Scottish Independance

Gamers can also use this forum to chat about any game related subject, news, rumours etc.

Moderator: maddog986

User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 15067
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Scottish Independance

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

'Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,-- most sacred right--a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit.'

Abraham Lincoln [X(]
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
vonRocko
Posts: 1454
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 12:05 pm

RE: Scottish Independance

Post by vonRocko »

"Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit."
I tried this with my home once, but:

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better" I had the inclination, but not the power.[:(]
User avatar
Missouri_Rebel
Posts: 3062
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 11:12 pm
Location: Southern Missouri

RE: Scottish Independance

Post by Missouri_Rebel »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

'Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,-- most sacred right--a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit.'

Abraham Lincoln [X(]


Sure changed his tune 13 short years later.
**Those who rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul
**A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have-Gerald Ford
User avatar
JudgeDredd
Posts: 8362
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 7:28 pm
Location: Scotland

RE: Scottish Independance

Post by JudgeDredd »

He certainly did [:)]
Alba gu' brath
Alchenar
Posts: 359
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 11:17 am

RE: Scottish Independance

Post by Alchenar »

Once you count the slaves, the south doesn't really count as a popular revolution.
User avatar
catwhoorg
Posts: 686
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Location: Uk expat lving near Atlanta

RE: Scottish Independance

Post by catwhoorg »

Ah yes, but by that document enshrined above all others, the US constitution.

'Other persons' didn't count (well counted at a fraction for determining congressional districts etc).


Image
Aurelian
Posts: 4078
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm

RE: Scottish Independance

Post by Aurelian »

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

'Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,-- most sacred right--a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit.'

Abraham Lincoln [X(]


Sure changed his tune 13 short years later.

Texas v White (1869) SCOTUS held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".
Building a new PC.
danlongman
Posts: 584
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:36 pm
Location: Over the hills and far away

RE: Scottish Independance

Post by danlongman »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War
This was a nasty bit of violence precipitated directly by the dissolution of the USSR.
You could argue the American Civil War was fought between two distinct nations following
the secession of those who considered themselves entitled to do so. My point was that
even a peaceful accommodation costs more in time, money and recriminations than anybody
ever allows for when they dream their dreams. It just isn't easy. Just costs more, takes longer
and steps on more toes than anyone ever predicts when they are pushing it.
"Patriotism: Your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." - George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Scottish Independance

Post by warspite1 »

One further point I would like to make - and I guess its less of a point but more of a question.

As I understand it, an independent Scotland would vote for EU membership.

If that is right, here is the bit that I find really puzzling and leads to my question.

Firstly the EU, regardless of whatever the "official" line is, is an organisation devoted to ultimately creating a United States of Europe. When Britain voted to enter the Common Market (or not) we were never told this - but of course that was the point (as it would frighten voters off). Instead, with every passing year so more and more sovereignty of the member states is ceded to Brussels.

With that being the case, why are Scots (those who want an independent Scotland) desperate to throw off the "shackles of Westminster", but quite happy to be ruled by Brussels?
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Alchenar
Posts: 359
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 11:17 am

RE: Scottish Independance

Post by Alchenar »

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
Texas v White (1869) SCOTUS held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".

Texas v White is an incredibly political decision though, there isn't any high order legal philosophy there (there is also a practical element, if they'd decided differently then the result would have been the Federal government funding the rebellion by one remove).



warspite1 I think it's perfectly tenable to accept that we live in a globalised age in which certain high order elements of sovereignty have to be pooled with neighbours in order to encourage trade and remain competitive, while at the same time wanting a higher degree of local sovereignty. There's no inconsistency there. The UK is in the EU right now and our elections matter, therefore obviously a Scotland in the EU's elections would matter as well.
User avatar
Orm
Posts: 32013
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 7:53 pm
Location: Sweden

RE: Scottish Independance

Post by Orm »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

One further point I would like to make - and I guess its less of a point but more of a question.

As I understand it, an independent Scotland would vote for EU membership.

If that is right, here is the bit that I find really puzzling and leads to my question.

Firstly the EU, regardless of whatever the "official" line is, is an organisation devoted to ultimately creating a United States of Europe. When Britain voted to enter the Common Market (or not) we were never told this - but of course that was the point (as it would frighten voters off). Instead, with every passing year so more and more sovereignty of the member states is ceded to Brussels.

