Scottish Independence

UPDATED: Thursday, December 2, 2021 18:04
VIEWED: 3136
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, September 8, 2014 12:25 AM


Anybody interested/following this in the lead up to the referendum?

A YouGov poll on the weekend had the yes camp trending at 51% to the no camp’s 49%, excluding the um-don’t-knows – a finding consistent with a growing momentum towards independence in recent weeks.

Going it alone, or being afraid to, has itched at the conscience of Scots to a greater or lesser degree for at least the length of my lifetime. The devolution referendum in 1979 was won, with 51.6% support for Scottish home rule, but voter turnout fell short of the required 40%. Next week’s turnout is expected to be 80%. At the launch of the Scottish parliament in 1999 the country’s debut first minister, Donald Dewar, called devolution “a process, not an event”.

And now we’re at the next stage of that process.

When I was in Aberdeen recently, my home town and Europe’s oil capital, the referendum wasn’t the only topic of conversation. My mum (a would-be yes voter) is dying and will likely be gone by next Thursday; my dad (yes) has his own debilitating health issues; my grandfather (whose parting words to me at the airport were, “Remember your Scottish passport next time”) is juggling infirmity and impending grief. But the topic crept into every conversation, one way or another. How could it not?

There’s a mismatch between the overwhelmingly pro-union media and the swell of pro-yes sentiment on the ground, much of which shows a clear-eyed optimism and positivity befitting a word like “yes”.

I watched the first televised independence debate while over there, during which the predominant no campaign lines (your currency is uncertain, your oil might run out, you can’t survive on your own) were further honed for what has been dubbed – by its architects no less – Project Fear. The no leader Alistair Darling and the patronising Better Together lady have done a brisk trade in repeating ad nauseum how severing ties will be FOR EVER – as in Orwell’s muddy boot stamping on a human face, FOR EVER.

The soft sell has come mainly via celebrities such as David Bowie and Paul Mull-of-Kintyre McCartney, urging Scots not to “leave”, whatever that means. And then there are world leaders. Separatism is bad, says Obama and China’s Li Keqiang. And, of course, Tony Abbott, who reckons those trying to secure self-determination via democratic, non-violent means “are not the friends of justice, the friends of freedom”.

According to Alex Salmond, Scotland’s first minister and chief proponent of the yes campaign, Abbott “put his foot in it”. I was raised never to kick a man with a foot or any other appendage in his mouth, so I won’t. Suffice to say, many of those hedging geopolitical bets from afar have elevated the art of saying nothing to a new high.

I've snipped this article a bit.


Monday, September 8, 2014 10:23 AM


I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. SECOND: I am so very sorry I libelled you by labelling you a Russian Troll. I apologize for this.

Yes, I've been following it.

There was one commercial from the "no" campaign (I think they call themselves the "better together" campaign) which had this ditz of a Scottish housewife complaining... My husband, he goes on and on about what he sees on the telly... I hardly have time to think... I heard it "clunked" badly.

To be honest, I don't know much about the pros and cons altho historically I get the emotional appeal of wanting independence. The Scots get the oilfields and the get to keep the pound? Sounds like the best of both worlds.

Now, if Wales would seceded, THAT would take a crap-ton of money from the Royal Family, wouldn't it?

You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.


Monday, September 8, 2014 3:54 PM


Me, I hope they carry it though.

Yes an economic crash and recovery will be painful, the same way excising a tumor is, but remaining under the lash of a predatory central banking system carries far worse eventual consequences.



Wednesday, September 10, 2014 1:17 AM


Can they go with the euro for the time being??

... oooOO}{OOooo ...


Wednesday, September 10, 2014 1:42 PM


Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

London is quite adamant that they won't be able to keep the pound, and I'd be amazed if they changed their minds.

It's not personal. It's just war.


Wednesday, September 10, 2014 7:09 PM


Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


The British like flexing their muscles and have a hard time letting go of any colony or anything that they think belongs to them.

I don't see how you can call offering the Scottish people a referendum on independence in the first place 'flexing our muscles'. As for allowing a currency union, why would we do that after the huge train wreck in slow-motion that is the Euro? It would just mean we would be on the line to bail out Scotland in the future.

I don't agree with all of your history, for example:

It's only been since the last century that Britain has let go of Northern Ireland.

N. Ireland is still part of the UK, and the people there are very divided about it. It's complicated.

It's not personal. It's just war.


