The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Is Scottish independence a 'good or bad' thing?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Boab
Me neither clearly cos I have no idea what yer getting at.

Another Unionist commentator starting to worry.... http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100267634/its-time-david-cameron-showed-scots-that-england-does-care/


This story keeps getting posted by nationalists.

This is the third time in two hours I've seen it posted.

Do you get told what to post?

Kind of goes against what you're saying about media bias though.
Original post by Jordooooom
Based on what? Take it there wont be any reference to British history either seeing as you can't have that without Scotland :rofl:


Weren't you saying the other week that in the event if a yes vote we'd still be British?
Reply 8182
Avatar for L i b
L i b
19
Original post by Boab
Many times. You think the UK government will extend the referendum on EU membership to those ex-pats living abroad?


The answer is 'yes'. UK referendums are open to enrolled British voters resident abroad. This is precisely what happened with the AV referendum.
Original post by MatureStudent36
Weren't you saying the other week that in the event if a yes vote we'd still be British?


Ehh don't think so? Are you confusing me with someone else?
Original post by Jordooooom
Based on what? Take it there wont be any reference to British history either seeing as you can't have that without Scotland :rofl:


Britain will end up being the name given to England, Wales & NI so the name will still have some meaning. Scotland's minor contribution will be forgotten (I agree inaccurately) as people will assume Britain was always just E,W&NI. It's like Ireland was part of the United Kingdom until the 1920's- how many people really think 'oh Ireland' whenever they see a historical reference to the UK or Britain? They don't.
Original post by jenkinsear
Britain will end up being the name given to England, Wales & NI so the name will still have some meaning. Scotland's minor contribution will be forgotten (I agree inaccurately) as people will assume Britain was always just E,W&NI. It's like Ireland was part of the United Kingdom until the 1920's- how many people really think 'oh Ireland' whenever they see a historical reference to the UK or Britain? They don't.


The difference is though it was a Scottish king that became king of England and therefore the reason that the union started in the first place...
Reply 8186
Avatar for Boab
Boab
Original post by MatureStudent36
This story keeps getting posted by nationalists.

This is the third time in two hours I've seen it posted.

Do you get told what to post?

Kind of goes against what you're saying about media bias though.


I can't see that it's been posted anywhere on here, and no.
I don't think I've ever commented on media bias, but feel free to continue to make stuff up!

It's hardly bias anyway, the commentator clearly believes in the Union, he can just see what most on this thread seem oblivious to.
Original post by Jordooooom
The difference is though it was a Scottish king that became king of England and therefore the reason that the union started in the first place...


I completely accept the irony of it. I'm just saying history has a tendency to skirt over certain points of accuracy as time goes on. Hence my point about Ireland.
Reply 8188
Avatar for Boab
Boab
Original post by L i b
The answer is 'yes'. UK referendums are open to enrolled British voters resident abroad. This is precisely what happened with the AV referendum.


So they did. Surprising.

Though you will admit I'm sure that was easier to enforce given a British citizen holds a British passport. Defining a Scot abroad is slightly more complicated.
Original post by jenkinsear
I completely accept the irony of it. I'm just saying history has a tendency to skirt over certain points of accuracy as time goes on. Hence my point about Ireland.


Ahh, fair enough
Reply 8190
Avatar for L i b
L i b
19
Original post by Boab
So they did. Surprising.

Though you will admit I'm sure that was easier to enforce given a British citizen holds a British passport. Defining a Scot abroad is slightly more complicated.


Agreed, which is one of the main administrative challenges. UK overseas voters are, however, still geographically attached: they vote in the constituency they were last resident in.

I suppose the best solution would - if anyone actually wanted to go down this road - be to consider all British citizens resident in a Scottish constituency in the last 14 years as eligible to vote. However this would naturally include many people who had few links to Scotland: who may, for example, have lived here for a very short time.

On the other hand, I suppose those who had few links with Scotland would be disinclined to exercise their democratic rights in that situation.
Original post by Jordooooom
The difference is though it was a Scottish king that became king of England and therefore the reason that the union started in the first place...


Yeah and I don't think the average person is going to care about that.... Scotland will be irrelevant to the rUK when it leaves simple. Yeah we will trade but that's about it...
http://www.boredpanda.com/americans-place-european-countries-on-map/

I find it amusing how some people in america can't even get the UK correct now...
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by FinalMH
Yeah and I don't think the average person is going to care about that.... Scotland will be irrelevant to the rUK when it leaves simple. Yeah we will trade but that's about it...
http://www.boredpanda.com/americans-place-european-countries-on-map/

I find it amusing how some people in american can't even get the UK correct now...


Being irrelevant to the rUK and being irrelevant to history are different things though..

As for those american answers, that doesn't surprise me! :rofl: at someone calling N. Ireland 'The Shire' though
I was originally a no voter, which was perhaps drummed into me by my parents, however over the course of time things have changed.

Of course, it's all a huge risk, will we be able to stay afloat? Can we continue to fund a free NHS, paid tuition fees? Are jobs, mortgages and pensions secure? I've taken this all into account, wondering if this is just a selfish point of view. There are so many, too many people (including a frightening number of children), especially in the Glasgow area in dire poverty, relying on foodbanks. Is this the fault of Westminster?

Do we continue to allow a government we didn't vote for to rule us? Scotland is a broadly left wing country, England much more right wing. There is one Tory MP remaining, and not to forget the torture that wicked Thatcher imposed on this small nation (when we voted against her THREE TIMES). The MP expenses scandal is pretty disgusting too.

I think I'm now in the "don't know" category. The union isn't entirely broken, but it's not really working either. Salmond is also making all these presumptions, are you sure we will have the pound? Maybe if he'd asked us "do you agree with Scottish independence in principle?" and had there been a majority yes vote, he would then do his research, ask the questions then presented the blueprint for an independent Scotland.

Is there anyone out there who can sway me to either camp?
It would be appreciated.

Oh, and by the way, here's one of my favourite scenes from Trainspotting which might explain our situation a wee bit :biggrin:
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by hmainpolly

Do we continue to allow a government we didn't vote for to rule us? Scotland is a broadly left wing country, England much more right wing. There is one Tory MP remaining


The opinion polls indicate that you'll probably get a few more Tory MP's (if you stay) at the next election due to the collapse in the Lib Dem vote. Edinburgh West, Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine and Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk look very likely indeed to go Tory.
Original post by Jordooooom
Being irrelevant to the rUK and being irrelevant to history are different things though..

As for those american answers, that doesn't surprise me! :rofl: at someone calling N. Ireland 'The Shire' though


whose history are you referring to though? It will obviously be relevant to Scotland but will the Rest the world? No. Just like the US, Canada, New zealand and all the rest of the countries which gain independence. The world will see Scotland just as it sees new zealand.
Original post by hmainpolly
d.


:eek: You started them now. lol
Reply 8197
Avatar for Boab
Boab
Original post by hmainpolly
I was originally a no voter, which was perhaps drummed into me by my parents, however over the course of time things have changed.

Of course, it's all a huge risk, will we be able to stay afloat? Can we continue to fund a free NHS, paid tuition fees? Are jobs, mortgages and pensions secure? I've taken this all into account, wondering if this is just a selfish point of view. There are so many, too many people (including a frightening number of children), especially in the Glasgow area in dire poverty, relying on foodbanks. Is this the fault of Westminster?

Do we continue to allow a government we didn't vote for to rule us? Scotland is a broadly left wing country, England much more right wing. There is one Tory MP remaining, and not to forget the torture that wicked Thatcher imposed on this small nation (when we voted against her THREE TIMES). The MP expenses scandal is pretty disgusting too.

I think I'm now in the "don't know" category. The union isn't entirely broken, but it's not really working either. Salmond is also making all these presumptions, are you sure we will have the pound? Maybe if he'd asked us "do you agree with Scottish independence in principle?" and had there been a majority yes vote, he would then do his research, ask the questions then presented the blueprint for an independent Scotland.

Is there anyone out there who can sway me to either camp?
It would be appreciated.


No matter what anyone tells you, the future is unknown. The best economists in the world get it wrong more often than not. Asking for definitive answers is asking to be lied to.

Independence for me is about self-determination and wanting to take a different path from the one the UK is currently taking. I won't be significantly richer or poorer either way.
Original post by FinalMH
whose history are you referring to though? It will obviously be relevant to Scotland but will the Rest the world? No. Just like the US, Canada, New zealand and all the rest of the countries which gain independence. The world will see Scotland just as it sees new zealand.


I'm just talking about history in general... although I'd argue it is still very much relevant to America and Canada where a lot of people have Scottish ancestors.

If you're talking about Scotland standing out on a worldwide stage like Brtiain does now then perhaps, but then again who really cares?
Original post by Jordooooom
The difference is though it was a Scottish king that became king of England and therefore the reason that the union started in the first place...


I think you are confusing your monarchs and your history. James I & VI came to the English throne over 100 years before the union. A queen, Anne, was on the throne at the time of the union - and she was as Anglo as you like, having been born in London and living there her whole life (except the short period she spent in France for reasons of medical treatment as an infant). The proposal on the table now would take an iScotland out of the UK and back to having an Anglo queen.

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you