NationStates Jolt Archive

The SNP have won the most seats in the Scottish parliament. Alex Salmond, the leader has promised to hold a Referendum within 4 years as to whether Scotland should cede from the UK and become an independent nation within the European community.

Personally, I am delighted with this. I think it's agreat thing for Scotland and will be instrumental in re-invigorating all area of politics, commerce, the arts and a real sense of identity in the world. Also, the Anglo chip on most Scots shoulders can be removed.

I think it is fantastic too.

At last, getting the scots of our back. Best day ever.

I quite agree the English need to find out they can go it alone without us, also.

Fragmentation in the face of the overwhelming positive results of Union?
And here I thought it was the Irish who drank too much.

I am a geordie. So I sympathize with the scots for hating the english. But all I can see from the independence effort is that finally the fucking south east will have to prop up the tyneside.

It's really a winning situation for the north east.

If Britain wants to stay a world player and not just become like Spain or Sweden then we must keep the union. Also the Scots must realise that with a population smaller than London’s they won’t be able to keep the high standard of living they have without the union. Generally Scottish independence would be bad for both sides and is only fuelled by nationalistic pride.

Fragmentation in the face of the overwhelming positive results of Union?
And here I thought it was the Irish who drank too much.
I think you fail to understand why so many Scots want independence. Perhaps you may want to list the "overwhelming positive results" you mention.

As it is, for every seeming positive reason to stay in the union, there's a better reason for going towards autonomy.

If Britain wants to stay a world player and not just become like Spain or Sweden then we must keep the union. Also the Scots must realise that with a population smaller than London’s they won’t be able to keep the high standard of living they have without the union. Generally Scottish independence would be bad for both sides and is only fuelled by nationalistic pride.

Part of the problem is that Britain thinks of itself as a "world player" when it fact it is a lackey of the USA. I think having Spain, Sweden, Ireland Denmark etc as role models puts us in a much better position within the world. The standard of living in Ireland is notably better than in Scotland.

I would much rather be a citizen of a country which is respected within the international community, than at present, having to suffer the contempt shown to Britain by other more civilised countries, for it's vain attempts at Nouveau Imperialism by being America's lapdog.

Also the Scots must realise that with a population smaller than London’s they won’t be able to keep the high standard of living they have without the union.Assorted Scandinavian nations, Luxembourg, Austria, Belgium, Hong Kong, Singapore and others prove the opposite.

All hail to a free and independent Scotland \*_*

Also the Scots must realise that with a population smaller than London’s they won’t be able to keep the high standard of living they have without the union.

Since when has population dictated standard of living? The smaller countries of Europe have the highest standard of living in the World. Norway (4.6 million), Iceland (300,000), Ireland (4.2 million) all these countries have a smaller population than Scotland and a higher standard of lving than the UK.

If Britain wants to stay a world player and not just become like Spain or Sweden then we must keep the union. Also the Scots must realise that with a population smaller than London’s they won’t be able to keep the high standard of living they have without the union. Generally Scottish independence would be bad for both sides and is only fuelled by nationalistic pride.

It's not our job bonny lad (or lass). Let the world do what it wants, and we'l have no part of it. I couldn't think of a better outcome that the north east acting like sweden.

Just out of curiosity, can someone list the benifits Scotland get for being independent? They own parliment, and hence control over scottish insittutions. Hence why i only have to pay £1,700 in tution fees as Im going to St Andrews. (Im English, and a English university would charge me £3000.)

It is in my opinion that it would be in Scotland's immediate interests to split, particularly given the imminent rise to power of Blair Mk2, but in its long-term interests to try to re-establish the union once this New Labour/Conservative autocracy has been deposed.

Maybe I'm thinking about this from too mercenary a perspective, but i can't help thinking about how the process of independence iteself would affect me financially.

I mean noone's going to give me, being english, a say in the matter, but i'm still going to have to contribute to reprinting all the stationary, moving the fleet, sorting out an english parliament etc. etc.

And much have this has already been done in Scotland, with devolution, so it's not even as if the costs for going independent are going to be shared either side of the border.

Can the Scots really afford to gain Independence

Once the Union is gone, who are we going to blame for all our problems? England blames Scotland for giving us Labour and scrounging off England, Scotland blames England for giving us Thatcher and being used as a test bed for the poll tax. Who's going to be the scapegoat when we can't blame each other?

I am a geordie. So I sympathize with the scots for hating the english. But all I can see from the independence effort is that finally the fucking south east will have to prop up the tyneside.

It's really a winning situation for the north east.
Funnily enough, down here in the South East, people are just as keen on propping up the North (defined as anything north of Watford) as they are on propping up Scotland.

Funnily enough, down here in the South East, people are just as keen on propping up the North (defined as anything north of Watford) as they are on propping up Scotland.

There are places in Britain north of Watford?

I thought that was the mythical land of Oop Noorth, Duck?

I don't think Scotland will become independent. Despite the SNP gains, there still isn't widespread support for it (best results in history and still not a majority).

The reasons for independence seem to stem from pride, and dislike of England, with other excuses found and then rather clumsily shoved in to pretend otherwise. If Scotland freely decides to leave the Union then it would be a sad day but one we'd have to live with; I think, however, that we still have much to gain from being a united nation.

Oh, and seriously, 'the f-ing south east has to prop up the north east'? Maybe if you all stopped drinking whiskey for breakfast and got a job, you could prop yourselves up for a change. Sheesh.

Part of the problem is that Britain thinks of itself as a "world player" when it fact it is a lackey of the USA. I think having Spain, Sweden, Ireland Denmark etc as role models puts us in a much better position within the world. The standard of living in Ireland is notably better than in Scotland.

I would much rather be a citizen of a country which is respected within the international community, than at present, having to suffer the contempt shown to Britain by other more civilised countries, for it's vain attempts at Nouveau Imperialism by being America's lapdog.

Oh no, some other people have some contempt for our country, we must change the entire fabric of it!!

Independance for Scotland would severly fuck up Scotland and what was left of the UK. Economic ruin and how well would Scotland do alone in international politics? And what are all those Scottish troops gonna do in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere? Get withdrawn, hand in their UK uniforms, weapons and equipment?

Our IND is in Scotland, do we get them back?

All those maps and sings to change, what about SatNav, it's fucked enough already.

I get the national pride thing and the whole hating the poms thing. But honestly i dont think scotland could bear the cost of independence. They would have to refit, finance and everything else a new military, get their own ambassadors and all the other hangers on. Im australian and we recently had a referendum wether or not leave the commonwealth. It was estimated to cost over a billion dollars, and all we really have to do is send the governor general packing. At least we already have our own military etc.

Fragmentation in the face of the overwhelming positive results of Union?
And here I thought it was the Irish who drank too much.:mp5:

Shut up and give us back the 6 counties! You've no business being over here anyway with your tea and your cricket and your internationally recognised language :p And it's Derry, NOT Londonderry! Save yourselves some time and shorten the name.


*sharpens pike*

I think if the Scots want independence then they should get it. I don't pretend to know the ramifications of this but every country, in my opinion, should be free to do as it wishes and if the Scots vote for it, then I'm glad to see they are finally willing to give it a go.

To everyone in Scotland, I wish you all the best from here in wonderful Virginia. GOOD LUCK! :D

Since when has population dictated standard of living? The smaller countries of Europe have the highest standard of living in the World. Norway (4.6 million), Iceland (300,000), Ireland (4.2 million) all these countries have a smaller population than Scotland and a higher standard of lving than the UK.
All of those countries have a different mindset to Scotland, perhaps not so much in rural areas but defiantly in the cities. Crime, obesity and some of the worst poverty in Western Europe can be found in Scotland’s cities and a labour government has proven that just throwing money at the problem doesn’t help. If Scotland was to become independent then it would have an inexperienced government and a much smaller tax revenue coming in every year, not what you need to solve Scotland’s problems in the long run. Also look at Ireland, the country has only just got rid of the last armed terrorist organization and they have been free for over eighty years.

And whoever said that the UK wasn’t a world player, if you think we aren’t then you must also think that France and Germany aren’t either as we are on par with the pair of them.

P.S Before you start screaming hypocrite what I meant by high standard of living was things such as free university, an excellent road system and free care homes of high quality, mostly paid for by English tax money.

Scotland becomes independent. Scotland will then forever more be sucking on the teat of EU benefit payments.

Fact is that London generates a vast majority to the nations economy. Scotland no longer has the leverage of the gas fields.

Anyway if it happened there are too many professional and political institutions that require participation of all the nations making up the UK.

I don't think it's a good idea. The last thing the UK as a whole needs is to be divided up in to separate countries. All kinds of problems will arise from this.

Do the Scots actually want independance, as far as I remember the last poll I saw suggested they didn't. The majority of the SP is against breaking the Union. I think it's all just hype, though I hope the Scots don't vote it through because they feel voting against it would be unpatriotic.

I don't care, just so long as both resulting countries remain part of the EU.

As for Scotland though, they should really try their best to develop their economy beyond the North Sea oil fields. North Sea oil production has begung to decline, and Scotland will be up shit creek without a paddle as revenues from the oil industry dwindle.

I think there probably won't be independence (remember, Gordon Brown is Scottish, I believe), but it will really serve as the kick in the butt that gets Britain's government reform going.

There need to be new districts, different councils and so on. There need to be better rules for who gets which tax revenue. It's also silly that Scotland has a seperate parliament but England doesn't, leading to Scottish MPs making decisions that only affect English voters.

So there may well be a much more federal sort of UK to come out of this, which can't be a bad thing if it comes with proper rules for who gets to spend what money.

Ecenomically it's a very bad move. Although not so bad for us Brits.

Business wise Scotland is doing very well in the banking sector. With banks like Bank of Scotland, Royal Bank of Scotland and Clysdale being some of the biggest in Europe.

There are places in Britain north of Watford?

I thought that was the mythical land of Oop Noorth, Duck?
*Shrugs*

Well, that's what I'm told at every possible opportunity.

Well, Scotland becoming independent would give me something interesting to read about in the newspaper on the way to and from work, so I say OK.

I think there probably won't be independence (remember, Gordon Brown is Scottish, I believe), but it will really serve as the kick in the butt that gets Britain's government reform going.

There need to be new districts, different councils and so on. There need to be better rules for who gets which tax revenue. It's also silly that Scotland has a seperate parliament but England doesn't, leading to Scottish MPs making decisions that only affect English voters.

So there may well be a much more federal sort of UK to come out of this, which can't be a bad thing if it comes with proper rules for who gets to spend what money.
I agree, but nothing'll change. Instead of trying to accept that the UK is made up of four nations, the government is instead trying to root out nationalistic sentiment by trying to define (and impose) it's idea of Britishness on everyone. It's not working either. I'd much rather see a federal system on the lines of Australia or Canada.

Business wise Scotland is doing very well in the banking sector. With banks like Bank of Scotland, Royal Bank of Scotland and Clysdale being some of the biggest in Europe.


not to mention North Sea Oil being a nice little profit maker

Egghiccup;12612667']I know for a fact that RBS has its headquarters in London. Nothing north of Berwick has any significance n the modern world apart from jumbo sausages wrapped in donner meat and deep-fried,.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Bank_of_Scotland

I recommend you read the part that says "Headquarters: Edinburgh, Scotland" on the right hand side.

Good. Scotland ought to leave.

Egghiccup;12612714']That is just the corporate visual HQ. The real business goes on in London. The Edinburgh HQ is just a facade. I told you I know for a fact.

Excuse me, but really, what major corporation in Britain doesn't have it's headquarters in London? The geographic location of a building doesn't change the fact that it is a Scottish company.

Egghiccup;12612714']That is just the corporate visual HQ. The real business goes on in London. The Edinburgh HQ is just a facade. I told you I know for a fact.
Visual headquarters? Are you telling me that the RBS keeps a near empty building in Scotland simply to fool people into thinking it is Scottish?

Egghiccup;12612731']The word 'Royal' leaps into signifcance. The bank is an English consortium, the royal name suggests English origins. Scotland has not had a king Since James the 1st.
Actually, it was chartered (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Bank_of_Scotland_Group)by George I of Great Britain. Try again.

All this fuss from some people watching Braveheart too much. I for one will hold Mel Gibson responsible if the Union falls apart like the Balkans.

i can't see the point to be honest. scotland does very well as a part of the union. there really is no need for independence. the only thing driving it is stubborn nationalistic pride, which is moronic really. having said that, i favour decentralisation of power in every instance and the SNP are committed to that it seems. there are still overwhelming advantages to staying in the union but i also think scotland can do with greater levels of self-determination.

Egghiccup;12612731']The word 'Royal' leaps into signifcance. The bank is an English consortium, the royal name suggests English origins. Scotland has not had a king Since James the 1st.Uh... the Union of Crowns did not abolish the separate kingdoms. Indeed, it would be another century before the English and Scotish monarchies were abolished in favour of the British monarchy.

If refering to James Stuart (b. 1566) in his capacity as King of Scots then you might want to refer to him as James VI of Scotland.

edit: Hell, if you really want to be picky then you should be claiming that Charles II was the last true King Scotland. He was crowned at Scone after all.

Part of the problem is that Britain thinks of itself as a "world player" when it fact it is a lackey of the USA. I think having Spain, Sweden, Ireland Denmark etc as role models puts us in a much better position within the world. The standard of living in Ireland is notably better than in Scotland.

I would much rather be a citizen of a country which is respected within the international community, than at present, having to suffer the contempt shown to Britain by other more civilised countries, for it's vain attempts at Nouveau Imperialism by being America's lapdog.
I agree with that, I think one big thing that's pushing Scotland towards the SNP is the way in which Britain is barely even a sovereign state these days. Blair has been crawling up America's arse, trying to curry favour with them and not caring wether he jeapordises the union in the process. Perhaps if we had a party that kept us out of international problems and focused on making the country a better place to live in (I'm thinking a Swiss style thing) then there wouldn't be such an appetite for independence.

Anyway, I think people are a little early to think that the union will inevitabley break up. The SNP might be the largest party, but they don't have an overall majority, and it remains to be seen if they'll form a coalition. If there is a referendum, from what I've read most opinion polls prediect that the country will vote in favour of the union. I think Quebec came much closer to independence than Scotland, but they never actually went throught with it.

this is gonna play havoc with our flag :(

though I wonder what we can do with all the money we will be saving..hmmm

http://web.nafcs.k12.in.us/Users/SJHS/nnunnelly/documents/images/Imperialism-793564%5B1%5D.jpg

this is gonna play havoc with our flag :(

though I wonder what we can do with all the money we will be saving..hmmm


Well, while they're changing it could the Welsh have a part of? Please.

this is gonna play havoc with our flag :(

though I wonder what we can do with all the money we will be saving..hmmm

http://web.nafcs.k12.in.us/Users/SJHS/nnunnelly/documents/images/Imperialism-793564%5B1%5D.jpgWe must stop the imperialist land grabbers! They already contol huge swathes of land, such as Malta, Jamaica, Cyprus, Gibralter... and... Cape Colony? :confused:

I'm glad I now know the relative sizes of places like India and Malta though. :)

We must stop the imperialist land grabbers! They already contol huge swathes of land, such as Malta, Jamaica, Cyprus, Gibralter... and... Cape Colony? :confused:

I'm glad I now know the relative sizes of places like India and Malta though. :)

cape colony is the southern bit of south africa i think. the bit that isn't Boersland

cape colony is the southern bit of south africa i think. the bit that isn't Boersland
Probably referring to Transvaal, Orange and Natal republics.

We seem to be thinking they will just be allowed to walk out of the union peacefully.Alls this will do is drive people away from Labour and the Torys, who will take a much more relaxed approach and just try to coax them to stay part. So where will the average englishman who wants the union to continue go if Salmond is dead set on inderpendance? Im thinking a lot of the working class will back the BNP more and more, they will surely be much tougher on the matter.

Me personally?

I think they should be allowed inderpendance so they can come grovelling back when their oil and gas is thrown off the market by cheaper gas and oil from Russia, alls we need is for the Russian state government to open more gas fields, because if I am correct (not sure on the matter here but I have heard it before) they havent set up a new gas field since the collapse of the Soviet Union?

cape colony is the southern bit of south africa i think. the bit that isn't Boerslandie the bit by all the capes, such as the Cape of Good Hope. Makes sense I suppose. But not very imaginative...

Personally, I've come round to the idea of an independent Scotland, though perhaps not the independent Scotland that Alex Salmond desires.

And anyhoo, the Nats only have 47 seats; they're going to need all the help they can get, and that help won't be coming from their possible coalition partners, the Lib Dems.

Both the Greens and Margot McDonald, the ex-Labour Independent MSP, are pro-independence, but all parties are hedging their bets. McDonald, who was on Radio 4 about half an hour ago, wasn't instantly planting her flag in the SNP's camp. She said she'll be waiting to see where to place her vote for First Minister, and as the Nats haven't "run as much as a sweetie shop", let alone a minority or coalition government, nothing is certain yet.

And don't count Labour out just yet, it's still possible, though unlikely, that they'll form a coalition government with the Lib Dems and/or the Conservatives to keep the SNP out.

I don't think independence would be a good idea, but it must be left up to the Scottish people to decide.
In particular, I am concerned by the SNP leader's comment that independence is not necessarily a one-way street. What should not be allowed to happen is for Scotland to go independent, recklessly spend all the oil money, then come crawling back in a few years time, when that money is gone.

I don't think independence would be a good idea, but it must be left up to the Scottish people to decide.
In particular, I am concerned by the SNP leader's comment that independence is not necessarily a one-way street. What should not be allowed to happen is for Scotland to go independent, recklessly spend all the oil money, then come crawling back in a few years time, when that money is gone.

if it's our oil it's our money. i don't think the UK would be in any position to dictate how it should be spent if independence happened.

anyway, there aren't bank accounts stuffed to the gills with oil money waiting to be spent. there is oil that needs extracted and then sold. the money that is taxed off it then goes to fund development or paying off of debts, exactly what is happening now.

Oh no, some other people have some contempt for our country, we must change the entire fabric of it!!

Independance for Scotland would severly fuck up Scotland and what was left of the UK. Economic ruin and how well would Scotland do alone in international politics? And what are all those Scottish troops gonna do in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere? Get withdrawn, hand in their UK uniforms, weapons and equipment?

Our IND is in Scotland, do we get them back?

All those maps and sings to change, what about SatNav, it's fucked enough already.
I think you missed the point I made (perhaps deliberately). Scotland should act the world's policeman no more than our jumped up little UK pretends to do on the coat-tails of the USA.

Have you not heard of the UN, if Scotland needs to be involved in solving problems or conflict around the world, let it do that through the UN, along with other civilised countries.

As to independeant nuclear deterents, many other countries choose not to waste their resources on creating WMD, I would hope an independent Scotland would do likewise.

Egghiccup;12612731']The word 'Royal' leaps into signifcance. The bank is an English consortium, the royal name suggests English origins. Scotland has not had a king Since James the 1st.

Erm, the monarchy from the Stuarts onwards has it's beginnings in Scotland. Who was the mother of King James 1st in England....none other than Mary Queen of Scots.

Also just to let you know, that Scotland does not recognise Q.E. II, as there has never been a Q.E. I in Scotland, she's just simply known as Queen Elizabeth. If you want proof, then just check out any postbox in Scotland, it just says Regina Elizabeth.

As to the other tired arguments that Scotland could not afford to go it alone, get over this cliche, it just don't apply anymore.

but in fact she is Queen Elizabeth II in scotland

Scottish controversy
However, in Scotland, the title Elizabeth II caused some controversy, as there has never been an Elizabeth I in Scotland. In a rare act of sabotage, new Royal Mail post boxes in Scotland, bearing the initials "E II R", were vandalised. (Prior to Queen Elizabeth, Scottish boxes had borne the monarch's initials, but no crown.) To avoid further problems, post boxes and Royal Mail vehicles in Scotland now bear only the Crown of Scotland and no Royal cypher.

A legal case, MacCormick v. Lord Advocate (1953 SC 396), was taken to contest the right of the Queen to style herself Elizabeth II within Scotland, arguing that to do so would be a breach of the Act of Union. The case was lost on the grounds that the pursuers had no title to sue the Crown, and also that the numbering of monarchs was part of the royal prerogative, and not governed by the Act of Union.

There are also two other matters of controversy, publicised much less. First, the argument that the monarch was addressed as Your Grace, rather than Majesty, in pre-Union Scotland, and, second, that the preferred title had been King/Queen of Scots rather than of Scotland (although the latter was by no means unknown).

At the royal opening of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, the presiding officer David Steel referred to her as, "not only the Queen of the United Kingdom but seated as you are among us in the historic and constitutionally correct manner as Queen of Scots".

Future British monarchs will be numbered according to either English or Scottish predecessors, whichever number is higher. Applying this policy retroactively to monarchs since the Act of Union yields the same numbering. However, equivalent rules have not been established in the Commonwealth Realms.

I no longer support Scottish Independence because it is ridiculous and counter to me world unification views.

If the scots wish to, they should be allowed.

You'll have a loyal friend in Ireland, either way ;) .

What industries do the Scots have? I know they have tourism and oil, but if they want to succeed, they need manufacturing and technology.

A few ideas for Scotland:
Found a tech-based university - Maxwell Institute of Technology
Build some kind of major economic forum in Edinburgh
Invest in hi-tech industries - IT, biotech, etc.

If they can do this, they should be good.

What industries do the Scots have? I know they have tourism and oil, but if they want to succeed, they need manufacturing and technology.

A few ideas for Scotland:
Found a tech-based university - Maxwell Institute of Technology
Build some kind of major economic forum in Edinburgh
Invest in hi-tech industries - IT, biotech, etc.

If they can do this, they should be good.

a significant proportion of the computer type stuff industry in the UK is situated in Scotland. particularly in Dundee, and particularly game designing.

I think you fail to understand why so many Scots want independence.
Probably a laundry list of petty, archaic excuses that show their unconcern for the greater good of mankind.
Perhaps you may want to list the "overwhelming positive results" you mention.
1. Easier regulation of the economy, the environment and resources.
2. A greater tax pool to draw upon.
3. The avoidance of war and the insignificant pissing contests that nations often find themselves in.
4. Freedom of movement.

a significant proportion of the computer type stuff industry in the UK is situated in Scotland. particularly in Dundee, and particularly game designing.
Ah. Good. Though they could always use more.

What the UK needs is a shit load of reforms, maybe based on some of these points.

England should have it's own independant assembly, and only UK-wide decisions would be debated in Westminster.
Voting system like the USA, where you vote for your president, vice-president, senator and Congressman separately (in UK this would be PM, Deputy PM, MP and MSP if Scottish), with use of proportional representation for MPs.
No more privatisation of some industries and public transport.
Attract more foreign investment in areas like banking and non-nationalised industries.
More investment in nuclear power and other eco-friendly sources of energy.
Saying no to the European Constitution and the euro.
Less investment in nuclear weapons such as Trident.
No more brown-nosing to the USA.
Greater powers to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, Northern Irish Assembly and (if idea goes through) English Congress.
Lower the voting age to 16, to increase voter turnout.

This would give the nations of the UK a greater hand in their own governance.

Probably a laundry list of petty, archaic excuses that show their unconcern for the greater good of mankind.

1. Easier regulation of the economy, the environment and resources.
2. A greater tax pool to draw upon.
3. The avoidance of war and the insignificant pissing contests that nations often find themselves in.
4. Freedom of movement.
None of which would be lost and in fact more likely to be more successful within an independent Scotland.

If that is all the "overwhelming reasons" you have, then thanks for your response but I don't think you've been very convincing.

As to your "Laundry list", well I think that was petty, offensive and off the mark, itself. You offend many people who see a clear and dynamic future for an Independent Scotland in many contemporary areas with your trite refutation of other ideas which are more in depth than your response.

Finally, it may have escaped your notice that one of the reasons Labour did so badly was because of the existence of an uneccessary war that Blair dragged the Scots and the rest of the nations within the union, in to.

before Scotland gets independace wont it beeter for Enlgand to a devolved Parliament for the whole of England not bally regional assembalies

Do the Scots actually want independance.that is the question.

All this fuss from some people watching Braveheart too much. I for one will hold Mel Gibson responsible if the Union falls apart like the Balkans.LOL

If the scots wish to, they should be allowed.

You'll have a loyal friend in Ireland, either way ;) .
Thanks for that, Scotland's always been a friend to Ireland also.

Voting system like the USA, where you vote for your president, vice-president, senator and Congressman separately (in UK this would be PM, Deputy PM, MP and MSP if Scottish), with use of proportional representation for MPs.

I have to disagree on that. We've had our parliamentary system of combined legislature/executive for hundreds of years, and it's what we're used to. Why should we fundamentally change the way our country is run to that degree?

.. promised to hold a Referendum within 4 years as to whether Scotland should cede from the UK and become an independent nation within the European community.to gain Independence your referndum needs 50% +1

rigth?

to gain Independence your referndum needs 50% +1

rigth?
Yep, but that's for the SNP to decide.

Yep, but that's for the SNP to decide.
WOW... the %-needed-to-win is for the SNP to decide ?

I was under the impression than the %-needed-to-win (50+1) was pretty much standart in Democratic Referendums..

What did they use in Ukraine, Checz, Montenegro, Panama, Stonia, Luthuania, Puerto Rico, Slovakia, etc ????

I was under the impression than the %-needed-to-win (50+1) was pretty much standart in Democratic Referendums..

No, not really. A two thirds majority is quite common too.

Having said that, I believe that the UK has only had two or three referendums in its entire history (EEC membership and one in both Scotland and Wales for devolution), so there isn't really such a thing as 'common' here.

