3NUMBAS Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 it seems the turkeys will vote for xmas and cut their own throat http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/20/uk-scotlandindependence-poll-idUKBREA2J1LX20140320 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokie36 Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 I'm not getting a visa just to try curry & chips. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2581579/Home-Secretary-Theresa-May-says-passport-checks-introduced-wants-cross-border-Scotland-votes-independence.html All joking aside, this is actually a serious matter. I always thought that an independent Scotland would remain within the Common travel Area. The CTA currently comprises the RoI, the UK, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands; but it is not an open border in the way that the Schengen area is. People can only pass freely between the two countries without any immigration control or conditions or restriction if they are an Irish or British national. Obviously, as both countries are members of the EU and the EEA, EEA nationals have freedom of movement rights within them both; but the scope of the CTA is far wider than these EEA rights. In 1997 the Republic changed it's legislation so that Irish immigration have the right to examine identity documents of all people entering the Republic from elsewhere in the CTA and refuse them entry if they do not have permission to do so. This effectively means that both Irish and British citizens need their passports to prove their nationality; unless they can do so by other means. Fixed controls only exists at air and sea ports, but random checks, often intelligence led, are carried out at land crossings. The UK do not carry out fixed checks, a proposal to do so in 2008 was abandoned following pressure from Ulster Unionists as it would have necessitated controls on all people arriving from the island of Ireland; including Northern Ireland which is, of course, part of the UK. The UK does, though, carry out random checks. In addition to the above, all air and sea carriers between the RoI and the UK require photo ID from passengers; whichever direction they are travelling in. Most (all?) carriers between Northern Ireland and Great Britain require the same. If the passenger cannot produce such ID to show they have the right to enter their destination then the carrier will not allow them to board. Acceptable ID from British and Irish nationals varies from carrier to carrier (all will, of course, accept a valid passport) but EEA nationals will need a valid passport or national ID card and non EEA nationals will need a valid passport and, if required, visa. In 2011 the British and Irish governments issued a joint statement on the CTA. Whilst not legally binding, the statement does commit both governments to continuing co-operation through the CTA, to align their lists of visa free countries, to develop electronic border management systems, to engage in data sharing to combat the abuse of the Common Travel Area, and to work toward a fully-common short stay visit visa. For an independent Scotland to remain in the CTA they would obviously need the agreement of both the British and Irish governments; agreements they are extremely unlikely to get unless an independent Scotland agrees with the terms of that joint statement. Were an independent Scotland to join Schengen then there is no way that the British and Irish governments would agree to them remaining within the CTA. Of course, policing the land border, other than at main road crossings, would be difficult, but other countries manage it. Who'd like the contract for rebuilding Hadrian's Wall and moving a bit further north (or the Antonine Wall and moving it a quite a long way south)? And you talk about childish nonsense being spouted?.....in whose interests would it be to have border checks between Scotland and England do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAJIC Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 SC, Illegal immigration is a problem in all parts of the current UK; including Scotland. (Scottish firms fined £1.3m for their illegal migrant staff) Euros are not widely used anywhere in the UK. You may find a few shops in tourist areas accepting them; ditto pay phones in those areas. But that's it. Salmond is desperately trying to convince the No vote that he has a choice,either the Pound or the Euro,considering there will be conditions on Scottish entry to the EU,most likely acceptance of the Euro,will be one! Considering the Royal Bank of Scotland being 80% owned by the British Taxpayer doesn't bode well,for Salmonds plans! and the fact Britain will continue to reject the Euro,is another stumbling block! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3NUMBAS Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 savings , pensions , benefits will all go up in smoke when they go independent , surely the Jocks arent that careless with their bawbees what does Rab C Nesbit have to say on this ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 (edited) I'm not getting a visa just to try curry & chips. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2581579/Home-Secretary-Theresa-May-says-passport-checks-introduced-wants-cross-border-Scotland-votes-independence.html All joking aside, this is actually a serious matter. I always thought that an independent Scotland would remain within the Common travel Area. The CTA currently comprises the RoI, the UK, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands; but it is not an open border in the way that the Schengen area is. People can only pass freely between the two countries without any immigration control or conditions or restriction if they are an Irish or British national. Obviously, as both countries are members of the EU and the EEA, EEA nationals have freedom of movement rights within them both; but the scope of the CTA is far wider than these EEA rights. In 1997 the Republic changed it's legislation so that Irish immigration have the right to examine identity documents of all people entering the Republic from elsewhere in the CTA and refuse them entry if they do not have permission to do so. This effectively means that both Irish and British citizens need their passports to prove their nationality; unless they can do so by other means. Fixed controls only exists at air and sea ports, but random checks, often intelligence led, are carried out at land crossings. The UK do not carry out fixed checks, a proposal to do so in 2008 was abandoned following pressure from Ulster Unionists as it would have necessitated controls on all people arriving from the island of Ireland; including Northern Ireland which is, of course, part of the UK. The UK does, though, carry out random checks. In addition to the above, all air and sea carriers between the RoI and the UK require photo ID from passengers; whichever direction they are travelling in. Most (all?) carriers between Northern Ireland and Great Britain require the same. If the passenger cannot produce such ID to show they have the right to enter their destination then the carrier will not allow them to board. Acceptable ID from British and Irish nationals varies from carrier to carrier (all will, of course, accept a valid passport) but EEA nationals will need a valid passport or national ID card and non EEA nationals will need a valid passport and, if required, visa. In 2011 the British and Irish governments issued a joint statement on the CTA. Whilst not legally binding, the statement does commit both governments to continuing co-operation through the CTA, to align their lists of visa free countries, to develop electronic border management systems, to engage in data sharing to combat the abuse of the Common Travel Area, and to work toward a fully-common short stay visit visa. For an independent Scotland to remain in the CTA they would obviously need the agreement of both the British and Irish governments; agreements they are extremely unlikely to get unless an independent Scotland agrees with the terms of that joint statement. Were an independent Scotland to join Schengen then there is no way that the British and Irish governments would agree to them remaining within the CTA. Of course, policing the land border, other than at main road crossings, would be difficult, but other countries manage it. Who'd like the contract for rebuilding Hadrian's Wall and moving a bit further north (or the Antonine Wall and moving it a quite a long way south)? And you talk about childish nonsense being spouted?.....in whose interests would it be to have border checks between Scotland and England do you think? Obviously, it would be better for all three countries if an independent Scotland were in the CTA with the UK and RoI. But every new member of the EU since 2004 has had to join Schengen; why should Scotland be an exception? If Scotland is in Schengen and the UK and RoI are not; then it would be in the interests of both the UK and the RoI to have border and immigration controls between them and Scotland. You seem to forget, or never knew, that the Schengen area is a borderless area. Once someone is in, they can travel to any other Schengen country freely with no border checks at all. One reason why the UK didn't want to join. If the UK had joined then there would be no border controls between the UK and France and so no way of stopping all those 'asylum seekers' holed up around Calais from entering the UK. Of course, Salmond and the Yes campaign don't want the Scottish people to know about this potential difficulty; and, as usual, whenever anything which could prove a disadvantage to an independent Scotland they ignore it and those who point it out are simply labelled as childish, scaremongering bullies! Edited March 21, 2014 by 7by7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nontabury Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 [quote name="smokie36" post=But every new member of the EU since 2004 has had to join Schengen; why should Scotland be an exception? If Scotland is in Schengen and the UK and RoI are not; then it would be in the interests of both the UK and the RoI to have border and immigration controls between them and Scotland. You seem to forget, or never knew, that the Schengen area is a borderless area. Once someone is in, they can travel to any other Schengen country freely with no border checks at all. One reason why the UK didn't want to join. If the UK had joined then there would be no border controls between the UK and France and so no way of stopping all those 'asylum seekers' holed up around Calais from entering the UK. Of course, Salmond and the Yes campaign don't want the Scottish people to know about this potential difficulty; and, as usual, whenever anything which could prove a disadvantage to an independent Scotland they ignore it and those who point it out are simply labelled as childish, scaremongering bullies! Why should Scotland be an exception? Well obviously because Alex Salmons says so. The same as he says that Scotland will automatically and speedily be allowed to join the EC, therefore giving all control over Scotland to the bureaucrats in Brussels, even though the president of the EC says they will not be admitted, seconded by Spain. Also that Alex Salmons will be allowed to decide if a independent Scotland will be allowed to keep and have a say in Sterling, or join the Euro on his terms. Rearly! You could've make this fairy tale up, what AS has shown the world is that the Scots instead of being a sensible people, have in fact a a large percent of the population who are very gullible and stupid. Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Like Thai Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Will the new Union Jack look like this ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transam Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Will the new Union Jack look like this ? jack.jpg Perhaps, but a while back I read the Jamaican colours should be integrated into our flag. ....True. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 (edited) Were I Welsh, I would want some element of the Welsh flag be incorporated; at last! Edited March 23, 2014 by 7by7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transam Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Were I Welsh, I would want some element of the Welsh flag be incorporated; at last! I think the Welsh know that the Tudors had/have a big influence on the UK............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 As did the Stuarts! I'm trying to think of the last English King of England. Harold II, wasn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transam Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 As did the Stuarts! I'm trying to think of the last English King of England. Harold II, wasn't it? I am nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo historian but think I recall that the Tudors came from Wales. Sure I will be corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 (edited) Christ on a bike, if this doesn't make them vote in droves to leave, I don't know what will. Edited March 23, 2014 by Chicog 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Your right, Chicog. I have absolutely no opinion one way or the other and have enjoyed the discussion. If Sara Palin is against it, then I am for it! That may actually not be her tweet though. I am not sure she can write and I am pretty sure she couldn't spell secession. I do, however, think it would be a good idea to get back to the actual topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 :tugsforelock: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 A post which violates fair use policy has been removed. Please do not quote more than 3 sentences of an article and then a link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
folium Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 As did the Stuarts! I'm trying to think of the last English King of England. Harold II, wasn't it? I am nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo historian but think I recall that the Tudors came from Wales. Sure I will be corrected. Henry Tudor came from Pembrokeshire which wasn't/isn't really part of Wales, hence all the castles to keep the restless natives at bay...! Careful you will upset certain posters and their nuanced views on what makes a person "true British". At least for those broad minded folk, the Welsh are white and tend not to be Muslim.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilcopops Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 (edited) I think th ENGLISH government - for that's effectively who the Tories are - are really starting a scare campaign. There are in fact plenty of good reasons why Scotland should fare better than England after a split. - (6th wealthiest country in the world per capita) one thing though....who's gonna be head of state? Edited March 23, 2014 by wilcopops Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil B Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Christ on a bike, if this doesn't make them vote in droves to leave, I don't know what will. Trust them ****ing Yanks to stick there ore in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
folium Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Christ on a bike, if this doesn't make them vote in droves to leave, I don't know what will. Trust them ****ing Yanks to stick there ore in... Do you mean "iron ore"? hopefully not Eey-ore, as that would make one's eyes water a tad...! Type of thing that Sarah Palin might post... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil B Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Christ on a bike, if this doesn't make them vote in droves to leave, I don't know what will. Trust them ****ing Yanks to stick there ore in... Do you mean "iron ore"? hopefully not Eey-ore, as that would make one's eyes water a tad...! Type of thing that Sarah Palin might post... Oh, futtocks I meant oar... anyway Rollocks to Ms Scuttlebutt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAJIC Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 I think th ENGLISH government - for that's effectively who the Tories are - are really starting a scare campaign. There are in fact plenty of good reasons why Scotland should fare better than England after a split. - (6th wealthiest country in the world per capita) one thing though....who's gonna be head of state? (6th wealthiest country in the world per capita) We need some evidence on that statement..... wilco and answer 2 President Salmond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolf5370 Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 (edited) As did the Stuarts! I'm trying to think of the last English King of England. Harold II, wasn't it? I am nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo historian but think I recall that the Tudors came from Wales. Sure I will be corrected. Henry Tudor came from Pembrokeshire which wasn't/isn't really