So, no thread on this very important issue? Scotland will soon vote on leaving the union. The polls are showing that at the moment it is too close to call. How is this issue being reported on the (almost universally shite) US TV and print media? For me I hope they vote to stay, but I completely understand why they would want to leave. Here's a minor rant I just had on FB...
William Wallace agrees! Honestly, I don't have much to say on the matter - Scottland's history gives it a hell of a good reason to not want to be associated with England, but I'm not sure what impact it would have on quality of life, economy, etc for both areas. Can you UK types (at least for the moment) give us more context on the what's, why's and wherefore's?
I have an expat supervisor who says 307 when I bring it up. Would be interesting the result of a yes vote would entail.
From what I gather they want to set up a Scandinavian petrol welfare state ala Norway. Good for them, I say, the socialists need some more white success to balance out the ledger vs their many South American failures.
Good question. I haven't read a newspaper in over 15 years and when I turn on the TV it's for entertainment, not realism. The only reason I know about this at all is because for news I do follow the BBC and other online news outlets. Also curious to see how this plays out. I predict that the "better the devil you know" factor will overwhelm and Scotland remains in the UK. But it might be close.
Most of the writing I've seen on the issue has been from Paul Krugman, who points out that it would likely be economically disastrous for Scotland to leave but stay on the pound. Scotland would be in the same situation as the PIIGS, having a foreign currency tied around its metaphorical neck, preventing its economy from getting anywhere. Meanwhile, the Scottish Nationalist Party has their collective fingers in their ears, shouting "LA LA LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU!" whenever anyone tries to point out this basic economic fact.
CNN has it on their front page. But I admit it's the international version. I don't know about domestic.
I may have to watch Bill Forsyth's Local Hero again (oil field saga). Or Gregory's Girl (the story of Stallion). or Comfort and Joy (the story of Glasgow's ice-cream war). Lovely cinema.
The long term 'plan' is to ramp up the oil production in the short to medium term to build up a fund. All the while investing in sustainable industrys. I'll post more tomorrow night but there are serious issues and questions about both options. What i would say is that for sensible people at least this will come down to the economy like every other western election in the last 25years. If Scotlands economic path was guaranteed and straight forward, it would be a white wash yes vote. However the age old quote, 'its the economy stupid' is certainly going to come into play. The no campaign has been disastrously run and if we wake up to a new Scotland on the road to independance on Friday, Cameron will be turfed out his job and he will only have himself to blame. For what its worth im currently in the undecided camp. Heart says yes. I'll expand tomorrow night when i have the time and im not half cut
I'm usually not one to argue for splitting up states (unless absolutely necessary, like in Yugoslavia or Iraq right now). But Scotland could be an interesting experiment. A blueprint for a Europe of Regions under the umbrella of the EU instead of dumb fuck ever bickering national states. I don't get all the reasons why Scotland would want to go. Geez it's been over 300 years and they are hardly under an iron thumb. I think this whole thing is the ego show of a few individuals and thus I don't think it would become a model 'region' instead of another stupid nationalistic state. Not with Salmond anyway. As for the economic model... well. Poorer countries survive. Once the oil goes, there won't be the paradise the YES crowd promises. Make no mistake; a large part of the oil money would go into building an actual country over the next decade or so. Chances are that the oil will be gone by then and Scotland has to live off tourism and whatever non-industry it has thanks to Maggie.
One problem I can see for Scotland going independent is they are likely to end up being led by a man who only seems to care about a single issue,... and would have succeeded in his goal. The rather annoying Alex Salmond
Precisely this. Lots of politics works much better on a more local, regional level. Those parts that work better on a broader, more universal level could be done well at the European stage, and in order to get that house in order, people have to get rid of the increasingly irrelevant and bothersome stand-ins on the level of what the 19th centuries called nations, having melded each one of them out of lots of what we used to call nations. Moreover, of course it should be their choice. In that regard, a close result will be unfortunate no matter which way it eventually turns out.
Well, not every secessionist movement has the same level of evil motivations that this country's did.
I'm pro-independence for a number of reasons - mainly the Scots deserve a crack at running their own place, secondly we're getting a multi-tiered union and thirdly the West Lothian question needs answering. Had we gone down a federal route many moons back we wouldn't have so much of an issue, but hey ho. Scotland leaving provides a lot of opportunity, the Scots will find it hard at first, but if they're smart (e.g. fuck the SNP right off) they could do alright if they follow the Norwegian model, especially as they're unlikely to follow the Noggies disturbing entrancement with their government. There are issues as whilst Scottish sectarianism isn't anything like Northern Ireland, that could change with a prolonged recession. There is also the issue that the two main parties are the tax'n'spend ones, which is not what you want when building up a future. Scotland has a lot of oil reserves, but so does Venezuela and that place is busy heading for failed state status, having the stuff isn't the important bit, extracting the fucker is. And on that, Norway's StatOil is every bit a vicious bastard as the fully private ones (hence why the EU fraud squad kicked some doors down), something Scotland may want dwell on. There are enough StatOil staff in Aberdeen to get pointers from. As for the multi-tiered Union, we have that with NI, but unless your Jesus you can't walk there from the mainland. Scotland is a lot different. The DevoMax that Westminster has been trotting out in panic is pretty much a bribe, and it'd mean Scotland getting a better NHS, education and social system than England. That'll go down well. The South East already gets all the infrastructure budget, so you'll see a squeeze in the North that'll get more and more noticeable as you head towards the border and people will ask why we get fuck all infrastructure improvements and fuck all social services, whilst the Scots would still be getting dicked on the infrastructure but have a rather lovely social security setup (which isn't healthy for the populace in the long run, unless you fancy having a bunch of McEloi who are more square sausage than human.) I'd like to see a strong, independent, successful Scotland, I don't want to see one where Westminster is constantly giving pressies away like a sad cunt desperately clinging on to an increasingly disinterested girlfriend.
Given the tendency for the Brits and Scots to add "y"s to the nicknames they have for things, I can understand Liet guessing that's what it was.
If Westminster is constantly giving away something for free like a sad cunt, what else could it be but press conferences?
This is your chance to be free. It may not be a bed of roses, but it will stop your lives being dictated by Westminster. It's an ages old dream of freedom. Would you piss away a chance that so many fought and died for? It's time to live and die by Scot laws made by Scots and fuck all to do with England.
