what is meant by that? They (the Yes people) seem to have thought this out pretty thoroughly and have a firm grasp on what it means. I spent a dew days in Scotland in June and my informal survey shows it will pass.

They will need to shift those numbers a bit or face a debt spiral when they lose UK subsidies.

i am not sure what all the fear mongering is about.

Setting up a completely new federal bureaucracy is an expensive undertaking. I don't doubt for a second they can do it, but I think there'll be quite a bit of serious second thoughts and "I told you so" afterward. But there'd probably be that from the losing side, no matter which way it goes. It's significant that the polling is going within 2% on either side of 50%. The Scots seem rather split down the middle, which is kind of a shaky start to something as serious as splitting off from the UK.

I am for it. North Sea oil will be a boon for them. GO, SCOTLAND! Freedom is just bullshit if you can't form your own destiny.

Sheep. It destroyed people and culture. They threw out entire areas and the people died. There is a lot behind this that people need to know. My family had 15 kids

Last edited Sun Sep 7, 2014, 06:49 AM - Edit history (1)

The ultimate desire to be free is to get out of society and live in a cave with your family, or by yourself. Why don't they dissolve Scotland completely and let everyone live truly free?

... High Street's corruption and the English government's (coalition of the willing?) stupidity?

I hope Scotland goes it alone I think they can do better on their own.

Then they are doomed like everybody else... It's not England that is the problem, is global neoliberalism.

It's about the chance to create a "liberated zone".

The whole world needs to join together to beat neoliberalism, but making people stay in permanentlt right-wing entities(like the UK, and at times like the US) is making those people give up any chance of creating a real alternative at all.

That the 50% of the population that want Scotland not to split are also the people with high-paying jobs that are driving the economy, the kind of people who actually WANT Starbucks near where they live.

But that doesn't exactly refute the point I was making.

'global neoliberalism'

Some things like the Scottish clearing and the Irish Famine are etched indelibly into the collective memory and the passing years/decades/centuries even doesn't mean it isn't still resonant today.

Fact is the Scottish clearing like the Irish Famine irrevocably changed our cultures. That's not easily forgiven or forgotten.

The Irish managed to detach from England less than a century ago when many said it couldn't be done. And that Ireland would fail economically.

I wish Scotland every success with their vote.

The clearances are why Scotland is underpopulated to this day(just as the "Black 47"-the Famine-is the reason Ireland is underpopulated to this day).

There are people alive now who had great-grandparents who lived during the Clearances. It's still part of a living recent past, in the minds of a lot of people, I'd guess.

And it's an example of where "market values" end up leading, when carried to close to the logical extreme. The wealthy landowners decided it wasn't profitable for them to allow rural Scots to keep living in their own homeland. Things like that don't get forgotten.

"Centuries" = minimum 200 years. Try again.

how long ago is the late 1700's-early 1800's?

It's comparable to how the Irish relate to the "Black '47".

And the Clearances say as much about class as about nationalism, given that it was often wealthy Scots forcing their countrywomen-and-men into exile in the name of the same fixation with short-term gain that(in the U.S., anyway)leads to things like mass layoffs on Christmas Eve.

So your arbitrary attempt to prove yourself correct has failed on a basic fact.

My 'attempt' wasn't 'arbitrary', however; it was a specific point about the claim made by that post.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/within-living-memory

50% shoud not be the threshold. Perhaps 60%, at least.

That is also currently considered the acceptable margin of victory for a referendum of Quebec voters on sovereignty.

The problem with "super-majorities&quot such as 60%)is that they end up giving a privileged minority a veto over change backed by a clear majority. In cases where such change doesn't involve repressing anybody or depriving anyone of their basic rights, this becomes deeply anti-democratic. And it creates real questions as to the legitimacy of the outcome.

How could there be any democratic validity, for example, to a result in which Scotland or Quebec stayed part of their respective political entities(the UK and Canada, in these cases)when a clear majority had said they wished to be independent of them? And how would this play out(as could happen in both situations)in which a UK or Canadian election were held and the party winning a majority of seats in Parliament won that majority on the votes of the areas which, before that, had given majority support to referenda declairing that they wished no longer to be part of the entities in which voters then cast ballots in general elections involving the entire entity?