In the Montenegran election the EU specified 55% of the vote. Still seems too little to me. With such a big decision that's not going to be easily undone again, you'd hope you'd be able to drum up at least two thirds support to justify it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montenegrin_independence_referendum%2C_2006

i'd expect a 65% majority if it was me setting the criteria.

What the UK needs is a shit load of reforms, maybe based on some of these points.

England should have it's own independant assembly, and only UK-wide decisions would be debated in Westminster.
Voting system like the USA, where you vote for your president, vice-president, senator and Congressman separately (in UK this would be PM, Deputy PM, MP and MSP if Scottish), with use of proportional representation for MPs.
No more privatisation of some industries and public transport.
Attract more foreign investment in areas like banking and non-nationalised industries.
More investment in nuclear power and other eco-friendly sources of energy.
Saying no to the European Constitution and the euro.
Less investment in nuclear weapons such as Trident.
No more brown-nosing to the USA.
Greater powers to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, Northern Irish Assembly and (if idea goes through) English Congress.
Lower the voting age to 16, to increase voter turnout.

This would give the nations of the UK a greater hand in their own governance.

Coincidentally, these are pretty much the same policies that I would advocate as leader of a new political party I was thinking of creating some day.

It seems that people are realizing the benefits of the American federal system as opposed to the parliament which almost everyone else uses.

One question. Is EU membership for the scots certain if they leave the UK?

If not then I'd question the idea of independence

Another slight point that the SNP are not the government yet as there was no overall majority so they still might be the opposition so Alex Salmond can say what he likes.

Another issue is the spoilt ballot. Personally I don't see the Scottish indepence happening even though it would be economically fine with me

It seems that people are realizing the benefits of the American federal system as opposed to the parliament which almost everyone else uses.

Not really I'd say. The reason some level of federacy is being considered is because the Scots want greater independance rather than a detailed judgement on the merits of a decent system. Single issue more than anything. And to be honest there's quite a high level of federal-ness that's been in practice for years, just never been truly formalised.

I think it is fantastic too.

At last, getting the scots of our back. Best day ever.
I've been a Nationalist for 42 years and am over the moon with the result of the Scottish election. I will gladly give up the chance to vote on Independence this time round if the SNP could get the backing from other parties to rid Scotland of the nuclear arsenal which has been forced on us by the British Government. Why the hell should a nation of 5 million people be burdened with enough weapons to destroy our planet. Take your bombs, plus the remains of the Labour Party and stuff them up Tony Blairs backside. Just think, Scotland has it's own Government now and England are going to be landed with Gordon Brown, so unfortunately you won't be getting the Scots off your back, you're going to be ruled by one, and a sour pussed one at that. Hoots Mon.

. Just think, Scotland has it's own Government now and England are going to be landed with Gordon Brown, so unfortunately you won't be getting the Scots off your back, you're going to be ruled by one, and a sour pussed one at that. Hoots Mon.

really?

If Scotland becomes independent wouldn't that mean that the Scottish MP's in Westminster would be out of the job? That means Brown being mp for Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath would be null and void?

No, not really. A two thirds majority is quite common too.

Having said that, I believe that the UK has only had two or three referendums in its entire history (EEC membership and one in both Scotland and Wales for devolution), so there isn't really such a thing as 'common' here.

Wikipedia lists these (9 in total):

* Northern Ireland referendum, 1973, on whether Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom or join the Republic of Ireland (UK)
* United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum, 1975, on whether the UK should remain part of the European Economic Community (yes)
* Scottish devolution referendum, 1979, on whether there should be a Scottish Parliament (small majority voted yes, but fell short of the 40% threshold required to enact devolution)
* Welsh devolution referendum, 1979, on whether there should be a Welsh Assembly (no)
* Scottish devolution referendum, 1997, Two questions: On whether there should be a Scottish Parliament (yes); On whether a Scottish Parliament should have tax varying powers (yes)
* Welsh devolution referendum, 1997, on whether there should be a Welsh Assembly (yes)
* London devolution referendum, 1998, on whether there should be a Mayor of London and Greater London Authority (yes)
* Northern Irish Belfast Agreement referendum, 1998, on the Good Friday Agreement (yes)
* Northern English devolution referenda, 2004, on elected regional assemblies for North East England (no), North West England (vote postponed) and Yorkshire and the Humber (vote postponed)

Problem is, referenda can never be legally binding, so there's not much point in having them other than to give opinion.

