Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Poll Question : Should Scotland become an Independant Nation?
Choice Votes Statistics
Yes 14 77 %
No 4 22 %

Should Scotland become an Independent Nation Options · View
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 10:17:59 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 652,893
I personally think they should. They have devolved powers there as it is, and going independent would benefit the english just as much
littlemissbitch
Posted: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 10:24:55 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/6/2011
Posts: 776
Location: the land of enchantment, United States
do they want to? seeing as i dont live there i will refrain from voting. interested in the outcome tho :)

littlemissbitch ~ professional face ripper offer, at your service..
Guest
Posted: Thursday, March 15, 2012 6:08:54 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 652,893
the scottish national party, which currently holds office in the scottish parliament wants to, and it was the scottish people that voted them in...so that would suggest that they want to
Buz
Posted: Thursday, March 15, 2012 6:46:32 AM

Rank: The Linebacker
Moderator

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 6,987
Location: Atlanta, United States
I do not know much about this and have 'no dog in that fight.' But I do find it very interesting. I'd love to hear more about this and understand it much better. So please post some good information on this Scottish independence movement.

Here in the USA I am very supportive of the federal government ceding more of its abusive power over to the individual states. Laws can vary some what widely from state to state here.

Guest
Posted: Thursday, March 15, 2012 7:04:53 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 652,893
lancashirelad wrote:
the scottish national party, which currently holds office in the Scottish parliament wants to, and it was the scottish people that voted them in...so that would suggest that they want to


Yes, we absolutely do want to!!

(I'll come back and post in more detail when I have time to formulate a decent response)
hartclass
Posted: Thursday, March 15, 2012 7:14:21 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 7/3/2008
Posts: 386
Location: United Kingdom
If people knew their history and not just the brave Heart version of it - then it would be the other way round and Scotland would be granting England independence. The current monarch (as much as we love her) is not the true heir to the throne - controvesial I know - and if fact there should be a Scottish King/Queen as the head of the United Kingdom - that said if that were the case then we would not probably be the United Kingdom!

Hey ho - just a thought.

Go on prove me wrong!

saracenrider
Posted: Thursday, March 15, 2012 7:24:56 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/23/2012
Posts: 417
Location: Scotland
More than anything else it's about a national identity and self determination. Westminster decides how much money Scotland gets to spend (currently less than the Scottish tax take) and that naturally has an impact on what a Scottish government can do with its devolved powers. Despite the devolved powers being law they can at any time be taken back by the Westminster goverment.

One of the central arguments of the SNP is that independence would allow Scotland and England to relate to each other as equals. At present any issue affecting Scotland which is being dealt with by Westminster is decided on by 59 Scottish MPs, 40 Welsh MPs, 18 North of Ireland MPs and an overwhelming 533 English MPs.

That includes whether or not to allow Scotland to become independent. At this point in time if the Scottish Government hold an Independence referendum (as they promised and intend to do), but if they do it without the sanction of Westminster (which is being withheld) then no matter how many vote for independence it will not be given.

That is what Westminster calls democracy.
Guest
Posted: Thursday, March 15, 2012 8:34:11 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 652,893
Quote:
That is what Westminster calls democracy.


No wonder there was a Revolutionary War here.
Guest
Posted: Thursday, March 15, 2012 8:47:11 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 652,893
I would like to see Scotland independent, but perhaps for different reasons than the nationalists
clum
Posted: Thursday, March 15, 2012 9:14:46 AM

Rank: Clumeleon
Moderator

Joined: 5/13/2011
Posts: 5,174
Location: Kirkcaldy, United Kingdom
lancashirelad wrote:
the scottish national party, which currently holds office in the scottish parliament wants to, and it was the scottish people that voted them in...so that would suggest that they want to


A vote for SNP is not necessarily a vote for independence. It seems, at this moment in time, that opinion is split fairly evenly on this matter (perhaps leaning slightly more towards "No"). Many people are still afraid of breaking up the union, afraid that we might not be able to go it alone.

