- Joined
- Jan 19, 2009
- Messages
- 9,251
- Reaction score
- 7,297
I'm not sure I want to wait until next April. I think it needs to happen sooner rather than later.
Scotland's Referendum 2014
- Thread starter Godyth
- Start date
I'm not sure I want to wait until next April. I think it needs to happen sooner rather than later.
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2009
- Messages
- 9,251
- Reaction score
- 7,297
I don't think you should take people out of the equation just because you think they might vote a certain way.
In any event, I know more English who would yes than no, funnily enough (at least in my circles).
Anyway, looks like the NO's have got the vote. Bookies will give you 10/3 on a YES vote now. Suspect we'll wake up to a NO.
In any event, I know more English who would yes than no, funnily enough (at least in my circles).
Anyway, looks like the NO's have got the vote. Bookies will give you 10/3 on a YES vote now. Suspect we'll wake up to a NO.
Well, considering that Scotland has roughly 5 Million (give or take) to England's approximately 53 million (again, give or take a few), that would hardly be fair. They'd never get their independence if that was the case.
Seeing how this is a referendum on Scottish independence, then it's only fair that Scottish citizens are the ones to vote.
Adding to that, if it is a no vote, then it will be a Scottish decision.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2009
- Messages
- 9,251
- Reaction score
- 7,297
Having said that. If you look at it from another angle. 5 million people will decide the fate of the other 53 million. This isn't just about Scotland, this is a a country being broken.
mirandashell
Banned
Ermm.... it's not, IMO. It's a Union between countries. And in the history of Great Britain it's not that long a union.
And I agree that only Scotland should vote as it's about their independence, not ours. How it shakes out will be interesting to see but I don't think I, as an English person, should get to decide the fate of another nation. I wouldn't want them voting on mine.
And I agree that only Scotland should vote as it's about their independence, not ours. How it shakes out will be interesting to see but I don't think I, as an English person, should get to decide the fate of another nation. I wouldn't want them voting on mine.
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2009
- Messages
- 9,251
- Reaction score
- 7,297
With respect, I disagree. We've shared an army, an economy, a common language, a currency, etc, etc. Yes, Scotland has a very strong cultural identity, but if you look at everyone's DNA, we're probably all a mix of English, Scots, Welsh, and Irish. Like it or not, it's part of the United Kingdom.
Yes, it makes sense that Scotland should be the ones who vote, but it doesn't prevent a sense of frustration that this country could be changed forever and the majority of the population are powerless and have to watch what happens.
(I'm going to copy my post, with a bit of tweaking, from the other Indyref discussion.)
FINAL NUMBERS
NO: 55% (2,001,926)
YES: 45% (1,617,989)
Turnout 84.59%
So that's 383,937 more NO voters than YES voters.
*retreats to lick wounds*
Nah, honestly, this win was fair play: Scotland voted, Scotland decided, and I have no problem with that. Yes still had a 45% turnout, so hopefully our concerns will still be noticed and will matter.
I'm cautiously optimistic about these results. Devolution will be good for us, change will be good for us, and I'm happy that we get a chance to change while remaining part of the union -- it seems like a good way to try and change things without throwing ourselves into an unstable environment.
However, there are already certain political parties spouting nastiness about punishing Scotland and cutting down the funding they receive from the UK (in exchange for the money they provide to it, it's all proportional). So that puts a bit of the fear in me, but as long as it doesn't become a larger trend then I remain hopeful.
FINAL NUMBERS
NO: 55% (2,001,926)
YES: 45% (1,617,989)
Turnout 84.59%
So that's 383,937 more NO voters than YES voters.
*retreats to lick wounds*
Nah, honestly, this win was fair play: Scotland voted, Scotland decided, and I have no problem with that. Yes still had a 45% turnout, so hopefully our concerns will still be noticed and will matter.
I'm cautiously optimistic about these results. Devolution will be good for us, change will be good for us, and I'm happy that we get a chance to change while remaining part of the union -- it seems like a good way to try and change things without throwing ourselves into an unstable environment.
However, there are already certain political parties spouting nastiness about punishing Scotland and cutting down the funding they receive from the UK (in exchange for the money they provide to it, it's all proportional). So that puts a bit of the fear in me, but as long as it doesn't become a larger trend then I remain hopeful.
