Scottish Independende Debate

[john beardsworth]

Why shouldn't they? Why shouldn't Scots who currently live outside Scotland have a view or even vote on what happens to their country? Why should the terminally-ill have a vote as they won't be around? etc Why do you presume to question who is entitled to have a view?

[PhotoEcosse]

Why shouldn't they? Why shouldn't Scots who currently live outside Scotland have a view or even vote on what happens to their country? Why should the terminally-ill have a vote as they won't be around? etc Why do you presume to question who is entitled to have a view?

Quite.

And just watch.....   If, perchance, Scots (or, should I say, everyone registered to vote in Scotland) vote NO, everyone in the world will have a view - they will be laughing with derision at the only country to turn down the chance of becoming independent. Many other countries - from USA, Ireland, etc. onwards - had to fight and die to gain independence. We have the chance to do it by simply placing a cross on a piece of paper.

[john beardsworth]

I suspect a lot of English will join that laughter....

Only country? You forget Quebec, a couple of times, and there are more obscure examples. I'm pretty sure that in most cases of peaceful separation, the referendum has only been called when the outcome wasn't in doubt.

[stamper]

I suspect a lot of English will join that laughter....

Only country? You forget Quebec, a couple of times, and there are more obscure examples. I'm pretty sure that in most cases of peaceful separation, the referendum has only been called when the outcome wasn't in doubt.

John if you re read carefully I wrote ..... entitled to vote.....?

BTW The last time I looked at a world map Quebec wasn't a country only a Province? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec

[john beardsworth]

As with your Gibraltar example, you can't be so pedantic about what a country may be. 25 years ago would we have said Ukraine was a country, as we seem to do now, or what about Poland and Finland 100 years ago? At those times one had been a republic for 75 years (but with large bits in pre-Yalta Poland), and before then they were all regarded as provinces (though bits of Ukraine were in a country called Austria-Hungary). Why is Portugal a "country" but not Catalonia except by accident of history - rebellion in one case and in the other Catalonia's King acquiring the much bigger Spanish crown by marriage? Of course, Quebec has been legally a province since Britain grabbed it from France, but many Francophone inhabitants retain a sense of being a separate nation, and it's had two or three bites at becoming an independent "country" or internationally-recognised state.

I read and very-carefully paraphrased what you wrote, thank you.

[stamper]

I read and very-carefully paraphrased what you wrote, thank you.

Thanks for apology. There are enough people in Scotland who don't seem to have made up their minds claiming that they don't have enough information. If they can't fathom it out then what hope is there for anyone outside of Scotland WHO DON'T HAVE A VOTE?.  

[john beardsworth]

What apology? I questioned your denial of others' right to have a view, extended it to others' right to vote, and now you resort to SHOUTING. Typical...

[stamper]

Just to remind you John Reply #103

Only country? You forget Quebec, a couple of times, and there are more obscure examples.

I think you prefer to dig your self out of a hole rather than saying it was a mistake and move on?

There are -  imo -  too many people outside of Scotland trying to influence - who don't have a vote - the vote. Foreign landowners who don't work "their" land productively and deny Scottish people access to it. They are scared that it will be nationalised into the common good? Last but not least, why are the English trying desperately to hold onto Scotland as part of the UK?

[shawnino]

I am wondering why someone - English or some other nationality - who isn't entitled to vote should have a view?

We get this Canard in Canada a lot in re: Quebec. "It should be Quebec's decision, and Quebec's alone", or some such.

Well, maybe Quebec will be the only ones to vote, but people in the rest of Canada have views, and the people of Quebec aren't so foolish as to leave them unconsidered. In short, Quebec might be able to vote to separate, but it'll only be in negotiations with Canada afterward where  the terms are laid out.

The Separatists in Quebec tell the people all sorts of foolish nonsense: "You can keep your Canadian passport and we can continue to use Canadian currency if we choose (as banana republics choose to use $US), but we'll have none of Canada's national debt. We will automatically gain entry into all of Canada's free trade deals and a seat at the G-8 despite having an economy a third the size of Australia's. Canada will continue to transfer billions of dollars into our province every year because they still like us. And yes we can vote to separate from Canada because we can, but no the people of the Island of Montreal can't vote to stay in Canada no matter how much they want to, because they can't." And so on.

And the rest of Canada just kind of shakes its head and laughs, knowing that won't be the way it goes down.

Voting "yes" in any separation referendum is a very risky gamble unless all the terms with the larger power have been agreed in advance. Anybody who thinks that England is just going to say "we'll do this on your terms" is out of his mind.

[john beardsworth]

Just to remind you John Reply #103

Only country? You forget Quebec, a couple of times, and there are more obscure examples.

I think you prefer to dig your self out of a hole rather than saying it was a mistake and move on?