These people have been misled by scaremongering unionist parties (particularly the Conservatives). Scotland is more than capable, just like any other small country in the world, of running its own affairs; we do not need interference from London-based politicians who know next to nothing about Scotland and its people. Why shouldn't we have our own voice on the European and world stages? Why shouldn't Scottish people make decisions for Scotland?

The independence issue is way bigger than party politics but Scotland is very fortunate to have a strong, influential group like the SNP spearheading the Yes campaign. We've got two and a half years to convince the entire nation that going it alone is the best and only way forward. We cannot continue to live on pocket money from Westminster and still be dictated to by a government we didn't vote for.

It's time that people sat up and paid attention because this Referendum is happening. It's time this great nation had its own voice once more.



She Just Wants To Be

Third place entry in the Toy With Me competition.
Guest
Posted: Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:07:58 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 652,893
Well since my family started the first Jacobite Revolutionary and got blamed for the second. Im going to say yes to be part of the family
Guest
Posted: Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:13:35 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 652,893
hartclass wrote:
If people knew their history and not just the brave Heart version of it - then it would be the other way round and Scotland would be granting England independence. The current monarch (as much as we love her) is not the true heir to the throne - controvesial I know - and if fact there should be a Scottish King/Queen as the head of the United Kingdom - that said if that were the case then we would not probably be the United Kingdom!

Hey ho - just a thought.

Go on prove me wrong!


That is all well and good, but oliver cromwell took the powers from the throne, so really england shouldn't be asking for independence, as it isnt the queen that would grant the scottish independence. The one think I do not understand is why anyone in scotland would want independence, as the english tax lets them have free prescriptions, and more annoyingly, any kid from europe, except england can go to a scottish uni for free, and we, the english, pay for it! the sooner they are out the better. Scotland is a 10 billion pound drain on the english tax system, and what do we get in return? some haggis and whiskey...id much rather us keep the money and make them pave there own way...they would be a third world country as well....all for the SNP and an Independent Scotland!
saracenrider
Posted: Saturday, March 17, 2012 8:09:23 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/23/2012
Posts: 417
Location: Scotland
It is attitudes like that that inhibit proper debate on this and other matters, particularly when the facts are contrary to your claim.

For the record the facts are these (using UK government figures) :

The Government and Expenditure Revenue Scotland 2010-11 (GERS) Report which shows that Scotland continues to be in a stronger budget position than the UK as a whole.

GERS which is published by the Chief Statistician, shows that, including a geographical share of UK North Sea oil and gas revenues, Scotland contributed 9.6 per cent of UK public sector revenue and received 9.3 per cent of total UK public sector expenditure, including a per capita share of UK debt interest payments. To put this in persective, Scotland’s population is 8.4 per cent of the UK total.

In short, Scotland and it's people punch well above their weight.

If you intend to respond to this or any other comment try to do so without being rude or causing offence.
liammc1
Posted: Monday, March 19, 2012 3:16:49 PM

Rank: Rookie Scribe

Joined: 1/3/2009
Posts: 6
Location: Glasgow, United Kingdom
Was goingto ignore this as it makes me so pissed off that Alex Salmond can even suggest Scotland can cope on their own. Im in a privileged position that I am accountant in Glasgow that can see how badly some businesses are doing even with a great accountant. Everyone thinks aw amazing we can be our own country, why not etc. Id love to be out of Britain but the fact remains I dont want my son or me to be honest, growing up and living in a country that wouldnt have schools, hospitals etc scotland couldnt afford it and neithercud the rest of britain.
clum
Posted: Monday, March 19, 2012 5:22:47 PM

Rank: Clumeleon
Moderator

Joined: 5/13/2011
Posts: 5,174
Location: Kirkcaldy, United Kingdom
liammc1 wrote:
Was goingto ignore this as it makes me so pissed off that Alex Salmond can even suggest Scotland can cope on their own. Im in a privileged position that I am accountant in Glasgow that can see how badly some businesses are doing even with a great accountant. Everyone thinks aw amazing we can be our own country, why not etc. Id love to be out of Britain but the fact remains I dont want my son or me to be honest, growing up and living in a country that wouldnt have schools, hospitals etc scotland couldnt afford it and neithercud the rest of britain.


Misinformed bollocks.

She Just Wants To Be

Third place entry in the Toy With Me competition.
VanGogh
Posted: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 8:12:05 PM

Rank: Sarcastic Coffee Aficionado

Joined: 2/10/2012
Posts: 3,368
Location: Canada
what's wrong with independence yet still being part of the Commonwealth?

(that means the Queen is still Head of State .... and democracy still elects a Prime Minister)

A Milf series combined with Office Sex *fans face* .... The Secretary and The Student
starting with The Secretary and The Student - first part

Enjoy!!

For the Anal Lovers .... come enjoy my RR honoured An Alluring Ass

Another Sex in the Office Poem (I know you love those!!) In Your Office

ArtMan
Posted: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 8:30:54 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/29/2011
Posts: 654
Location: South Florida, United States
PersonalAssistant wrote:
what's wrong with independence yet still being part of the Commonwealth?

(that means the Queen is still Head of State .... and democracy still elects a Prime Minister)


That sounds like a good suggestion.

Did Mel Gibson butcher history in that movie Braveheart or what? He totally changed the Battle of Stirling Bridge. In actuality it was won by the Scots by using great cunning and a well planned out and excellent battle strategy. The movie did history no justice at all, though it was very entertaining. Furthermore King Edward, the Longshanks', son and future French bride were mere toddlers at the time. Longshanks was not an old grumpy man, but a Norman-English King Knight (who not long before won a reputation as a great fighter in the Crusades.) that often led his armies from the front. He had just conquered Wales when he moved in to Scotland by cunning and treachery and the Scots own bickering over who should be their next king. A good war for independence was what they needed to unite themselves.

You are invited to read Passionate Danger, Part II, a story collaboration by Kim and ArtMan.
http://www.lushstories.com/stories/straight-sex/passionate-danger-part-ii.aspx

saracenrider
Posted: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 8:30:32 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/23/2012
Posts: 417
Location: Scotland
liammc1 wrote:
Was goingto ignore this as it makes me so pissed off that Alex Salmond can even suggest Scotland can cope on their own. Im in a privileged position that I am accountant in Glasgow that can see how badly some businesses are doing even with a great accountant. Everyone thinks aw amazing we can be our own country, why not etc. Id love to be out of Britain but the fact remains I dont want my son or me to be honest, growing up and living in a country that wouldnt have schools, hospitals etc scotland couldnt afford it and neithercud the rest of britain.



If you really are an accountant you should be able to comprehend the entry I made immediately before yours.

Get yourself informed before commenting.
dreamer
Posted: Thursday, March 22, 2012 7:15:12 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 1/30/2009
Posts: 19
Location: United Kingdom
One issue that has been over-looked is the mass migration of English and Welsh students that can be expected to take advantage of the free Scottish University places which all non UK EU nationals are currently offered but once Scotland is independant it will simply be all EU nationals. I can't see it being free for long in that case.
saracenrider
Posted: Friday, March 23, 2012 6:38:55 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/23/2012
Posts: 417
Location: Scotland
dreamer wrote:
One issue that has been over-looked is the mass migration of English and Welsh students that can be expected to take advantage of the free Scottish University places which all non UK EU nationals are currently offered but once Scotland is independant it will simply be all EU nationals. I can't see it being free for long in that case.


I can see the point your trying to make but it works differently in practice. Each university allocates a number of places to paying students, most of which come from the far east although others come from Africa, the Americas, Australasia the, Indian sub-continent and elsewhere.
To enter the university you have to have the appropriate grades in the appropriate subjects. That means that students from England will have to compete for places with students from other parts of the EU. It will not matter where they stay. If they stay in England they will have the same rights as someone in France or Spain. They do not get additional rights by moving to Scotland.
Guest
Posted: Thursday, April 19, 2012 2:08:15 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 652,893
yet at the moment, the english pay for scottish kids to go to uni through our taxes. but still someone from england has to pay. how is that fair?
SITTING
Posted: Thursday, April 19, 2012 3:14:17 AM

Rank: Wilful Wallflower
Moderator

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 851
Location: In the library, Leeds, United Kingdom
Buz wrote:
I do not know much about this and have 'no dog in that fight.' But I do find it very interesting. I'd love to hear more about this and understand it much better. So please post some good information on this Scottish independence movement.

