Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Will you vote for independence?

Scottish independence?

  • Yes please

    Votes: 99 56.6%

  • No thanks

    Votes: 57 32.6%

  • Dont know yet

    Votes: 17 9.7%
  • Total voters
    175
frogwoman said:
What would happen if he did? And what do they base that on?
Click to expand...
Not meeting grounds for the referendum being legitimate as laid down in that agreement. I.e

  • be conducted so as to command the confidence of parliaments, governments and people
  • deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect
 
frogwoman said:
danny la rouge This may be a stupid question as well but is it 100% certain that the UK government will accept the result? I know that sort of thing is usually more associated with developing countries but you never know ...
Click to expand...

If Scotland insists on unreasonable conditions then England has a responsibility to its own citizens to refuse.
 
butchersapron said:
Not meeting grounds for the referendum being legitimate as laid down in that agreement. I.e

  • be conducted so as to command the confidence of parliaments, governments and people
  • deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect
Click to expand...

sorry, i meant what do they base the view that westminster might not accept the result on?
 
frogwoman said:
sorry, i meant what do they base the view that westminster might not accept the result on?
Click to expand...
Not sure whose views you're asking about? Those who think the UK govt will renege on the deal (and that could be people on either side - i think the YES vote would be quite happy for that sort of threat to hang in the air and i could see them rather helping it along) or those who are saying the stuff we saw in feb about the referendum just being the first step in a longer process.
 
butchersapron said:
Not sure whose views you're asking about? Those who think the UK govt will renege on the deal (and that could be people on either side - i think the YES vote would be quite happy for that sort of threat to hang in the air and i could see them rather helping it along) or those who are saying the stuff we saw in feb about the referendum just being the first step in a longer process.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant the people Danny was referring to who think that there's nothing to stop Cameron going back on the deal. I agree with you about the yes campaign and those threats helping their campaign btw.
 
frogwoman said:
sorry, i meant what do they base the view that westminster might not accept the result on?
Click to expand...
There was (apparent) legal opinion floated a month or so back by the Better Together side that the Edinburgh Agreement isn't binding, that the referendum isn't binding, and that Scotland isn't an entity anyway, having been extinguished by the Act of Union. It was discussed on Radio Scotland at the time.

The idea was to create doubt and confusion, and make people think "what's the point?".

I agree that spreading the idea of Westminster reneging could be seen as helping either side, not necessarily just No, but actually Better Together seem pretty adept at coming up with scare stories that help the Yes campaign.
 
Quartz said:
If Scotland insists on unreasonable conditions then England has a responsibility to its own citizens to refuse.
Click to expand...

frogwoman said:
Like what?
Click to expand...

Quartz said:
That's up to them.
Click to expand...

Westminster absolutely shouldn't have to agree to conditions it doesn't like, if it gets nothing in return. But ignore the referendum result? No, I think they'd be playing with fire there. So, yes, it's up to them how they negotiate, but it isn't up to them whether they recognise the outcome on 19th Sept.
 
danny la rouge said:
Westminster absolutely shouldn't have to agree to conditions it doesn't like, if it gets nothing in return. But ignore the referendum result? No, I think they'd be playing with fire there. So, yes, it's up to them how they negotiate, but it isn't up to them whether they recognise the outcome on 19th Sept.
Click to expand...

well it could effectively be war couldn't it? :eek: i mean that's the usual trajectory of politicians ignoring independence votes etc

you're right, i don't reckon cameron would be that stupid.
 
frogwoman said:
I find it pretty offensive seeing Alex Salmond compared to the Nazis all the time by some of these people tbh.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. First, of all, he nowhere near resembles a Nazi. If he's a Nazi, then what are all the other mainstream parties? They're all to his right! But more importantly, it's absolutely vital that terms like that mean something; that their accuracy is preserved. It is insulting to history, to the millions exterminated, to humanity if it becomes a meaningless term you apply to someone you disagree with.
 
what are the grounds for calling him a nazi anyway? i can't recall him saying anything racist :confused:

danny la rouge said:
Absolutely. First, of all, he nowhere near resembles a Nazi. If he's a Nazi, then what are all the other mainstream parties? They're all to his right! But more importantly, it's absolutely vital that terms like that mean something; that their accuracy is preserved. It is insulting to history, to the millions exterminated, to humanity if it becomes a meaningless term you apply to someone you disagree with.
Click to expand...
 
frogwoman said:
well it could effectively be war couldn't it? :eek: i mean that's the usual trajectory of politicians ignoring independence votes etc

you're right, i don't reckon cameron would be that stupid.
Click to expand...

I think no matter the result of the referendum or the response to it, there is a good chance that we will witness the death of the last unionist party in Scotland over the next couple of decades.
 
TheHoodedClaw said:
Which means that Trident stays where it is, I think.
Click to expand...
That would be unreasonable for Scots, though.

The vast majority of Scots oppose Trident. 64% when last polled wanted rid of Trident. When it comes to replacing Trident, the numbers get higher: 80% of people are opposed – including 87% of people planning to vote Yes in the independence referendum, and 75% of No voters. (http://www.heraldscotland.com/polit...en-pro-uk-voters-reject-trident-move.20481478)

It is not an option for nuclear weapons to stay in Scotland.

Why would the rUK want to base its nuclear arsenal on foreign soil? The US has a few hundred warheads in European countries including the UK (RAF Lakenheath), but only a small fraction of its total estimated 9.5 k. No other country has any of its nuclear arsenal on foreign soil.

The entire deployment system of the rUK would be outside its borders. I don't think NATO would like that.

It would be my hope that Trident would find it had nowhere to go, and therefore be dismantled.

http://www.banthebomb.org/images/stories/pdfs/TridentNowheretoGoMarch2013.pdf
 
its not going to scrap it. As for where it would go the options are limited. Its Plymouth or the Glorious Republic of New Scotland.
 
Portsmouth or Belfast seem reasonable alternatives. But to an independent Scotland it wouldn't matter. I think Scotland is foolish to be so anti-nuclear, but that's for another thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

farmerbarleymow
  • Poll
Which urban posters will be entitled to Scots citizenship?
2 3 4
Replies
119
Views
3K
existentialist
existentialist
danny la rouge
MSPs vote to allow tail docking of dogs
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Poi E
P
weepiper
Radical Independence Conference
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
danny la rouge
danny la rouge
neonwilderness
Fort William
Replies
11
Views
1K
Sasaferrato
Sasaferrato
danny la rouge
Pro-independence daily paper the National to launch in Scotland
2
Replies
59
Views
4K
danny la rouge
danny la rouge
Back
Top Bottom