With that being the case, why are Scots (those who want an independent Scotland) desperate to throw off the "shackles of Westminster", but quite happy to be ruled by Brussels?
But are they not already ruled by Brussels?
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

A government is a body of people; usually, notably, ungoverned. - Quote from Firefly
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Scottish Independance

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Alchenar
ORIGINAL: Aurelian
Texas v White (1869) SCOTUS held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".

Texas v White is an incredibly political decision though, there isn't any high order legal philosophy there (there is also a practical element, if they'd decided differently then the result would have been the Federal government funding the rebellion by one remove).



warspite1 I think it's perfectly tenable to accept that we live in a globalised age in which certain high order elements of sovereignty have to be pooled with neighbours in order to encourage trade and remain competitive, while at the same time wanting a higher degree of local sovereignty. There's no inconsistency there. The UK is in the EU right now and our elections matter, therefore obviously a Scotland in the EU's elections would matter as well.
warspite1

No you don't understand - or I have not made myself clear.

Encouraging trade and stopping the chances of future wars (both a good thing) is entirely different to a Federal States of Europe. The latter involves the effective passing of sovereignty to an undemocratic monolith in Brussels.

What Scotland have a the moment is a union with England in which they have MP representation (commensurate with their size) in Westminster, together with a lot of devolved power to rule themselves.

What both England and Scotland have at the moment is the power of Westminster being gradually more and more eroded by the power of Brussels. There will come a point where we will effectively lose our Sovereignty. Its happening, has been happening for many years, and will not stop until a United States of Europe has been achieved.

The question stands - why is extracting themselves from the Union (and remember it is a Union) of such vital importance, but ultimate rule by Brussels is fine?
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Alchenar
Posts: 359
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 11:17 am

RE: Scottish Independance

Post by Alchenar »

Because given the United States of America works quite well and still provides for a wide range of local autonomy, why would a similar arrangement for Europe so terrible?

The benefits of the single market are so vast that no reasonable and well informed person would choose to forego them, which is why Norway and Switzerland, despite not being members of the EU, implement all EU legislation so they can have access to the EEA.
User avatar
JudgeDredd
Posts: 8362
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 7:28 pm
Location: Scotland

RE: Scottish Independance

Post by JudgeDredd »

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: warspite1

One further point I would like to make - and I guess its less of a point but more of a question.

As I understand it, an independent Scotland would vote for EU membership.

If that is right, here is the bit that I find really puzzling and leads to my question.

Firstly the EU, regardless of whatever the "official" line is, is an organisation devoted to ultimately creating a United States of Europe. When Britain voted to enter the Common Market (or not) we were never told this - but of course that was the point (as it would frighten voters off). Instead, with every passing year so more and more sovereignty of the member states is ceded to Brussels.

With that being the case, why are Scots (those who want an independent Scotland) desperate to throw off the "shackles of Westminster", but quite happy to be ruled by Brussels?
But are they not already ruled by Brussels?

The vote for Independence is about removing the fiscal shackles of Westminster and having a country who's vote counts.

You are assuming the people of Scotland want to be in the EU. I do not know that they do either way and have not seen any polls to suggest they do or do not...but that is a future question.

The Independence drive is fuelled by a very successful and relatively respected government in power in Holyrood. They are respected because they have stuck to their manifesto which got them elected. That is why they had a landslide victory.

What Scotland has at the moment is a government in Holyrood it voted for overwhelmingly but which is tethered by a government they didn't vote for in Westminster.

Now - to the EU.

The fact that the SNP is driving Independence means they are putting their future plans on the table. They want to, but are also being kind of forced to. I've seen all sorts of "independent" debates gunning for them and focussing on issues which, for the most part, are not related to independence - but are an SNP's view of Scotland...something which may or may not bear fruit.

For example - the SNP have stated they will remove the Nuclear deterrent from Scotland.
They have stated they will remove the bedroom tax.
They have stated they would apply to be a member of the EU.

They have stated many things in their white paper.
They have done so because they are the party in power and they are stressing, time and again, this is their vision IF THEY ARE RE-ELECTED IN AN INDEPENDENT SCOTLAND in 2016

But they may not be. Independence will take about 18 months apparently to be effected and in that time all things relating to the union will have to be debated and argued.

Again - they may not be in power in 2016. It could be a new government in Scotland may well take Scotland out the EU. No-one (afaik) has asked the Scottish people if they wish to be in the EU! The new government in 2016 in Scotland may well keep the Nuclear deterrent.

But in direct answer to your question - the EU does not control Scotland's fiscal policies. Westminster does. Scotland may well apply to the EU for membership and in a few years time, if it looks like it's becoming more federal and/or they are sticking their beaks into fiscal matters that directly affect Scotland's ability to grow then they may well opt out of that then also.