We made it. So can Scotland and more power to them.

By the time the Bunker Hill happened, over 50% of the colonial population was unaware of it.

Of course they'll "make it." That's not in question. Whether or not they'll be better off is the question they need to ask, and the answer is less obvious. If it were obvious, they wouldn't be split so evenly down the middle.

I wonder if the split is along income lines. No idea.

I have to plead ignorance on that. I know Catalunya well, but that is a completely different set of circumstances.

pp books have read indicate otherwise. Now pulp paper was only invented in 1801. Pulp paper did not come into widespread use till the 1820 but had replace linen paper for newspapers by the 1850s What we call newspaper is a result of that switch. Prior to that switch most people received news by going to church. Churches is how governments told people what was going on thus why you had state churches and the main reason who had fights over religion prior to the mid 1850s AND what is your religion is no longer important, it has been replaced by where you get your news from.

Anyway in the 1770s people went to church not only to heat religious dogma but what was going on in the world. Your church provided that news either from the pulpit or after mass when you talked to other members of your congregation. One historian called the American Revolution a Presbyterian revolution the that church supported it more than any other group. Religion was not a factor in the Revolution but who you supported reflected your religion. Quakers and members of the Church of England supported the crown.

Thus most Americans (excluding native Americans and slaves) supported the revolution they were few "neutrals" or people who did not care. British estimates were 90% of New Englanders; 2/3 of the middle Colonies and the South was split 50-50.

American gave higher numbers and at the start of the revolution controlled not only every colonial government but also the militia of every colony. Thus Support for the war was high even in the South. Clear majority wanted the war and latter Independence. You had sizable opposition but little neutrals. The churches provided the news and states tended to support churches that Supported the state. Thus people did get the news and showed up for militia duty when called into service (complaining of their service and trying to minimize the days in active service several New York militia left before the battle of Saratoga but only after they had served their 90 days and it was time for them to go home).

That shows support for the war but limits to the cost. Remember militia service was UNPAID. And sooner or later they had get back home to get the crop in. The British knew this and tried to work around those same restrictions.

Just Comments the while they did not have modern forms of communications the did not know what was going on in the world. They had ways to get the news and express they support up for the war ie show up for militia drill and show up for militia duty when called up. The people did that showing they support for the war.

Historians agree that about 1/3 supported the revolution, 1/3 opposed it and 1/3 had no great feelings about it. So it clearly was not obvious. That should never stop self-determination.

And I expect it to pass.

like the ties that bind with Mother England. Let them taste freedom like we in the US had for many years before the rich took it away.

Its seems like its going to be a win win for everybody.

One of the worst imperialists until the recent past, and still at it anywhere they get a shot, from all appearances.

I'd strongly advise against your visiting Dublin and declaring Deare Olde England 'not the problem' in front of people who suffered over 800 years of invasion and slavery at the hands of the world's FORMER master of the seas. What they did to the Irish - who never invaded anyone btw - rivals what the US did to its imported labor.

One other thing they'd better prepare themselves for next: Wales will break off too at long last. The REPUBLIC of Ireland has long had supporters there; it's where my own most recent ancestors fled one jump ahead of John Bull after Dev (in concert with England) had our national saint Michael Collins assassinated. What's that, you say? You thought the national saint was named Patrick? He's just #2.

'England not the problem', my royal Irish arse!

Not sure how soon Wales will make the break...support for THEIR nationalist party, Plaid Cymru, has been stagnant for years now.

(Oh...unrelated note, and I say this as a fellow member of the ILWU...Harry Bridges was great, but he didn't actually coin the phrase "An Injury To One...Is An Injury To ALL!"-though Harry did use the phrase and live it. It was actually originated by the Industrial Workers of the World-the IWW, or "The Wobblies".)

BTW, as an older lady I never got to join the ILWU myself but had relatives involved, including one who was Harry's West Coast business manager. Had a steel plate in his head from the Great Strike, etc. I was raised to believe and still do that anyone who crosses a picket line anywhere commits a mortal sin.

Two of my favorite pictures of Harry are of him as a young man shipping out for the States. He's barefoot on a wooden deck and in one picture has the wheel. You KNOW that was a lonnnng time ago!

Staying in the UK means accepting living under Thatcherism forever, because the Labour Party will never break with Blairism(Thatcherism Lite).

Why on Earth SHOULD the Scots give up on their dreams and their humane, democratic, progressive values?

The Strib's website won't pull up the article but the print edition said: (www.startribune.com)

[div class = "excerpt"]
Proponents of separation say it's a more modern tale. Scotland is a country booming with oil reserves, ready to conduct its own affairs. There's growing frustration among many in the left-of-center country who say the U.K.'s government began moving to the right with the election of Margaret Thatcher and hasn't looked back.

"It's not about teary-eyed Scots yearning for ancient soil, it's about hoping to live in a civilized, caring society and we've given up all hope we can do that with Westminster," said Keith Atichison a retired civil servant. "Our two nations have moved apart."


I feel the Scot's pain. If only there was a way we could escape Reaganism.

Than England to me. And to the 50% of people there.

You can't deny though, that the fight against Thatcheris is pretty much hopelessly lost in the UK as a whole.

What it comes down to is this:

Why SHOULD Scotland have to stay in a federation, a vestige of an extinct Empire in fact, in which it will be impossible for progressive, democratic, inclusive values to EVER prevail?

Why should they live, forever, at the mercy of unstoppable Thatcherites in the South of England?

As an American of Scottish ancestry, this sounds like a call to national masochism.

Thatcherism is just an example of neoliberalism, now gone global. It's everywhere, it has become the environment in which every nation lives. There is no escape by isolationism. It has to run its course, people globally getting fed up with it and resisting, and then we'll be able to move to the next phase (unless we destroy the globe in this phase).

Besides why does Scotland have to stay tied to England while waiting for it to "run its course"?

That's whacked. Especially if they have the chance to chart their own course and choose differently.

This Irish woman wouldn't dare presume to tell the Scots to just buck up and hang tight with England cause, cause, cause ... well things MIGHT get better (and let's just forget all that past nastiness shall we, hmmm?)

English conservatism is a drag on what is now clearly a more enlightened Scottish political culture and I think most of the Yes voters recognize that. It won't be an acrimonious divorce if it goes that way and the two countries will obviously retain close ties after the split. But it will be a sad day for the English left.

I can't tell if you are Scottish or English(rather doubt that you're either)but why would you be so hostile-sounding to people were fighting for something that doesn't affect(as far as I can tell)either you or anything you care about.

started to pour in and went to London, not even bothering to let the Scots smell the money on its way through.

They've decided more than once in their history that it's better to tough it out alone than to be tied to a bully who does not share.

If people are tired of the way things are, why shouldn't they be allowed to determine their own future?

in which time they'd be shut out of the common market.

continues as an independent country...it's not as though the EU would deprive themselves of the vibrant Scottish economy just to appease a vindictive David Cameron(one of the least popular government leaders in all of Europe).

Nobody knows if Scotland by itself won't become the new Greece. Need 5 years to figure that out.

gave so much money to the NO side who created a book series about inclusion just disappointed.

any of our presidential elections

as a justification to shoot his mouth and hairpiece off about this.

I happened to be in Europe a few years ago at a table where two Englishmen, one young, and one old in my group were discussing the Scottish Independence movement in
what can only be called the most patronizing of terms.

I was somewhat taken back by the level condescension they leveled at the Scots -- I say 'somewhat' because as an American of Irish descent, I'm not exactly unfamiliar with Brit condescension.

The whole conversation seemed to revolve around how the Scots were "acting like children"
how they were all "on the dole", and how, if they left the UK, they'd only have to leave Scotland to find work, etc.

It was interesting, needless to say.

I hope they vote for independence, even though I don't have a dog in this hunt. I would say that any US States that want to follow suit should do so as well.

is their chance to decide if they want to stay. All of the American states chose freely to join. Just because some of their dumber ass hats want to go stag doesn't mean its a good thing. Most of them would be destitute alone and having alien countries in the middle of our unity would be crazy. But that's just my opinion.

But, I probably wouldn't lose sleep over it either. Think about Europe there are a lot of very small countries there, it seems to work out okay for them. I don't care if Texas becomes it's own country and they find they can't handle it economically. I feel sorry for the Texans that are innocent and are stuck there, but I have no compassion for the ones who thought it was a great idea. Besides most this state thing was decided a long time before any of us was born so it wasn't like we decided if our state should be part of the United States.

Though many historians think many of the Scottish politicians were bribed to smooth the process. But Scotland was in dire financial straits after the failure of their Panamanian colony, and union got them out of that hole.

http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/scotlandshistory/unioncrownsparliaments/dariencolony/index.asp
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/scotlandshistory/unioncrownsparliaments/unionofparliaments/index.asp

Robert Burns later characterized them all brilliantly in this song:

Fareweel to a' our Scottish fame,
Fareweel our ancient glory;
Fareweel ev'n to the Scottish name,
Sae fam'd in martial story.
Now Sark rins over Solway sands,
An' Tweed rins to the ocean,
To mark where England's province stands-
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!

What force or guile could not subdue,
Thro' many warlike ages,
Is wrought now by a coward few,
For hireling traitor's wages.
The English steel we could disdain,
Secure in valour's station;
But English gold has been our bane -
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!

O would, ere I had seen the day
That Treason thus could sell us,
My auld grey head had lien in clay,
Wi' Bruce and loyal Wallace!
But pith and power, till my last hour,
I'll mak this declaration;
We're bought and sold for English gold-
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!

for one, the Scots won't be able to keep the pound, for another, they won't be fast-tracked for EU membership.

at least for the short haul. Using another country's currency is a common arrangement around the world. A number of countries use the American dollar today. The currency issue along with several others is just a bogeyman employed by union-boosters to sway the vote. Its likely a host of bilateral arrangements to ensure continued stability for both countries will follow a "yes" vote. They're not going to completely uncouple the two economies overnight.

Although the suggestion is that keeping the pound will be a temporary arrangement among several to ensure that Scotland doesn't have to create whole institutions overnight to replace those that are now integrated features of union. And there are considerable incentives for the UK to go along with those arrangements.

the Treasury, the Bank of England, the leaders of all the major parties, and the EU Commission have all said "no, you can't really do that".

but lumping them together disguises the fact that they're saying different things.

The EU commission has said "you can't join the EU while you're using the pound", not "you can never join the EU if you use the pound now".

While UK parties are really using the Pound issue as a stick to beat potential Yes voters into submission. But this assumes that Scotland doesn't have equally big sticks. Before and after the vote are two different situations. The list of things that gives Scotland leverage is long, but by way of an example, Sir James Mirrlees has suggested that Scotland could walk away from it's share of the UK's national debt if the English dig their heels in over the pound. Westminster wants Scotland to stay in the union because Scotland has lots that Westminster wants and that means Scotland has far more leverage than No-advocates will admit.

Assuming a Yes vote, after the vote is in and the dust has settled the real horse-trading will begin, but I don't think we can assume too many certainties when the declarations that inform those certainties are themselves attempts to influence the outcome.

ELKO, Nev. — A rural Nevada county will send a message the old-fashioned way to Washington about what it calls federal overreach on public lands: by horseback.

Elko County Commissioner Grant Gerber said riders will begin the 2,800-mile ride at Point Reyes, California, around Sept. 26 and reach the U.S. Capitol about 20 days later.

Multiple riders covering 5 miles each at a time will carry the commissioners' resolution touching on various issues including livestock grazing, water rights and wild horses.

The theme of the Cowboy Express ride is "regulation without representation is tyranny," he said, and commissioners hope its outcome will be an increase in local voices on public land decisions.

"It's extremely serious, but we're trying to make it fun as we go," Gerber told the Elko Daily Free Press (http://bit.ly/Wr5ypi ).

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2014/09/06/us/ap-us-range-showdown-protest.html?&hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=WireFeed&module=pocket-region&region=pocket-region&WT.nav=pocket-region&_r=0

-------------------------

kind of. XPosting at LBN.

Related message, even tho some

I also thought of an interesting hypothetical. What if independance passes and the SNP looses to Labour in the next Scottish parlimentry elections?

which is a principle reason why I, as an Englishman, don't want the Scottish to leave.

The fun would start with the next UK election, in May 2015. While the independence negotiations were going on (the SNP reckons they'll take 18 months - that's a minimum), we could elect a Labour majority government - but only a majority with its Scottish MPs (or Labour is the biggest party, but without an absolute majority). If the Tories are the largest party in the rest of the UK, who should be leading the negotiations for 'RUK'? What role, if any, should any SNP MPs, leading their nation out of the country, have in the UK government?

If an independent Scotland did elect a Scottish Labour government soon, I doubt they'd try to reunite. Too much disruption.

It's the first-past-the-post electoral system that gives the Tories their unfair advantage in UK elections.

... let them have it and let them suffer the consequences.

Of all the ideas being bandied about here as to why Scotland should stay, this is by for the most ridiculous. Let England AND Scotland be in control of their own destinies.

Well, I don't anyway. I'm disabled and a prime target for Tory "reforms" of the welfare syustem.

.... should compromise their self-determination?

Seriously, I know only a little of English politics and of that I will admit. But I truly believe that the "conservative revolutions" as ushered in by Reagan and Thatcher have just about had their day. I hope I'm not engaging in wishful thinking, but over here anyway, the signs people are getting weary of Republicans are everywhere.

Their core message is "get the UK out of the EU", but this is based on an anti-immigrant outlook above all (one rule of the EU is that citizens can go and live, and work and get benefits, in any member country without any visa or anything, and UKIP hates that). They also tend to embrace other attitudes like US Tea Partiers too - climate change denial (the ridiculous Lord Monckton was their spokesman on it for a bit), they used to favour a flat income tax (but have worked out that's a vote loser overall, so are now dropping that), and so on.

But at the moment, the Tories are looking like they may move a bit further right to head off UKIP, and Labour leads, for the whole UK, only by a small amount. There are still too many right wingers in the UK.

Immigrants form 15% of the voters and they want to maintain their prestigious British passports and want to be called citizens of the UK. They overwhelmingly oppose independence for Scotland and ... Quebec as well.

We shall see what happens. I personally favor Scottish independence. Just for Sean Connery's sake!

Are there concessions Westminster could offer that would tip the vote toward "no" and continued union? Or is it too late for that?

And NONE of the major parties at Westminster-Conservative, "Liberal Democrat" or "Labour" are ever going to do that.

All three have shown, by their deeds, that they would objectively prefer to have Scotland leave than to re-open the economic and political debate in the UK. All three have too many wealthy backers who are adamant that no alternative to Thatcherism-Blairism will be tolerated.

Otherwise the UK and NATO would be all over them as soon as they declare independence. I think that's SOP nowadays.

Am I right?



(yes, sarcasm)

of being some CIA-engineered plot to de-stabilize the UK...

Why would you imagine I would do that?

You want to see the queen? She's out touring the empire. Should be back any moment.

The alternative flag model being pitched still contains the cross of St Patrick, but there is no way that the public will swallow that. They will almost certainly revert to the English flag.

St Patrick's cross/saltire are synonymous, as is the case with St Andrew's cross (the St Andrew's cross spider is always called as such and never the St Andrew's saltire spider).

The Welsh care nothing for St Patrick, neither do the Northern Irish protestants. The Northern Irish Catholics might care, but they were never great fans of the Union Jack anyway. And the English would rather wash their hands of northern Ireland truth be told.

It will be interesting to see what will become of the Ulster Presbyterians, they were always more Scottish than English anyway.

This is the only poll out of dozens that have the yes campaign ahead.

Yes voters are also predominantly working class, meaning that if turnover is less than 100% any lead that they might otherwise have will be quickly eroded.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/scottish-yes-campaign%E2%80%99s-class-problem

I don't think any of them have this locked down just yet!

I think they may have missed a few pensioners, which is why that other poll isn't agreeing with them. Time will reveal all, of course!