote on English laws while keeping the English MP’s from being able to vote on Scottish law in place. But no English parliament looks likely to happen anytime soon. The way things are heading the UK government could just end up being for foreign policy and national defence.

But the real stick in the throat is forking over yet more money to Scots under the Barnett Formula On top of what they already receive they’ll get ?1,600 extra for every person - allegedly. But I don’t think it’ll go through. Because:


The Welsh, and Northern Irish and especially the English are getting pretty pissed at Scots receiving more allocations then the rest of the UK.
Any MP that approves it will be committing electoral suicide come next May.
Non Scottish MP’s don’t need any incentive really – they’re already legitimately pissed.
The Barnett Formula was originally intended to be temporary – it was supposed to expire after two years, we’re now on year 35. Scots enjoy nothing better then beating a dead horse.
Cameron will – and most likely – renegade, or his successor will, bringing in new legislation to allocate public expenditure more fairly - maybe.

It's not unreasonable for Scots run their own affairs like an independent country in all but name - but perpetually handing them over substantially greater sums of money is just asinine - and I think they know it. If Scots do get pissed, which they have no right to, what are they going to do? Break away? Ha.



Nemesis said:


> Also you have an issue that an English parliament is going to be likely Conservative lead 90% of the time (With or without UKIP support).  North of England, plus Cornwall and Devon are going to hate it for that reason since they are overwhelmingly Labour and Liberal strongholds.



That’s not entirely right. England isn’t chock full of card carrying Tories as the Scots would have you believe. The Tories failed to win an overall majority at the last election because the average Joe Englander didn’t turn up to vote. All three major parties were disgraced and that one eyed Scottish idiot Gordon Brown was a turn off to anyone with any decency. 

It is possible for Labour to win more often then they're predicted. They’ve just got to start addressing the concerns of the working class, the people they supposedly represent instead of condescending them and branding them bigots. Because the problems aren’t going away and it’s apparent to anyone with a two digit IQ and above Labour’s lying through their teeth about how they'll handle immigration. That doesn’t mean people will vote Tory – they’ll stop voting, and that’s what will get them get back in every time.


----------



## Hozukimaru (Sep 19, 2014)

It's just that the "yes" people were louder, they were not more. Don't forget that there is always the status quo bias that we have to take in mind.


----------



## SternRitter (Sep 19, 2014)

Lovely..... No voters rioting in glasgow city centre after _winning_ the vote. 
Burning the saltire also, absolutely disgusting. 

(I know this is only a minority and doesn't reflect the entire voter base, before anyone goes off on one)


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 19, 2014)

Hozukimaru said:


> It's just that the "yes" people were louder, they were not more. Don't forget that there is always the status quo bias that we have to take in mind.



Which is why Cameron should never have panicked and make obscene promises he'll be out of office before they're even implemented.



SternRitter said:


> Lovely..... No voters rioting in glasgow city centre after _winning_ the vote.
> Burning the saltire also, absolutely disgusting.
> 
> (I know this is only a minority and doesn't reflect the entire voter base, before anyone goes off on one)



Just as well, if the Yes voters had won they'd be doing the same, if not worse.


----------



## SternRitter (Sep 19, 2014)

MbS said:


> Just as well, if the Yes had won they'd be doing the same, if not worse.



Why would the group that voted for independence burn their own national flag? No wait, I see what you mean now... nevermind. 
Anyway most of it is just sectarian fueled rangers fans (apologize to any rangers fans on this site but you know it's true) looking to fight.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 19, 2014)

SternRitter said:


> Why would the group that voted for independence burn their own national flag?
> Anyway most of it is just sectarian fueled rangers fans (apologize to any rangers fans on this site but you know it's true) looking to fight.



I'm pretty certain if Yes had won (ha, just the thought makes me chuckle) there would have been a tower of Union Jacks blazing in the centre of Glasgow. Not that I approve of burning either flags - I understand people, for one reason or another, have emotional attachments to a piece of cloth.


----------



## Blue (Sep 19, 2014)

Y'know when the states got uppity, we burned their cities, not their flags

Just a suggestion for next time


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 19, 2014)

Blue conveniently leaving out all the grovelling and compromises the North/Union made first, heh.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Sep 19, 2014)




----------



## Velocity (Sep 19, 2014)

MbS said:


> I'm pretty certain if Yes had won (ha, just the thought makes me chuckle) there would have been a tower of Union Jacks blazing in the centre of Glasgow. Not that I approve of burning either flags - I understand people, for one reason or another, have emotional attachments to a piece of cloth.



No matter what the result of the vote was, there would have been riots and the like. When you divide a nation over something as big as independence, there's going to be backlash regardless of who wins. This is ultimately Salmond's fault - he tried to rally the people behind his banner and incite both unrest and anti-English sentiment and it backfired. All he did was mess up his own country.

This whole thing was almost as pointless as the Falkland's referendum last year. Believe it or not, being part of the UK isn't as bad as some people make out.


----------



## Nordstrom (Sep 19, 2014)

baconbits said:


> True, but this really wasn't a vote for independence, because there isn't any tyranny that's going on and no Freedoms were at stake.
> 
> This was simply people in love with the ideal of independence but without the realism to understand what that would entail.



Then again, independence for purely patriotic reasons has been known to happen.



Mael said:


> Good for you, kiddo, to care about all of them.  I did too which is why I am glad they decided to stay within the UK but with additional powers.
> 
> That's how it is done nowadays in climates such as theirs (so you don't give me some excuse of South Sudan which is a lot more legitimate to break away), not some secessionist bullshit.