Well for you maybe, but not up here in the NE. We have much stronger cultural and historical ties with Scotland than England. Aelfrith's (Anglo-Saxon king of Northumbria) kingdom stretched from the Humber to Edinburgh (and even Stirling.) When David I was King of Scots, Scotland stretched all the way to Durham. Independence would have been like losing a limb for us.
Have to say, I was up at 5am because I had to know (and shed a few tears of relief.) The English/Scottish Borders aren't a line in the sand, it's a vital artery of economy, culture and history.
Commiserations to the Yes Voters. I know how you feel, if it was the other way around I would be feeling the same.
That's not what was said though. What was said that Holyrood needs to start using the power (that has already been devolved to them) to start to raise their own taxes. Secondly, Cameron is looking to devolve certain powers to England which would mean only English MPs voting on English concerns (the so-called West Lothian Question.) Something I would hope would be a start of devolving more powers to the regions (which there is a strong hunger for in the North East.)
No-one is suggesting punishing anyone.
I also think that Holyrood should consider devolving certain powers to the Gaelic Highlands and Islands who have a completely different culture to Lowlands, and feel disenfranchised from Edinburgh.
mirandashell
Banned
Sorry, I meant the political union only. I should have been more clear.
And I may be just too cynical but I reckon on past history that the Government will try to quietly bury a lot of the promises made in this campaign.
I noticed on the media this morning the focus is already swinging back to England and the fight between Tories and UKIP to 'protect the Englishman' as the BBC correspondent referred to it.
The Union of the Parliaments is what I think you are getting at. The Union of the Crowns (when James VI became James I of England too) was in 1603. I think Salmond should have been honest and said all he was proposing the dissolving of the Union of the Parliaments, but not the crowns. But I imagine that would not satisfy the hard-line SNPs.
I think the BBC were stirring it this morning, expecting answers moments after the final result were announced. Let the politicians sit down together before expecting concrete answers.
mirandashell
Banned
mirandashell
Banned
I just thought... if Scotland had voted for independence, would there have been a push in the NE to join Scotland and be Scottish?
I'd be surprised if they wanted to become Scottish, but I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted an independent government. NE England gets screwed over in a lot of similar ways to Scotland -- lack of proportion in votes, lack of representation in the news, and probably a lot of other things my frazzled brain can't think of just now.
Not Scottish, or English, but I'm a little surprised Scotland didn't choose to Secede. But, hey, seems like it could've caused just as many problems as it would solve...
No, we have no desire for an independent government. I would like to see powers (such as transport, ) devolved to a regional assembly/executive, or a Minister for the North. Someone to speak up for us in London.
We're proud Geordies, Maccums, Cumbrians and Northumbrians. Perhaps if David I had won at The Battle of the Standards, then that would have been different. (And no, you can't have Berwick.)
What upsets people (particularly in places like Berwick) that because the live south of the border they don't benefit from free tuition fees and prescriptions. Saying that, the Scots pay higher taxes than the English.
Just heard that Alex Salmond is resigning.
Well, I knew it was all over when the numbers from Fife came in last night (well, just after 6am in Scotland). I'm sure a lot of Scots are unhappy and are wishing the vote had been different, but it was a wonderful thing to see free men and women engaging in a democratic process.
Tonight I'll raise a glass of Ila to Scotland. Here's to a secure and prosperous future.
Tonight I'll raise a glass of Ila to Scotland. Here's to a secure and prosperous future.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 28,750
- Reaction score
- 2,934
- Location
- right here
- Website
- www.veinglory.com
To be honest it doesn't really matter to a stereotypical american like me. Whatever they do there will always be a scotland ireland and england, which are all, "separate and independent." Yes, there is some vague notion that they are somehow unified, now, but not enough to amount to anything other than to label it an identity crisis.
Shameful evaluation to be sure.
Shameful evaluation to be sure.
Except, Ken, that this forum, while mostly made up of Americans, also enjoys the participation of people from all over the world, a not insignificant number coming from the UK. This is clearly a significant issue for them, and to be frank, they don't need to be told by an American that their issue has no importance.
If Salmond and his crew had had answers to the hard questions like 'what currency are you going to use?' and addressed these calmly and authoratively then I think Scotland would now be heading for independence. But he waved them off as 'scaremongering'. They deserved an answer and by not answering they failed to portray themselves as a 'government in waiting'.