Here in the USA I am very supportive of the federal government ceding more of its abusive power over to the individual states. Laws can vary some what widely from state to state here.


OK, so for those of you who aren’t from the UK, I’ll start at the beginning. Big Hugs

Alex Salmond is head of the Scottish National Party (SNP) which won a shock outright majority at last years Scottish elections making him Scotland’s First Minister. Since then, the prospect of breaking up the Union has become shockingly more real. The UK Prime Minister (David Cameron) maintains that even the question of Scotland leaving the UK is harmful. All three major UK political parties (Labour, Liberal Democrats and Conservatives) are opposed to the move, for a range of political, cultural and economic reasons. There’s loads of questions like ‘What would happen to the armed forces?’ and ‘Would the UK without Scotland maintain its place on the UN Security Council?’

There’s also the question about taxes and how Scotland would plan on running its own tax system. It would mean a lot more work for accountants if tax returns are different and there’s also questions on what tax levels Scotland may decide on.

On one hand, Scotland IS better of on its own, because it has plenty of North Sea oil without which the rest of the UK would definitely suffer. But on the other hand, the rest of the UK would be better off were it not for the vast amount of taxpayer’s money sent north of the border each year. (9.4% of UK taxes are contributed by Scotland, while 9.3% of UK taxes are taken by Scotland.)

The SNP’s finance minister (John Swinney) claimed a little while ago that free form the UK, Scotland, with its oil, would be the sixth richest country in the world. That’s ten places higher than the UK which is 16th. But of course, there’s disagreement over how much of the oil would actually belong to Scotland.

There is a referendum ( I THINK that’s due to be held in 2014) and if it votes in favor of division, there are going to be a LOT more complications. As Scotland is not a sovereign state, it can be argued that there are no such things as Scottish territorial waters, only UK ones. But the complexity of the UK constitution just serves to complicate things even further. The legal systems of Scotland and England were NEVER UNIFIED as part of the 1707 Act of Union and Scotland therefore retains an independent legal system. The reality is that after Scottish separation, maritime areas under the jurisdiction of Scots law encapsulate 90% of the oilfields in the UK.

Today the SNP maintains that Scotland would take more than 90% of what is currently UK oil revenue. But a UK without Scotland might use legal challenges to claim rights over anywhere between a quarter and a third of oil resources.

Of course, it’s hard to talk about Scotland without referring to what was once its proudest institution; the Royal Bank of Scotland. In 2007, RBS was the largest by asset value in the world but now 84% of it is owned by the UK taxpayer. It is FAR from clear how the debt burden it owes to the Exchequer might be divided between the two countries. Even the cost of arguing the matter would be substantial.

To be honest, if you take away the oil money, it’s hard to argue how Scotland isn’t under-performing economically. It has had its business successes but according to official Treasury figures, 2010/11 projected average UK government spending per person was £10,212 in Scotland, compared to just £8,588 in England. (I must add that spending was also higher in Wales (£9,829 per person) and in Northern Ireland (£10,706 per person.))

Anyway, the politics surrounding it all are not pretty in the slightest (it’s kinda hard to see how Cameron and Salmond will both be left standing after this.) There’s the argument over when the referendum will actually take place. Salmond wants to delay the matter until 2014 – he’s aware that recent polling data suggests that Scotland may NOT vote for outright sovereignty. Consequently he’s made a questionably smart move and pulled out a THIRD option, nicknamed ‘Devolution Max’ or ‘Independence Light’. The move would give greater powers to Scotland – particularly to set its own levels of taxation. But such a resolution would, in Salmond’s own words, exclude Scotland from ‘the councils of Europe and the world’. That’s because places on international bodies only come with outright sovereignty. It also means that the UK’s Trident nuclear missiles would remain on the River Clyde (that's Scotland's most famous and important river), something Salmond has been quite strongly opposing and will not stand for.