You're just getting hung up on the curiosity of how we define a country - and note the lack of the prefix "independent" in these exchanges. Should I stick to legal niceties and say Scotland isn't a country but a kingdom, just as you claimed Gibraltar was a country and someone (you?) claimed Wales isn't a country because it's legally a principality? Which it isn't, legally, as it's just called that and is legally part of the kingdom of England and Wales. As shown in my European examples, the definition of "country" is a bit like the chicken and the egg and which comes first. Quebecois and Catalans think they are a country, as do the Basques, as did the Polish and Finns and Ukrainians before them. Quebec or Catalonia vote yes, and hey presto they are an independent state, another definition of country, so Scotland wouldn't be the first country not to choose independence. And as shawnino says, it wouldn't be the first to be laughed at for voting no.

There are -  imo -  too many people outside of Scotland trying to influence - who don't have a vote - the vote. Foreign landowners who don't work "their" land productively and deny Scottish people access to it. They are scared that it will be nationalised into the common good? Last but not least, why are the English trying desperately to hold onto Scotland as part of the UK?

Why would the English want to give it up? It's not that bad.

[Colorado David]

I am wondering why someone - English or some other nationality - who isn't entitled to vote should have a view?

So you believe there should be a moratorium on opinion of political events if you're not a citizen of said country?  Have you ever had an opinion on events in North America, the Middle East, Africa?  According to your post, only citizens (those entitled to a vote) should have an opinion.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Come on David, this is a place for a civilised discussion on what is turning out to be the huge ramifications of SI for both the Y/N sides, so no need to stir things up more than they are already.

Dave

I do not know, Dave, I, for one, am grateful for being able to read the article. My fate in humanity returns when reading articles like that. It proves one major advantage of the freedom of speech: without it, we would never know what people really think.

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

And just watch.....   If, perchance, Scots (or, should I say, everyone registered to vote in Scotland) vote NO, everyone in the world will have a view - they will be laughing with derision at the only country to turn down the chance of becoming independent.

My grandfather was Scottish with a surname of Haig and which can be traced back to the twelfth century in Scotland it seems and my surname of Hickey coming from my other Grandfather, which also has a Clan in Scotland and which again has been here for several hundred years, as well as an Irish lineage of course. So me having moved back up here after two generations, means I am probably just as Scottish as anyone else up here, albeit with a very pronounced South Yorkshire accent of course.  

So what I am trying to say, is that no one with any intelligence is going to laugh derisively at anyone, yes or no, because Scottish, Irish and English genes have been so widely dispersed around this planet, that we nearly ALL have ancestry that can be traced back to these wee small Islands. So the people who do laugh (if indeed there any), are just idiots who will laugh at anything anyway, because too many people have their roots embedded in this country and do have a genuine feeling of kinship with it and its people – which does of course include England, whether you, me, or anyone else likes it or not, and I think that is the main reason the rest of the UK do not want us to leave, because we are family.

Dave

[Colorado David]

I still have family in Wales and England.  My mother was Scotch and Welsh, although she identified herself as Welsh.  My father was English.  I was born in the U.S.  There is nothing to laugh about.  I do not have a vote and am glad I don't, however I am entitled to an opinion.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Isn't scotch the drink rather than the nationality?

Isn't it, in this case, one and the same?

[PhotoEcosse]

Isn't it, in this case, one and the same?

No.

The nationality is Scottish.

The language and culture are Scots.

The whisky, adhesive tape and eggs are Scotch.

I do not have a vote and am glad I don't, however I am entitled to an opinion.

Of course you are. I don't understand why that became an issue.

[stamper]

With regards to people having an opinion I will refine what I meant. David Cameron the UK Prime minister has refused several times to debate with Alex Salmond, Scotland's First Minister, about the prospect of Scots leaving the UK. His excuse is, it is for Scots to decide and nobody else including himself. Yesterday, August 28th, he visited Glasgow in Scotland and lectured business people about the drawbacks of separation and then did a TV interview lecturing anyone willing to listen. That is a perfect example of why I stated that only the people who are eligible to vote should have an opinion. 

[stamper]

You're just getting hung up on the curiosity of how we define a country - and note the lack of the prefix "independent" in these exchanges. Should I stick to legal niceties and say Scotland isn't a country but a kingdom, just as you claimed Gibraltar was a country and someone (you?) claimed Wales isn't a country because it's legally a principality? Which it isn't, legally, as it's just called that and is legally part of the kingdom of England and Wales. As shown in my European examples, the definition of "country" is a bit like the chicken and the egg and which comes first. Quebecois and Catalans think they are a country, as do the Basques, as did the Polish and Finns and Ukrainians before them. Quebec or Catalonia vote yes, and hey presto they are an independent state, another definition of country, so Scotland wouldn't be the first country not to choose independence. And as shawnino says, it wouldn't be the first to be laughed at for voting no.

Why would the English want to give it up? It's not that bad.

John earlier on in the thread you admitted you were stirring it. I assume you still are because nobody could take seriously what you stated above.

[john beardsworth]

John earlier on in the thread you admitted you were stirring it. I assume you still are because nobody could take seriously what you stated above.

Only the quoted comment about being laughed at. I assume have observed you'll only understand the rest if you spend the next 3 weeks on Wikipedia.

[stamper]

John I thought that Isaac was the master of the quirky and incomprehensible postings. I now realise he is second best.