For the record, a lot of people do not like Alex Salmond. A lot of voters are going to vote no because of that...however more and more people are understanding, regardless of how the Better Together campaign paint it, that the vote is NOT a vote for Alex Salmond or the SNP - it is PURELY a vote for Independence.

I have watched Westminster dismantle Scotland's industry (and lay waste to a lot of the North of England also!). I have watched Westminster introduce the Poll Tax in Scotland to "see how it goes". I have watched Westminster reduce the Armed forces to a shell, and further do so. I have watched Westminster waste millions (billions) on worthless contracts. I watched Westminster waste billions on Black Wednesday. I watched Westminster loot the gold reserves. I watched Westminster stand there and say "we're in it together" whilst removing a 5p in the pound for people earning £150,000 and punishing the most vulnerable in our society. I watched Somerset sit underwater for months with virtually no acknowledgment from Westminster and saw them come out and say "Money is no object" as soon as the Thames threatened it's banks.

Those are the things I have witnessed from Westminster. It's time for a change and Scotland has the chance to do it.

It may not result in change...afterall, who really trusts any of these buggers - but it's a chance. And we can always vote them out...unlike Westminster where, again, we rarely affect the vote.
Alba gu' brath
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Scottish Independance

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

Because given the United States of America works quite well and still provides for a wide range of local autonomy, why would a similar arrangement for Europe so terrible?

The benefits of the single market are so vast that no reasonable and well informed person would choose to forego them, which is why Norway and Switzerland, despite not being members of the EU, implement all EU legislation so they can have access to the EEA.
warspite1
The benefits of the single market are so vast that no reasonable and well informed person would choose to forego them

Correct and 100% agree - except that is not what I am talking about [&:]
Because given the United States of America works quite well and still provides for a wide range of local autonomy, why would a similar arrangement for Europe so terrible?

Because the circumstances are quite different.

Whilst I believe, for reasons stated previously that those that want the Yes vote are wrong, I can at least understand it - there is an emotional wish for it to happen.

But to swap London (where Scotland has a very good level of say) for Brussels (where that won't be the case) makes no sense whatsoever.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Scottish Independance

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: warspite1

One further point I would like to make - and I guess its less of a point but more of a question.

As I understand it, an independent Scotland would vote for EU membership.

If that is right, here is the bit that I find really puzzling and leads to my question.

Firstly the EU, regardless of whatever the "official" line is, is an organisation devoted to ultimately creating a United States of Europe. When Britain voted to enter the Common Market (or not) we were never told this - but of course that was the point (as it would frighten voters off). Instead, with every passing year so more and more sovereignty of the member states is ceded to Brussels.

With that being the case, why are Scots (those who want an independent Scotland) desperate to throw off the "shackles of Westminster", but quite happy to be ruled by Brussels?
But are they not already ruled by Brussels?

The vote for Independence is about removing the fiscal shackles of Westminster and having a country who's vote counts.

You are assuming the people of Scotland want to be in the EU. I do not know that they do either way and have not seen any polls to suggest they do or do not...but that is a future question.

The Independence drive is fuelled by a very successful and relatively respected government in power in Holyrood. They are respected because they have stuck to their manifesto which got them elected. That is why they had a landslide victory.

What Scotland has at the moment is a government in Holyrood it voted for overwhelmingly but which is tethered by a government they didn't vote for in Westminster.

Now - to the EU.

The fact that the SNP is driving Independence means they are putting their future plans on the table. They want to, but are also being kind of forced to. I've seen all sorts of "independent" debates gunning for them and focussing on issues which, for the most part, are not related to independence - but are an SNP's view of Scotland...something which may or may not bear fruit.

For example - the SNP have stated they will remove the Nuclear deterrent from Scotland.
They have stated they will remove the bedroom tax.
They have stated they would apply to be a member of the EU.

They have stated many things in their white paper.
They have done so because they are the party in power and they are stressing, time and again, this is their vision IF THEY ARE RE-ELECTED IN AN INDEPENDENT SCOTLAND in 2016

But they may not be. Independence will take about 18 months apparently to be effected and in that time all things relating to the union will have to be debated and argued.

Again - they may not be in power in 2016. It could be a new government in Scotland may well take Scotland out the EU. No-one (afaik) has asked the Scottish people if they wish to be in the EU! The new government in 2016 in Scotland may well keep the Nuclear deterrent.

