Jump to content

Scotland to become independent in March 2016 if referendum passes


Recommended Posts

"Historians have tended to focus on the role of abolitionists and their activities, but given the importance of the slave trade and slavery to Scotland’s economy it is important to realise that Scotland also produced many men who defended the slave trade and slavery in this period" - this is rubbish - Scottish schools teach history - Unlike many English schools) and the slavery issue is well covered. If you have any doubt just look at the architecture and street names in places like Glasgow.

The leader of the anti- slavery movement was a certain William Wilberforce along with another Englishman called Thomas Clarkson. My School because of a connection with W.W taught us in history a great deal about all aspects of the slave trade, and one thing is for certain, no parts of the "then" GB, and I include Ireland, can be proud of its part in this inhuman trade, and that certainly includes Scotland.

I remember, on I think BBC question time approximately 15yrs ago, when a chap by the name of Alex Salmonds tried to suggest that the Scots were innocent victims of English colonial rule. Unfortunately one of the other panelist was a member of the House of Lords, who was in fact Indian born and raised, she strongly informed an embarrast Salmonds that she remembered the Scottish members of the colonialist administration in India to be the most arrogant and disliked by the Indian people. But I am sure their will be attempts to re write history.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

You appear to be basing your opinion on Scottish self-determination on one TV show from several years ago - do you seriously consider that to be a valid way of either putting up an argument or forming any sort of opinion whatsoever?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

"Historians have tended to focus on the role of abolitionists and their activities, but given the importance of the slave trade and slavery to Scotland’s economy it is important to realise that Scotland also produced many men who defended the slave trade and slavery in this period" - this is rubbish - Scottish schools teach history - Unlike many English schools) and the slavery issue is well covered. If you have any doubt just look at the architecture and street names in places like Glasgow.

The leader of the anti- slavery movement was a certain William Wilberforce along with another Englishman called Thomas Clarkson. My School because of a connection with W.W taught us in history a great deal about all aspects of the slave trade, and one thing is for certain, no parts of the "then" GB, and I include Ireland, can be proud of its part in this inhuman trade, and that certainly includes Scotland.

I remember, on I think BBC question time approximately 15yrs ago, when a chap by the name of Alex Salmonds tried to suggest that the Scots were innocent victims of English colonial rule. Unfortunately one of the other panelist was a member of the House of Lords, who was in fact Indian born and raised, she strongly informed an embarrast Salmonds that she remembered the Scottish members of the colonialist administration in India to be the most arrogant and disliked by the Indian people. But I am sure their will be attempts to re write history.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

You appear to be basing your opinion on Scottish self-determination on one TV show from several years ago - do you seriously consider that to be a valid way of either putting up an argument or forming any sort of opinion whatsoever?

I don't know how you've come to that conclusion, I can only assume that you are another one, who has not read thru the whole of this thread.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Link to post
Share on other sites

I ran into a compatriot in the pub this evening (where else would you do such a thing?) and he expressed the view that he felt British first and Scottish second, I was surprised at that, since I feel that my British nationality stems from my Scottishness - though perhaps he will have easier access to a Tartan passport than I will have, or my children.

Anyway, most of the secessionist arguments to date seem to be founded on economic terms. If my opportunities in the future are to be bounded by the Caledonian seas, then I'd rather take my chances in the wider world under the Red White and Blue - my little purple book has served me well to date and I don't trust the chaps in Holyrood Emporium to come up with something better

SC

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Continental shelf: If Westminster retains control of Shetland, Orkney and Rockall, Scotland will have no oil resources.

If Scotland becomes independent Westminster won't be able to hang on to Shetland, Orkney, Rockall or any other part of Scotland (see: Shetland and Orkney).

However, even under the hypothetical circumstance that this occurred, Westminster wouldn't be able to retain control of the oil fields anyway, so ya boo sux. These matters are regulated by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which the UK is a signatory. International law specifies that a state controls the continental shelf and associated mineral and fishing rights up to 200 nautical miles (230 miles or 370 km) off its shores. When another state possesses an island within the continental shelf of this state, special rules apply.

The continental shelf off the Atlantic coast is Scotland's to exploit and develop, even if Westminster clung on to Rockall like a plook on the face of an adolescent sociopath. According to the Law of the Sea: "rocks which could not sustain human habitation or economic life of their own would have no economic zone or continental shelf." Westminster could pauchle its way to keeping Rockall, but as far as oil and fishing exploitation rights are concerned, they'd be entitled to rockall.

2472ed30c1e5107ace840337c55e8c2684e05462Neither would Westminster gain much by holding onto Shetland and Orkney. When an island belonging to one state sits on the continental shelf of another state, the islands are treated as enclaves. This matter was discussed in detail in a legal paper published by the European Journal of International Law: Prospective Anglo-Scottish Maritime Boundary Revisited

Most of the rights to the continental shelf would remain Scottish, Map 2 on page 29 of the legal paper shows the most likely sea boundaries. Westminster would be entitled only to a small zone around the islands, and the waters between Orkney and Shetland. This area contains no oil fields. If Shetland and Orkney were to remain under Westminster's control, Shetland would no longer have an oil fund. The map is reproduced here, so you can do a reverse Jeremy Paxman and sneer derisively at Westminster's pretensions.

Westminster's Shetland threat is a bluff. Westminster knows it's a bluff. They just don't want us to know too.

I don't really see how England could continue to have any claim on Rockall after a split from Scotland

post-163165-0-01605400-1397496505_thumb.

post-163165-0-78993100-1397496518_thumb.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the article in yesterday's business section of the Bangkok post,regarding the Scottish whiskey industry, so if you can obtain a copy you should be able to read the full piece.

I don't know how you've come to the conclusion that Scotland's entry into the EU will be just a formality, well not according to the head Eurocrats in Brussels, not to mention a number of government, including that of Spain. Furthermore I just cannot get my head around to anyone, wanting to join the EU and of course the requirements that new members will Have to take on the EURO, at the expense of their own independent currency.

whiskey

In that lies a part of the perception..........people cannot even start to get the basic of the Scottish culture far less anything else,,but still you can have you say but at least you are trying maybe to deep for some people,,,,

.EU membership: Scotland would be forced to reapply for EU membership.This all hinges on whether Scotland would be considered a successor state to the UK, or whether it would be considered an entirely new state. Would Germany, which imports much of its oil from Scotland, want to ensure Scotland remained a part of the EU? Or would Merkell and Sarkozy go along with Davie Cameron, who royally pisses them off and brings nothing to Europe except an Etonian sense of entitlement?

Let's assume that the EU decides to support Westminster in its epic sulk, and demands that Scotland reapply to join the EU but England-Wales-Northern Ireland remained a member. This would mean that Scotland is considered an entirely new state. In that circumstance, international law is very clear that Scotland would not be bound by any of the obligations of the UK. Amongst other things, that means that Scotland would not be required to take on a single penny of UK national debt. UK national debt is a UK obligation. The UK ruined the banks, so the UK can pay for it.

It's very much in Westminster's interests to ensure that Scotland is treated as a joint successor state and that Scotland remains a member of the EU, otherwise we get to walk off Scot-free and without any national debt at all. We could leave that mess to Westminster to sort out, and begin independent life as an energy rich debt-free nation. In that fortunate financial circumstance, surviving a couple of years as we apply for EU membership may well be worth it.

Another reason Westminster is blustering on this issue is that the UK was formed by the Union of Scotland and England in 1707. The state formed by that Union signed the EU membership treaties. When Scotland becomes independent, then the UK ceases to exist, and England-Wales-Northern-Ireland are in exactly the same legal situation as Scotland, because the state comprising England Wales and Northern Ireland didn't sign the EU accession treaties either. This is the opinion of a former Labour Lord Chancellor, who was asked about it by no less a person than Norman On Yer Bike Tebbit, no fan of Scottish self-determination. Tebbit quoted the unnamed Lord Chancellor as saying: "But what about the new state of England, Northern Ireland and Wales? Would we remain members? After all our new state would not have been a party to the Treaty either."

I am surprised that someone who is such a fan of all things Scottish should spell one of our finer products incorrectly, like an Irishman or an American no less.

Whisky from Scotland needs no e, it's the muck from Ireland and the US that needs all the help it can get! And get me started on that dreadful word "Scotch".....fine for US version of Sellotape but certainly not for a god-given liquid!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the article in yesterday's business section of the Bangkok post,regarding the Scottish whiskey industry, so if you can obtain a copy you should be able to read the full piece.

I don't know how you've come to the conclusion that Scotland's entry into the EU will be just a formality, well not according to the head Eurocrats in Brussels, not to mention a number of government, including that of Spain. Furthermore I just cannot get my head around to anyone, wanting to join the EU and of course the requirements that new members will Have to take on the EURO, at the expense of their own independent currency.

whiskey

In that lies a part of the perception..........people cannot even start to get the basic of the Scottish culture far less anything else,,but still you can have you say but at least you are trying maybe to deep for some people,,,,

.EU membership: Scotland would be forced to reapply for EU membership.This all hinges on whether Scotland would be considered a successor state to the UK, or whether it would be considered an entirely new state. Would Germany, which imports much of its oil from Scotland, want to ensure Scotland remained a part of the EU? Or would Merkell and Sarkozy go along with Davie Cameron, who royally pisses them off and brings nothing to Europe except an Etonian sense of entitlement?

Let's assume that the EU decides to support Westminster in its epic sulk, and demands that Scotland reapply to join the EU but England-Wales-Northern Ireland remained a member. This would mean that Scotland is considered an entirely new state. In that circumstance, international law is very clear that Scotland would not be bound by any of the obligations of the UK. Amongst other things, that means that Scotland would not be required to take on a single penny of UK national debt. UK national debt is a UK obligation. The UK ruined the banks, so the UK can pay for it.

It's very much in Westminster's interests to ensure that Scotland is treated as a joint successor state and that Scotland remains a member of the EU, otherwise we get to walk off Scot-free and without any national debt at all. We could leave that mess to Westminster to sort out, and begin independent life as an energy rich debt-free nation. In that fortunate financial circumstance, surviving a couple of years as we apply for EU membership may well be worth it.

Another reason Westminster is blustering on this issue is that the UK was formed by the Union of Scotland and England in 1707. The state formed by that Union signed the EU membership treaties. When Scotland becomes independent, then the UK ceases to exist, and England-Wales-Northern-Ireland are in exactly the same legal situation as Scotland, because the state comprising England Wales and Northern Ireland didn't sign the EU accession treaties either. This is the opinion of a former Labour Lord Chancellor, who was asked about it by no less a person than Norman On Yer Bike Tebbit, no fan of Scottish self-determination. Tebbit quoted the unnamed Lord Chancellor as saying: "But what about the new state of England, Northern Ireland and Wales? Would we remain members? After all our new state would not have been a party to the Treaty either."

I am surprised that someone who is such a fan of all things Scottish should spell one of our finer products incorrectly, like an Irishman or an American no less.

Whisky from Scotland needs no e, it's the muck from Ireland and the US that needs all the help it can get! And get me started on that dreadful word "Scotch".....fine for US version of Sellotape but certainly not for a god-given liquid!

"‘Aqua Vitae’" - "usquebaugh" - would be an earlier version....... Those who criticise spelling show a lack of understanding of how the English Language works or rather, evolves....there are NO RULES only conventions.

From wiki

"The spelling whisky is generally used in Canada, Japan, Scotland, England, and Wales—while whiskey is more common in Ireland and the United States. The usage is not always consistent. For example, some prominent American brands, such as George Dickel, Maker's Mark, and Old Forester (all made by different companies), use the 'whisky' spelling on their labels, and the US legal Standards of Identity for Distilled Spirits document also uses the 'whisky' spelling.

"Scotch" is the internationally recognized term for "Scotch whisky". It is less used in England, Scotland & Wales, where the drink is called simply "whisky"."

Scotland will join the EU - as I said above it is the English who need to worry - the biggest loss since the American colonies.

Edited by wilcopops
Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the article in yesterday's business section of the Bangkok post,regarding the Scottish whiskey industry, so if you can obtain a copy you should be able to read the full piece.

.

whiskey

In that lies a part of the perception..........people cannot even start to get the basic of the Scottish culture far less anything else,,but still you can have you say but at least you are trying maybe to deep for some people,,,,

.

folium, on 14 Apr 2014 - 23:30, said:
I am surprised that someone who is such a fan of all things Scottish should spell one of our finer products incorrectly, like an Irishman or an American no less.

Whisky from Scotland needs no e, it's the muck from Ireland and the US that needs all the help it can get! And get me started on that dreadful word "Scotch".....fine for US version of Sellotape but certainly not for a god-given liquid!

To clarify the question posed by Follum .The first part beginning I read the article is in response to another poster and his spelling of the word hence the bold usage.

I myself then still using his spelling in the headline stated

In that lies a part of the perception..........people cannot even start to get the basic of the Scottish culture far less anything else,,but still you can have you say but at least you are trying maybe to deep for some people,,,,

people cannot even start to get the basic of the Scottish culture far less anything else to clarify the point even further is another indication of where i was coming from.

The initial posting was from a gentleman who advocates the Independence of England which is his right and actually i fully support that,

Moving on i thought this was an interesting link for many reasons ,having had a desire at one time in my life to move there and even having relatives enjoying the way of life and happiness out there.

http://abbeyhillchronicle.com/2014/04/02/be-afraid-be-very-afraid-of-new-zealand/

Better Together’s self-styled “Project Fear” has bombarded the Scottish electorate with Independence scare stories. If all of their worst nightmares came to pass, an independent Scotland would have an economic and political profile virtually identical to New Zealand: a country to which tens of thousands of Scots have emigrated in search of a longer, happier and better quality life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Politically however, Westminster would be obliged by the results of a referendum on Scottish independence, and that's the point. If Scotland votes in favour of independence in a ballot conducted according to internationally established norms, Westminster would be bound by it. That's why they're desperate to wrest control of the referendum from the Scottish Parliament, because they want to give us another of the referendums they've given us in the past, like the 1979 referendum where the votes of the dead counted as a no. The reason they're complaining so loudly that Holyrood would rig the referendum is because that's precisely what they'd do themselves. It's called psychological projection.

The conduct of the referendum, the actual question being asked and who is eligible to vote were all decided by the Scottish parliament.

So how is Westminster wresting control of the referendum?

the above posting which is only a part of the posting was in reply to Basil i believe who asked the question who could enforce the referendum result

The answer is Westminster would be bound by it

In reply to your question So how is Westminster wresting control of the referendum?

They are not,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Politically however, Westminster would be obliged by the results of a referendum on Scottish independence, and that's the point. If Scotland votes in favour of independence in a ballot conducted according to internationally established norms, Westminster would be bound by it. That's why they're desperate to wrest control of the referendum from the Scottish Parliament, because they want to give us another of the referendums they've given us in the past, like the 1979 referendum where the votes of the dead counted as a no. The reason they're complaining so loudly that Holyrood would rig the referendum is because that's precisely what they'd do themselves. It's called psychological projection.

The conduct of the referendum, the actual question being asked and who is eligible to vote were all decided by the Scottish parliament.

So how is Westminster wresting control of the referendum?

And the leader of the westminister Uk government at the time agreed and signed approval

of the conduct and actual question and voter eligibility. A joint decision by the leader of the

Scottish government and the leader of the UK westminister government who refuses to have

a public debate on independence with the Scottish leader. The question of Salmond having

a debate with anyone other than the leader of the UK government is at best irrelevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If any attempt were made to block Scottish membership to the EU, a referendum would be demanded in Ireland with a likelihood that Ireland would leave the EU. Whether Scotland wishes to remain in the Union or not is up to them, we wish them all the best whichever way they go. But we would not be on the wrong side of Scotland in their efforts. The EU will not risk having two of their most Westerly countries going outside of the EU.

I can't see any reason why the UK would desire to block an independent Scotland's membership of the EU.

But, despite what Salmond says, that membership would not be automatic; this has been stressed many times by EU leaders.

An Independent Scotland would need to apply for membership and abide by the conditions of membership; one of which has been for all new members since 2006 adoption of the Euro.

And equally as many if not more EU leaders have said that, by EU's own laws, an independent Scotland

could not be denied entry into the EU.

Edited by phuketjock
Link to post
Share on other sites

In 1968, senior civil servant John Jappy found himself in a position to take a close look at the Treasury books. Until then he had espoused the common belief that Scotland was a poor country, subsidised by England. What he discovered came as a big surprise to him – even before the oil boom, Scotland “contributed far more to the UK economy than the other partners”

.What he discovered This ranks up there with one of highestt forms of CONcalment/ deception Westminster Governments have undertaken

Link to post
Share on other sites

If any attempt were made to block Scottish membership to the EU, a referendum would be demanded in Ireland with a likelihood that Ireland would leave the EU. Whether Scotland wishes to remain in the Union or not is up to them, we wish them all the best whichever way they go. But we would not be on the wrong side of Scotland in their efforts. The EU will not risk having two of their most Westerly countries going outside of the EU.

I can't see any reason why the UK would desire to block an independent Scotland's membership of the EU.

But, despite what Salmond says, that membership would not be automatic; this has been stressed many times by EU leaders.

An Independent Scotland would need to apply for membership and abide by the conditions of membership; one of which has been for all new members since 2006 adoption of the Euro.

And equally as many if not more EU leaders have said that, by EU's own laws, an independent Scotland

could not be denied enrty into the EU.

Please enlighten us what law?

Maybe you should read this and the associated links: http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/joining-eu/index_en.htm

At the end of the day I assume the European Parliament votes whether or not to accept the new member, over 700 MEP's, a lot of back scratching.

Edited by Basil B
Link to post
Share on other sites
How black gold was hijacked: North sea oil and the betrayal of Scotland
In 1975, the Government faced a dilemma: how to exploit the potential of its new oil fields without fuelling demands for Scottish independence. So it buried the evidence... It was a document that could have changed the course of Scottish history. Nineteen pages long, Written in an elegant, understated academic hand by the leading Scottish economist Gavin McCrone, presented to the Cabinet office in April 1975 and subsequently buried in a Westminster vault for thirty years. It revealed how North Sea oil could have made an independent Scotland as prosperous as Switzerland. LINK IS THE INDEPENDENT TUESDAY 16TH APRIL.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe McCrone report was a UK Government document which was written and researched at the Scottish Office (St. Andrews House in Edinburgh) on behalf of the British Government of the day (Conservative, led by Edward Heath).

The eighteen page report focused on the likely effects of North Sea oil revenue on the economic viability of an independent Scotland. Professor Gavin McCrone wrote the paper as advice to the UK Government. The report predicted that North sea oil revenue would give an independent Scotland a large tax surplus, on such a scale as to be "embarrassing", making the country "as rich as Switzerland."[1] He also surmised that this surplus revenue would make the Scottish pound the hardest currency in Europe "with the exception of the Norwegian kronor".

Up till recently the No side said that Scotland was too poor ,,they have since changed that for use of a better word propaganda ,,but a serious amount of the less informed potential voters, deliberate or not still have that thought pattern.

Choose for yourself,think for your self

Edited by Scott
Font
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...