part of Wales, hence all the castles to keep the restless natives at bay...! Careful you will upset certain posters and their nuanced views on what makes a person "true British". At least for those broad minded folk, the Welsh are white and tend not to be Muslim.... It's an unanswerable question really as there was probably never an English king of all of England. Or anywhere else in Europe pretty much (at least old Europe). Kings and Queens were wed together even when not conquering each other and many of the countries as they are today where made of smaller kingdoms for much of history (right up until after the first world war in some instances - and beyond if we include the Russian states/USSR/CIS). Much is made of the current Queen being German - of course this is only by descent anyway as she was born in the UK as were her parents and all four grandparents - in fact one would have to go back as far as Victoria. To see the inter-relations between QE II and other royals see a good PDF here: https://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/European_monarchs_family_tree.pdf showing links with The Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Luxemburg, Norway, Sweden, Spain and Monaco. Victoria herself was born in the UK (against popular belief) - her father was also English, son of George III (the mad king) it was her mother that was Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld: Through her first marriage (Victoria's father was her second husband), she is related to Sweden, Asturias (Austria) and Greece. Victoria married another Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, which brings in Portugal, Bulgaria, Hungary and Russia as well as further links with Belgium, Saxe-Coburg Austria and Germany. That's only going back two centuries out of 2 millennia! Also bring in the Normans, though not the French so much, as the famous William the Conqueror was not French but a Norman - and they hated the French! - See 1,000 Years of Annoying the French for great info there - However, there are family links with French monarchy after the Normal Invasion; also bring in of course the Scots, Irish and Welsh - indeed, the Scoti were Irish invaders in Scotland (who with the accidental help of the Vikings wiped out the Picts and other indigenous peoples) and also took over parts of Western England and Wales. Incidentally, it is now believed that Scot derives from the Greek Skotos meaning Dark, Gloomy (maybe indirectly from Skot Indo-European but deriving from the Greek) The point being really that it is a strawman argument as every kingdom that is older than a few centuries has roots in other countries and cultures - even in the middle east and far east (though to a lesser extent). To claim Queen Elizabeth is a German (usually based on the surname of Queen Victoria, her son having changed it to Windsor during WW I for obvious reasons whilst king, which she gained from her husband Prince Albert who was never a king of England!) is to claim that there are no Americans as all are descended from foreigners (including the so-called indigenous Native Americans if we want to go back far enough - but generally excluding them if we are talking centuries). Edited March 23, 2014 by wolf5370 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolf5370 Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 I think th ENGLISH government - for that's effectively who the Tories are - are really starting a scare campaign. There are in fact plenty of good reasons why Scotland should fare better than England after a split. - (6th wealthiest country in the world per capita) one thing though....who's gonna be head of state? Actually I find it interesting the Torries are Pro-No. Lets face it, their only opposition is Labour (Liberals are a swing party coalition member at best - and the other baby parties, including UKIP are zip) - and most of Labour's votes come from north of the wall (where the only Torry MPs are those on holiday). If Scotland left the UK, then Torries would be in power for the next 30 years (with or without a coalition partner)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolf5370 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 I think th ENGLISH government - for that's effectively who the Tories are - are really starting a scare campaign. There are in fact plenty of good reasons why Scotland should fare better than England after a split. - (6th wealthiest country in the world per capita) one thing though....who's gonna be head of state? Actually I find it interesting the Torries are Pro-No. Lets face it, their only opposition is Labour (Liberals are a swing party coalition member at best - and the other baby parties, including UKIP are zip) - and most of Labour's votes come from north of the wall (where the only Torry MPs are those on holiday). If Scotland left the UK, then Torries would be in power for the next 30 years (with or without a coalition partner)! <Corrected quotes - putting correct quote against correct member> Wolfman how many years have Scots had to suffer under an Uk government that Scots didn't vote for ,,,answer me that one....or any of you that again are treating the Scots like idiots and think we dont know what is going on and what will happen, and the suffering of the economy and people and freedom of movement and hardship this and hardship that..Again i repeat the Uk government is running scared pure and simple because it will be them that will suffer.... I never called the Scots idiots or not knowing what was going on - my point was solely about why the Conservative Party would support the 'No' campaign when Scotland represents the bulk of the support for the opposition. If