But in direct answer to your question - the EU does not control Scotland's fiscal policies. Westminster does. Scotland may well apply to the EU for membership and in a few years time, if it looks like it's becoming more federal and/or they are sticking their beaks into fiscal matters that directly affect Scotland's ability to grow then they may well opt out of that then also.

For the record, a lot of people do not like Alex Salmond. A lot of voters are going to vote no because of that...however more and more people are understanding, regardless of how the Better Together campaign paint it, that the vote is NOT a vote for Alex Salmond or the SNP - it is PURELY a vote for Independence.

I have watched Westminster dismantle Scotland's industry (and lay waste to a lot of the North of England also!). I have watched Westminster introduce the Poll Tax in Scotland to "see how it goes". I have watched Westminster reduce the Armed forces to a shell, and further do so. I have watched Westminster waste millions (billions) on worthless contracts. I watched Westminster waste billions on Black Wednesday. I watched Westminster loot the gold reserves. I watched Westminster stand there and say "we're in it together" whilst removing a 5p in the pound for people earning £150,000 and punishing the most vulnerable in our society. I watched Somerset sit underwater for months with virtually no acknowledgment from Westminster and saw them come out and say "Money is no object" as soon as the Thames threatened it's banks.

Those are the things I have witnessed from Westminster. It's time for a change and Scotland has the chance to do it.

It may not result in change...afterall, who really trusts any of these buggers - but it's a chance. And we can always vote them out...unlike Westminster where, again, we rarely affect the vote.
warspite1

Right, I wanted a Scots view on this and got it so thank-you - and certain points make sense(as I said in post 75, I can at least understand where the motivation for independence comes from).

I would hope that having got rid of us, you will vote the same way about Brussels - at least then I will know it wasn't personal [;)]

It is clear that we will never agree on most points as we come from different sides of the political landscape - the rubbish about dismantling Scottish industry for example [:-] and that if you think money was wasted on Black Wednesday, just imagine if you had achieved independence pre the credit crunch [X(]. Don't think about that too hard or it will give you nightmares. But we are in complete agreement on the introduction of the Poll Tax in Scotland . That sort of thing was just designed to make the Scots think the English don't care [:(]

As I said, I hope for the sake of Scotland that the vote is no (I genuinely think it will be a total disaster) but if it is a yes, then let's hope I'm wrong.





Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Alchenar
Posts: 359
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 11:17 am

RE: Scottish Independance

Post by Alchenar »

Except Scotland doesn't have much say in London and no say whatsoever in Brussels, despite being in the EU right now.

As I posted earlier, if we accept it's pretty much inevitable that some powers are going to shift 'upwards' from nation states to supra-national bodies then there's no inconsistency in wanting to shift other powers 'downwards' towards more local bodies.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Scottish Independance

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

Except Scotland doesn't have much say in London and no say whatsoever in Brussels, despite being in the EU right now.

As I posted earlier, if we accept it's pretty much inevitable that some powers are going to shift 'upwards' from nation states to supra-national bodies then there's no inconsistency in wanting to shift other powers 'downwards' towards more local bodies.
warspite1

No this is not what I am saying [&:]

In terms of what Scotland can do now (which is not enough for the Yes voters) well this is what they will end up with - or less - when the European project gears up.

But as Judgedredd says, may be they will be consistent and vote to remove themselves from the EU at that time.

As for the Scotland doesn't have much say in London...

Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
JudgeDredd
Posts: 8362
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 7:28 pm
Location: Scotland

RE: Scottish Independance

Post by JudgeDredd »

It's definitely not personal.

I most definitely have a sense of "Britishness".

As I've said before, I was a serving member of Her Majesty's British Army. I "pre-voluntary released" in May 1990. I paid £700 to exit from my 9 year contract because they were sending me to Germany and I had been going out with a young English lass for a couple of years...so I PVR'ed so I could stay with my girlfriend who is now my wife...26 years on...so I think I made the right call.

Having PVR'ed in May 1990, I tried to sign up again in September 1990 because I found out my unit was going to Iraq. Not because I was a hero...but because those were the lads I served with...English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish...they were all there. I declined their 3 year contract.

I am a proud Brit. But my pride in my country comes before all and as far as I can remember, I always wanted Scotland to be it's own country and stand on it's own two feet - like I believe it can and I hope it will.

But peace to all...regardless [&o]

Alba gu' brath
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 15067
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Scottish Independance

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Texas v White (1869) SCOTUS held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".

I doubt the British Crown was very receptive to the legality of the American Revolution, either.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”