Britain has no codified constitution on referendums, so its for Governments to set the Thresh hold etc. For example The referendum on Devolution in Scotland in mmmm....think it was 79'. Callaghan gave then the referendum on whether they should be allowed devolution due to the fact his government was propped up on certain issues by the SNP as he did not command a proper majority. He did however set certain thresh holds and the Scottish failed to meet these so Devolution didnt go ahead properly. Salmond on the other hand could bring the Thresh hold to say over 39% he could even set it at over 10%. This is why we need to right things like this down on paper.

As to having the US style system it all may sound well and good but turnout is so low here for a general election you would be pissing in the wind if you expected us to vote four times. Also as to Brown becoming our leader, he can piss off, bring back Tony Benn. :p

WOW... the %-needed-to-win is for the SNP to decide ?

I was under the impression than the %-needed-to-win (50+1) was pretty much standart in Democratic Referendums..

What did they use in Ukraine, Checz, Montenegro, Panama, Stonia, Luthuania, Puerto Rico, Slovakia, etc ????
What was used in other countries doesn't really matter. The UK doesn't have any kind of law, let alone a constitution, that defines the threshold needed to declare a referendum valid. The threshold would thus be defined by the Scottish Parliament by act. I can see the SNP wanting a 50%+1 majority - and legislating for that (being unable to get more support) and the UK government wanting 2/3+1.

Perhaps we might have a British Clarity Act after all...

Also as to Brown becoming our leader, he can piss off, bring back Tony Benn.
Amen to that.

I've been a Nationalist for 42 years and am over the moon with the result of the Scottish election. I will gladly give up the chance to vote on Independence this time round if the SNP could get the backing from other parties to rid Scotland of the nuclear arsenal which has been forced on us by the British Government.
What, the British government that a majority of Scots voted for at the last general election?

What, the British government that a majority of Scots voted for at the last general election?

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a364/DS16/braveheart5ow.jpg

to gain Independence your referndum needs 50% +1

rigth?

If it was a simple matter of democratic decision making then yes. However, you can be sure the anti separitists will try and stick all sorts of difficulties on to this....it could me a minimum of 50% of the electorate say, so even if those who voted agreed 99% for separation, it would still not be allowed if the anti democrats had their way.

My own view is that a simple majority of those who vote should determine the outcome either way.

I can see the case of independance. There are several smaller nation around scotland that are doing much better than her. Ireland, denmark, iceland for example. Finland and Norway, both the same size are also doing far far better. I voted SNP, not becuase i think that i want complete independance, but Labour do NOTHING for us. Alex slamond is rite they just put us down. I would like to see something along the line of a federal state, like catalionia in spain, with fiscal control and possilby even a voice in the EU. This rubbush labour kept spitting out about losing trade, i mean jesus we are in the EU, a free trrade zone, do they think us idiots. Any hoo i hope things start change its no wonder student like me make a bline for the US, EU and Oz. Scotland can do so much better.

What, the British government that a majority of Scots voted for at the last general election?
With Labours share of the vote in the 2005 General Election at around 36%, and a turnout of just over 50%, the majority of the British public did not vote for Labour in 2005; never mind the majority of Scots.

Honestly even though you get all this, 'we hate england' , 'we hate scotland'
its all a face, we love each other really :p

May I point out that if the SNP had their way anyone who wasn't a Caucasian 5th generation scot, would be out of the country.

Who else thinks that Conservatives should have a go with the ball now, Tony please pass the Prime-Ministerial football to David.

May I point out that if the SNP had their way anyone who wasn’t a Caucasian 5th generation scot, would be out of the country.
That’s just blatant nonsense.

There’s no hint of BNP-style 'nationalism' within the SNP.

Honestly even though you get all this, 'we hate england' , 'we hate scotland'
its all a face, we love each other really :p

May I point out that if the SNP had their way anyone who wasn't a Caucasian 5th generation scot, would be out of the country.

Who else thinks that Conservatives should have a go with the ball now, Tony please pass the Prime-Ministerial football to David.
I think you might be confusing the SNP with the BNP. Do you not know that one of the MP's elected for the SNP is an Indian?

As to your wish that Tony should pass the baton on to David, is that not a bit uneccessary given that Tone is a bigger tory than davy boy?

Assorted Scandinavian nations, Luxembourg, Austria, Belgium, Hong Kong, Singapore and others prove the opposite.

All hail to a free and independent Scotland \*_*

I agree, I also think a Republican Scotland, without any Royal influnece.