If there really is no ‘lost love’ between Scotland and the rest of the UK, the decision over whether or not to preserve the Union is purely economic.

Whether they stay or go, any decision on Scotland’s part has to involve a ‘leap of faith’.

Personally, I think it’s for the people of Scotland to decide, and I really don’t know which way they’d go.

Anyhow, hope this gives you all a bit more insight.


Stalker, ballet dancer, obsession...
Guest
Posted: Friday, April 20, 2012 2:34:22 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 652,893
No. The UK is already tiny enough, we'll look even more pathetic on the globe.
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 9:01:54 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 652,893
scottg wrote:
No. The UK is already tiny enough, we'll look even more pathetic on the globe.


Is that seriously your only reason? Nutbag
Buz
Posted: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 9:43:11 AM

Rank: The Linebacker
Moderator

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 6,987
Location: Atlanta, United States
I very much enjoyed reading your post Sitting. That is very informative and helpful.

It is quite interesting about Scottish laws being different. I will try and read up on this more and follow what happens. The rights to the North Sea oil is obviously a really big deal.

You may be surprised at the differences in laws from state-to-state within the United States. For instance 17 states do not allow the death penalty, while it is a legal option in 33 states. Some states have a state income tax and others do not. Some states do not have sales tax, though most do. Some states charge their citizens much higher taxes than other states. Each state is in charge of their own education system, but they can get federal financial assistance. One state, Nebraska, only holds non-partisan elections (no political parties are allowed for any state office.) States may have to negotiate and hash out their legal differences before they will extradite a criminal between states, though this has improved tremendously in more recent times. States are constantly taking each other to court over water rights, especially where rivers flow from one state to another. Some states allow gay marriage or union and some do not. We even have some states that talk about possibly breaking up into 2 smaller states because one half of the state is so politically different from the other half. It's all hard to keep up with. We did have a war between the states once and a million Americans died in that one. Evidently they burned my home city to the ground in that one. You may have seen the movie, Gone With the Wind.

Q-Ball711
Posted: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 10:03:29 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 3/1/2012
Posts: 36
Location: Tacoma, United States
Buz wrote:
I very much enjoyed reading your post Sitting. That is very informative and helpful.

It is quite interesting about Scottish laws being different. I will try and read up on this more and follow what happens. The rights to the North Sea oil is obviously a really big deal.

You may be surprised at the differences in laws from state-to-state within the United States. For instance 17 states do not allow the death penalty, while it is a legal option in 33 states. Some states have a state income tax and others do not. Some states do not have sales tax, though most do. Some states charge their citizens much higher taxes than other states. Each state is in charge of their own education system, but they can get federal financial assistance. One state, Nebraska, only holds non-partisan elections (no political parties are allowed for any state office.) States may have to negotiate and hash out their legal differences before they will extradite a criminal between states, though this has improved tremendously in more recent times. States are constantly taking each other to court over water rights, especially where rivers flow from one state to another. Some states allow gay marriage or union and some do not. We even have some states that talk about possibly breaking up into 2 smaller states because one half of the state is so politically different from the other half. It's all hard to keep up with. We did have a war between the states once and a million Americans died in that one. Evidently they burned my home city to the ground in that one. You may have seen the movie, Gone With the Wind.


and much much more.
DirtyMartini
Posted: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 10:10:47 AM

Rank: Purveyor of Poetry & Porn

Joined: 10/19/2009
Posts: 5,833
Location: Right here on Lush Stories..., United States
Buz wrote:


It is quite interesting about Scottish laws being different.


Scotland has laws now? Who knew...what's next, electricity?

I think Scotland being an independent nation is a great idea, and I vote Miss Mazza the head of the New Scottish Republic or whatever...

Hey, as long as it doesn't affect the price of scotch in this country, I really don't care what they do...


You know you want it, you know you need it bad...get it now on Amazon.com...
Lush Erotica, an Anthology of Award Winning Sex Stories

ramrod32784
Posted: Sunday, August 12, 2012 9:00:51 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 7/29/2012
Posts: 558
Location: Fl, United States
My father was born in Scotland if the people there want it I'm all for it
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.