Thursday, September 11, 2014 7:55 AM


Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Don't worry, no offence taken.

It's not personal. It's just war.


Friday, September 19, 2014 11:21 PM



Saturday, September 20, 2014 12:21 AM


I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. SECOND: I am so very sorry I libelled you by labelling you a Russian Troll. I apologize for this.

Me too. Although I have to say, there were some videos that appeared to look like vote-rigging. Bundled ballots on a "no" table with the "yes" box clearly checked. One female counter taking ballots from the "yes" pile and placing it on the "no" spot. One counter filling in a ballot himself (while looking around).

Anyway, the "yes" vote people say they're going to try again. In the meantime, Scotland has apparently forced a number of concessions from Britain.

You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.


Saturday, September 20, 2014 1:38 PM


I'm pretty happy we chose to remain in the UK. The thing I'm disappointed with is the attitude of people post referendum.


Saturday, September 20, 2014 2:38 PM


Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

I thought this author had quite a way with ideas, and put her finger on the malaise many of us alienated, disenfranchised people feel …

With less than two weeks to go to a Scottish referendum on independence from the United Kingdom, the number of voters indicating that they will vote ‘yes’ to independence has surged ahead for the first time, with 51 percent for as compared to 49 percent against.

Whatever the margin of error might be, the upshot is that more Scots than anyone previously thought are seriously contemplating separation from the United Kingdom.

Unsurprisingly, the fact that this referendum definitely has a realistic chance of passing has led to a lot of speculation about what would be “the better deal” for the Scottish people. The Scottish financial industry, North Sea oil and the cost of services like healthcare and third-level education have all come under scrutiny, not to mention the future of Scottish trade links with Europe and the UK under an as-yet-unspecified currency. Even Yes Scotland’s website focuses on the economics, claiming that a yes vote will “unleash” Scotland’s economic potential. The message would seem to be that the Scots should do the math and figure out where they are going to get a sweeter deal, in the UK or outside of it.

Which is quite ironic, because it’s basic game theory that the person who gets the best deal is always the person who is generally “in” but occasionally threatens to get “out.”

Studies conducted at the UN General Assembly show that developing nations who often vote with Western countries but occasionally vote against them receive the best foreign aid packages – better than countries who consistently vote against foreign aid donors, but also better than countries who always vote with them.

So from a purely materialistic point of view, the best outcome for Scotland is an “almost yes.” In fact, the current “almost yes” state of affairs is already paying dividends with alarmed British politicians promising to give Scotland greater autonomy over taxes (meaning it could potentially undercut other regions of the UK on top tax rates), the moment they vote “no.” Clearly, there are some big questions about Scotland’s economic future riding on this referendum.

In fact, there are generally big questions about just what this referendum is about.

While the “yes” side has campaigned on an anti-nuclear, anti-imperialist and socially inclusive platform focusing on green energy, it also apparently wants to keep Queen Elizabeth II as head of state (nothing, apparently, says “freedom and equality” like a hereditary foreign monarch technically running your country), stay in NATO (known to have a nuke or two lying about), stay in the EU (where judges estimate that about 95 percent of all national laws now originate), is advised on economic affairs by billionaire James McColl, who has been known to complain that Scotland just doesn’t offer the same attractions, as say Canada or China where his businesses don’t have to do pesky things like pay tax, and wants to fund its social equality programs with oil revenues (not the most uncompromising eco-warrior message I have ever heard).

So Scotland, I see you have a plan to stand up to the raving imperialists - by laundering their tax dollars and wailing a thoughtful ballad or two about the empty materialism of corporate accountancy in your off hours - but I have news for you: Ireland got there first. That niche is filled, my friend.

So with the economics and politics of the situation failing to deliver what one would normally consider clear-cut alternatives, why are so many Scottish people leaning “yes”?

It is, I would say, a sign of the general malaise of a bankrupt political system where most people – not just Scots – simply want out. Or maybe in. Or somewhere other than the place they are currently at. Somewhere where it feels like they aren’t just swimming in treacle in an endless circle of doom. Somewhere they might actually be able to affect their own life, just a little bit (and as long as Scotland stays in NATO and the EU, I guarantee you, it will be “a little bit”).

According to the deputy leader of the Scottish National Party, Nicola Sturgeon, every single person in Scotland could vote Labour and still end up living under David Cameron’s Conservative government. This is entirely correct, because Scotland simply doesn’t have enough seats in parliament to sway an election. In the last national election Scotland did vote overwhelmingly Labour and did end up living under a Conservative government, so it is unsurprising that they are beginning to wonder why they bother going to the polls.

But did you know that much of the UK could vote Labour or Conservative and still end up with the opposite party in government, because of the possibility of a manufactured majority? A manufactured majority means that the party that got the most votes actually forms the opposition. This is possible, and even prevalent in first-past-the-post systems like the UK, because the political system rewards parties that win seats, instead of those that win votes. Manufactured majorities occurred in three of the last 15 British elections (so one-fifth of the time). The rest of the time (all the rest of the time), British people live under a relative majority government, which means that most British citizens vote for a party other than the winning party, but the winning party still wins more votes than any other single party. Tony Blair’s New Labour, for example, generally received around 40 percent of the vote, but managed to get over 60 percent of parliamentary seats. What this means is that whatever government you live under, chances are you voted for someone else. It’s no wonder people tend to feel a bit disgruntled.

And that is before you factor in that even if your vote and MP temporarily match up, chances are you won’t have much in common with them. In 2005, out of 561 seats in the UK House of Commons, 72 were held by either barristers or solicitors, 44 by professors or lecturers and 87 by politicians or political organizers. In addition, over 33 percent of MPs attended a fee-paying school, while the national average of children attending such schools is 8 percent. Seventy-five percent of MPs held a university degree, with 25 percent of them graduating from just two universities: Oxford and Cambridge. It’s hard to see the link between these “representatives” and their constituents, and it all adds up to those constituents not so much being violently oppressed as just ignored; consistently pacified with cheap gestures and easy platitudes from a political class so focused on winning election that it has little time left over to even try to comprehend the priorities of ordinary voters who live under a set of conditions that they themselves have never experienced.

It’s not just Scottish people who don’t have a real stake in our democracies – everyone in Britain lives under a politics that rarely reflects true majority preferences and which uncompromisingly gives those with the most money the most say. Scottish people are fortunate enough to have a national identity that allows them to give expression to their disenfranchisement in rather a constructive way.

And perhaps the fact that modern politics sweeps the inconvenient under the rug with the illusion of representation instead of confronting it head-on like a proper feudal lord is why the Scottish referendum feels less like freedom’s last stand and more like a quest to sit down with a cup of herbal tea and “find” oneself. Like the California hippies, Scotland might not have a crystal-clear idea of where it’s going – just that it isn’t there yet. Time to turn off, tune in, drop out and see what happens next.

Tony Blair’s New Labour … is that like Neo-liberal? EmPHAsis on the ‘new’ part and not so much elsewhere?

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.


Sunday, May 9, 2021 9:28 AM


Mayor Jihad Sadiq Re-Elected as Londonistan KnifeCrime Capital Mayor Despite Conservative Tory Surge

Wales Election results meaningless?

Sturgeon hopes to lead Scotland to independence, despite no SNP majority

They might be still counting for days so how long will results take?


Thursday, December 2, 2021 6:04 PM


Wee Jimmy Krankie pledges 2023 Indyref2 bid

Fucking Nationalists in Name Only

Listen to this Racist anti-Scottish Pakistani Muzzie Fucktard - White, White, White! ...well i guess to his credit, he's got the Scots accent down$/search?q=humza%20yousaf

'Too Many Whites in Scotland'






Fri, May 20, 2022 07:15 - 200 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!!!
Fri, May 20, 2022 01:04 - 10533 posts
Why is Russia losing so much military equipment?
Thu, May 19, 2022 20:53 - 17 posts
I'm surprised there's not an inflation thread yet
Thu, May 19, 2022 20:26 - 246 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, May 19, 2022 19:57 - 545 posts
Russia keeps threatening with nukes
Thu, May 19, 2022 15:06 - 77 posts
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Thu, May 19, 2022 10:52 - 327 posts
Thu, May 19, 2022 07:43 - 579 posts
I never thought I'd miss this evil little Goblin...
Wed, May 18, 2022 23:36 - 1 posts
Trump's Budget
Wed, May 18, 2022 19:34 - 297 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, May 18, 2022 14:46 - 322 posts
Wed, May 18, 2022 03:04 - 2 posts