anything I am calling the Torries idiots! As to your point - they Scots have had exactly the same amount of time to vote for a government as the rest of the UK have - actually less time if you consider the Scottish Parliament - If you are trying to find injustice it is with England who are the only country in the union to not have independent governance, Scottish MPs vote of English only issues whereas English MPs cannot vote on Scotland only issues - all get a vote on British issues. One might also say that the RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland) caused a lot of the suffering of the whole union - and had to be bailed out to the tune of 80% of their stock price (greater amounts than many countries have has a GDP!!). Under Labour Scotland suffered so much that people were put out of work in England to give jobs to Scots in Scotland - just what percentage of Glaswegian workers now work for the state? VAT and Tax offices merged and moved to Glasgow so Labour could say they brought the lowest employed city to above 50% employment at a stroke - ignoring the 5,000 people suddenly without jobs in coastal towns like Southend on Sea where the VAT offices there were once the biggest local employer. now gone. The only place in the UK to have free further education too - yes paid from the budget, but where does that budget come from - the UK as a whole. If any country is suffering due to local politics compared to any other, it must be Wales who's NHS is failing drastically (due to Labour control and piss poor management I might add). If you really think the rest of the UK is running scared of Scotland's secession, then think again - every poll I have seen shows that most non-Scots are firmly 'Yes'. The only reason the UK government wants Scotland to stay is that together we have more strength in Europe; apart the rest of the UK will still be strong, Scotland will not be in the same position. The first world is getting closer - Europe is and has been - evolving into a further layer of unionism like the UK has been for centuries. It is only the federalist fears that have stopped it happening already - at least with the main countries. It is the only way in a global economy that Europe can compete with the USA and China. The shit storm of the banks is receding -m QE is all but gone around the G7 world and most major players are in growth now - it will not be long before the EU is moving forward again - secession is working against that. Oil is finite, and pretty much the only commodity Scotland has - a lot of money earned there will likely be lost as companies move south to stay in the EU and for safety. Those state jobs will go too, leaving Glasgow devastatingly high in the unemployment figures. RBS is 80+% UK owned and controlled. Scotland has more freedom than it has had since the Picts were walled in, right now and as it stands - other than people with agendas towards presidency (or getting control at state level where they never could) there is just no benefit to Scotland. The adage about throwing the baby out with the bath water comes to mind! One wonders, just as an aside, with predictions of Global Warming (ice melt from the Artic causing northern Europe to freeze) just what position an independent Scotland out on it own will even be like in in 50 years time. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wigantojapan Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 As to your point -they Scots have had exactly the same amount of time to vote for a government as the rest of the UK have. - yes and they in many years NEVER EVER voted for the Uk government long before 1997.. Under Labour Scotland suffered so much that people were put out of work in England to give jobs to Scots in Scotland,,, ,really that is the first time ever i have heard that one and just a complete fabrication. Under Tory rule (which now and before Scotland has never voted how did the Scots prosper.or how did they suffer pure and simple Scots should be ruled and i do use the word rule by Scots ,,,, don't think the Scottish people wont hang them out to dry when the time comes but it will be a Scottish decision to hang their own . aye a man o independent mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transam Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Weeeeeeeeeell, UK had Scot PM's for many years to do stuff. Why did they not think of their homeland, or did they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKK Blues Brother Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Weeeeeeeeeell, UK had Scot PM's for many years to do stuff. Why did they not think of their homeland, or did they? New Labour! or Old SNP? I think the Scots did a good job of sticking it to the English now they're gonna vote to distance themselves and pat each other on the back. Revenge is a dish serve ice cold? The English have had plenty dishes served in recent years. Do we care?........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKK Blues Brother Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 As did the Stuarts! I'm trying to think of the last English King of England. Harold II, wasn't it? I believe it was Richard III and he's been slagged of by everyone to be a right turd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transam Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 As did the Stuarts! I'm trying to think of the last English King of England. Harold II, wasn't it? I believe it was Richard III and he's been slagged of by everyone to be a right turd. Was it the English Stanley's that was his demise. Old English saying, never trust a Stanley............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts