Scottish Referendum on Independence

Should Scotland be an independent country?

  • Yes

    Votes: 59 53.2%
  • No

    Votes: 52 46.8%

  • Total voters
    111
  • Poll closed .
SCOTS DECIDE WHETHER TO DECLARE INDEPENDENCE
By JILL LAWLESS
Associated Press

The fate of the United Kingdom was at stake Thursday as Scotland began voting in a referendum on whether to become an independent state, deciding whether to unravel a marriage that helped build an empire but has increasingly been felt by many Scots as stifling and one-sided.

The question on the ballot paper is simplicity itself: "Should Scotland be an independent country?" Yet it has divided Scots during months of campaigning - and in 15 hours on Thursday they decide on the fate of a 307-year old union with England.

More than 2,600 polling places opened Thursday at 7 a.m. (0600GMT, 2 a.m. EDT) and will close at 10 p.m. (2100GMT, 5 p.m. EDT). Turnout is expected to be high, with more than 4.2 million people registered to vote - 97 percent of those eligible.

Polls suggest the result is too close to call, with the pro-independence Yes side gaining momentum in the final weeks of the campaign.

First Minister Alex Salmond was casting his vote near his home in northeastern Scotland. If the Yes side prevails he will realize a long-held dream of leading his country to independence after an alliance with England formed in 1707.

Anti-independence leaders including former Prime Minister Gordon Brown have implored Scots not to break their links with the rest of the United Kingdom.

On a foggy morning in Scotland's capital, Edinburgh, a heavy stream of voters began arriving at a polling station in the city center the moment it opened.

One of the first, Anne Seaton, said she had voted Yes - "because why not?"

"Scotland got under the English Parliament by mischance," in 1707, she said. "It's time now for Scotland to make a deliberate decision for independence."

Voters expressed a mixture of excitement and apprehension about Scotland's choice.

Thomas Roberts said he had voted Yes because he felt optimistic about its future as an independent country.

"Why not roll the dice for once?" he said.

Once the polls close, ballot boxes will be transported to 32 regional centers for counting of the votes. The result is anticipated Friday morning.

Roberts said he was looking forward to watching the results in a pub, many of which are staying open overnight.

"I'm going to sit with a beer in my hand watching the results coming in," Roberts said.

But financial consultant Michael MacPhee, a No voter, said he would observe the returns coming in "with anxiety."

He said Scottish independence was "the daftest idea I've ever heard."


Source : Sapa-AP /gm
Date : 18 Sep 2014 11:20
 
I was just pointing out that they weren't bailed out by England or and English bank nor do England own 20% of the RBoS :)

Oh, and about your other point, here's a verse from God Save the King added AFTER the Union...

Lord, grant that Marshal Wade,
May by thy mighty aid,
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
And like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush,
God save the King.

Speaking about the regality of it all....if the yes, make it....will Scotland become a republic, if so... do they dump old Lizzy as well?
 
The first sign that you are part of a cult, is when they tell you everyone else is lying :D
 
Speaking about the regality of it all....if the yes, make it....will Scotland become a republic, if so... do they dump old Lizzy as well?

No. Liz was crowned as Queen of the Scots in a separate ceremony in Edinburgh.
 
I read everyones view (that makes it on the front page of Google News). I dont specifically go to their website. I just click on the top 10 links they supply.
I tend to dig deeper as in this particular poll, the media coverage is far from even. So I click on the '538 articles' and look at the headlines there
 
I read everyones view (that makes it on the front page of Google News). I dont specifically go to their website. I just click on the top 10 links they supply.
And for the record, I have a distinct dislike for the SNP and a lot of their leadership. As much as my dislike for the Tories.
 
I tend to dig deeper as in this particular poll, the media coverage is far from even. So I click on the '538 articles' and look at the headlines there

Its not a requirement of media to be even. Its not like 50% of newspapers support ISIL :D
 
Gonna see me doing an all nighter on this one, solved the no drinking problem...... I have all the ingredients for Irish Coffee Galore at my disposal!

:whistle:
 
Excuse the language, but this really made me laugh now. I reckon if Begbie had his way, it'd be a Yes landslide....

10704824_1561685777388247_1380083616_n.jpg
 
Its not a requirement of media to be even. Its not like 50% of newspapers support ISIL :D
True, but if you form your judgement without reading the 10% that is on the other side of the 'wall' , that judgement is fundamentally flawed. It doesn't mean you have to agree with it, but due diligence is required

Puns intended


Edit : And then you miss out on articles like this http://edition.presstv.ir/iphone/detail.aspx?id=379133 :D
 
Last edited:
Could you link to the information so I can become more educated. As I understand it, things used to be a lot worse. These used to be a verse in God save the queen that used to have to do with conquering the scots and there even worse things.

I do know the Scottish bank was bailed out by the the english banks and I think they own 20% of the bank of Scotland, so I understand some reform happened, but I thought that was post Blair. But yeah, Ill become more educated when you can link the wikipedia literature.
I don't think you are following the argument.

Until 2009 Scotland and England & Wales shared the House of Lords as their final appellate court acting in the instance of England & Wales under the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty and in the case of Scotland under the legal doctrine of petitioning the Law Lords (the right of appeal in Scots law being restricted in comparison to English law). Today following the 2005 reforms (which were a long project starting in 1997 by New Labour)

Labour's plan has always been (at least since the Future of Socialism) to create a situation in which real power is "democratized" (by which they simply mean subjected to the control of whoever comes to steal an election) whilst welfare is teated out from layer to layer. So devolve healthcare, schooling (which is not the same thing as education) and a whole bunch of secondary concerns to the regions while nationalizing for the central government control of the judiciary (one of the small consequences of devolution has been that the Scottish Courts now require the approval of politicians to enact legislation affecting the courts, in the past it was simply tabled) while centralizing revenue and let the politicians decide who gets how much money based on the outcome of an election.

Until 1998 Scotland had depended on MacCormick which asserted that Scots Law did not receive Parliamentary Sovereignty (there is a doctrine of supremacy and a very interesting academic point to be had concerning Scots and Roman-Dutch Law which is for a heavy debate on constitutional law): "the Lord Advocate conceded this point by admitting that the Parliament of the United Kingdom 'could not' repeal or alter [certain] 'fundamental and essential' conditions" of the Act of Union" (quoted from Wiki - I have however studied the judgment but years ago). After the Human Rights Act, Labour made it very clear that "moving forward" the constitutional reforms of the United Kingdom took precedence over the stuffy nonsense of the Acts of the Union. Well lets face it their little experiment of forcing the "modernization" of the United Kingdom with a to hell with ancient institutions has backfired.

Until recently a company having domicile in Scotland had implication that differed it to a company having domicile in England this changed - at the behest of business actually, really got to love how big government loves big business. The one overriding fear mongering aspect is that businesses will relocate their domicile to England, of course if Scotland decides to be more friendly to business then they'll stay.

Edinburgh is a massive banking centre but really to large banks that beyond name are not part of a Scottish identity any more. The SNP is able to play on English bankers having stolen Scottish names and partying up in Edinburgh.

Most of the changes can be attributed to the fact that the Labour are too stupid to understand two different legal systems but most of it stems from a grand illusion that underlies all post-Soviet socialism namely that conformity and uniformity imposed "on the fringe" is a good thing. It isn't.
 
And for the record, I have a distinct dislike for the SNP and a lot of their leadership. As much as my dislike for the Tories.
I don't think many sane people like the SNP and their leadership are the "lesser of evils" as far as most are concerned

what will be interesting is how strongly their national-socialism persists in the event of a YES vote.
 
I don't think many sane people like the SNP and their leadership are the "lesser of evils" as far as most are concerned

what will be interesting is how strongly their national-socialism persists in the event of a YES vote.

I must be mental then, I was a member in my late teens early 20s :)
 
I don't think many sane people like the SNP and their leadership are the "lesser of evils" as far as most are concerned

what will be interesting is how strongly their national-socialism persists in the event of a YES vote.

And that is what i was trying to explain to ghoti, this will be the largest benefit for Scotland if the Yes vote wins.

Their politics will normalise as the independence issue will be off the table. Parties will be chosen based on their ability to run the country rather than a common dislike of someone else
 
For me it doesnt make sense for Blair (strong labour) to mess around too much with his support base, so if he did something that removed important "real" Scottish institutions from Scotland, I want to understand the context (like did the swop out something invalid and fossilized for more streamlined system or did they remove legitimate institutions to screw over the Scots) and why the really strong labour base in Scotland did not stop him.
Law of unintended consequences - its the real bitch for utopian punters

What he did was weaken traditional British institutions (both English and Scottish) and made the goal of the government to deliver services rather than to serve the soveriegn in the discharge of the solemn duty. He streamlined out military regalia that had been pivotal to Scottish identity within the armed forces (you'll notice that the Yes campaign want Scotland to have its own defence force) so that he could join the war. He wanted to impose greater central government control on the University and so pissed on the ancient Scottish universities (that particular move was soon aborted). His goal was to grow and devolve welfare while taking away sovereignty (as I said earlier in the 19th century Scottish sovereignty was presumed, things complicated with the League of Nations and the Commonwealth but after 1998 it was government policy that Scotland was not sovereign). Blair's ideology makes things like a separate Scottish heraldic service as anathema as the existence of an English one.

The trouble with uniting people behind a socialist political agenda is when you run out of the means to satisfy the promises. The SNP can promise as much socialism as Labour and are doing so with the added advantage of nationalist propaganda.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X