You talk as if it would've been the end of Scotland had they voted yes.



Mider T said:


> Why are people saying "fowl play" it's "foul".  Come on English, work right.
> 
> Also Salmond is butthurt as hell



Fowl as in those birds you eat. Guess it's like canon and cannon.



MbS said:


> Blue conveniently leaving out all the grovelling and compromises the North/Union made first, heh.



Apparently, being fine with them voting is getting uppity.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Sep 20, 2014)

SternRitter said:


> Top tweet in the last hour is from Alastair Ross: "BBC is reporting Labour leader Ed Miliband will not sign up to the PM's plan to give more powers to the Scottish Parliament #indyref" It was retweeted 510 times.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-scotland-29130277
> 
> Well, that didn't take very long.


Do you have a source apart from a tweet? Because all I have heard is that miliband has vetoed the idea of removing scottish mp's voting powers.


Jersey Shore Jesus said:


> Yeah every ten I'll mark it down and start over.


I think the convention in vote counting is tallying.


Savior said:


> So how many other nations when given the chance to vote for their independence, voted No?


Apart from Qubec? There is Northern Ireland and the Falkland Islands.



Nemesis said:


> While I agree with a federated UK, the problem with an English parliament is that England is just too large within the UK for it to work.  The UK is about 61-62m people.  While England holds at least 55m.  London itself holds almost as many people as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland combined.
> 
> Also you have an issue that an English parliament is going to be likely Conservative lead 90% of the time (With or without UKIP support).  North of England, plus Cornwall and Devon are going to hate it for that reason since they are overwhelmingly Labour and Liberal strongholds.
> 
> ...


You are not slapping a "northumbria" tag on yorkshire. That won't work. Also use imgfit tags.


----------



## Nemesis (Sep 20, 2014)

Like I said I would change it, that was something I found.  Midlands would be split in half and northumbria would be split too.  Yorkshire would be by itself.  And also the east and west sides of what remains of northumbria would be separated too.


----------



## Son of Goku (Sep 20, 2014)




----------



## Mael (Sep 20, 2014)

Son of Goku said:


>



So...what are you trying to prove?


----------



## MegaultraHay (Sep 20, 2014)

That Cnn polls are stupid.


----------



## Nemesis (Sep 20, 2014)

Wasn't CNN the one and only poll that gave Mitt a chance of winning the presidency on the final day before election (not counting fox)


----------



## Son of Goku (Sep 20, 2014)

Mael said:


> So...what are you trying to prove?



Think Mael! What am I trying to prove? Must be SOMETHING, right?


----------



## Mael (Sep 20, 2014)

Son of Goku said:


> Think Mael! What am I trying to prove? Must be SOMETHING, right?



I asked you the question.  You could be courteous and answer it and not be a fuckface.


----------



## Son of Goku (Sep 20, 2014)

Mael said:


> I asked you the question.  You could be courteous and answer it and not be a fuckface.



Nah, I'm having to much fun making you look like one.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Sep 20, 2014)

Mael said:


> I asked you the question.  You could be courteous and answer it and not be a fuckface.



For those that don't understand sarcasm, he was answering that there that he wasn't trying to prove anything, he was just being funny.


----------



## Mael (Sep 20, 2014)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> For those that don't understand sarcasm, he was answering that there that he wasn't trying to prove anything, he was just being funny.



SoG doesn't do sarcasm effectively.  Everything's some conspiracy or Jewish overlord issue with him.


----------



## Nordstrom (Sep 20, 2014)

Don't criticize mah CNN you nimrods!


----------



## Son of Goku (Sep 21, 2014)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> For those that don't understand sarcasm, he was answering that there that he wasn't trying to prove anything, he was just being funny.



Correct.


----------



## very bored (Sep 21, 2014)

*Scottish Independence: 70,000 Nationalists Demand Referendum be Re-Held After Vote Ri*

Scottish Independence: 70,000 Nationalists Demand Referendum be Re-Held After Vote Rigging Claims


> A petition demanding the Scottish independence referendum be re-held "because it was rigged" has garnered 70,000 signatures in less than 24 hours.
> 
> Despite Scotland's First Minister and leader of the Scottish National Party Alex Salmond accepting that the outcome of the vote is "the democratic verdict of the people of Scotland", the petition calls for a re-vote because of "strange occurrences" that appear to show electoral fraud and vote rigging.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kagekatsu (Sep 21, 2014)

So much for respecting a democratic vote, amirite?


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Sep 22, 2014)

Such sweet tears.



> The petition states: "Countless evidences of fraud during the Scottish Referendum have come to light, including two counts of votes being moved in bulk to a 'No' pile, 'Yes' votes clearly being seen in 'No' piles, and strange occurrences with dual fire alarms, and clear-cut fraud in Glasgow.





> To clarify, ballot papers have not yet been sorted into Yes/No and are just resting on table where No will go once sorted. No need to worry.


----------



## Easley (Sep 22, 2014)

I think every election in history has had a few irregularities, miscounts, etc. Mistakes can, and do happen. 10% is about 400,000 votes though. Unless the petitioners have definitive proof of rigging on a large scale, demanding a new referendum is optimistic. I know their dream of independence is shattered but crying about it won't help.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29294087


----------



## Mael (Sep 22, 2014)

Salmond or whoever that silly Scot is claims that the assurance of additional powers are a parlor trick from the Brits.

Top lel.


----------

