If You Were Scottish How Would You Vote?

[Mudcat]

Can you expand on that?

I know that things in Scotland aren't necessarily the same as they are here in the states, but I believe the goal to be too short sighted. If they were to obtain that freedom tonight, how would things change for Scotland down the road?

I somehow have difficulty imaging Scotland becoming the conservationist Shangri La theocracy that Texas might become if they seceded, for example, but are things so terrible the way they are now? From what I understand, Scottish citizens are afforded the same freedoms and protections that your average British citizens are. Why should the Scottish be so willing to squander that?

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

What freedoms and protections would be squandering, in your view?

 

[Mudcat]

What freedoms and protections would be squandering, in your view?

How about protections provided by the military, for one?

But I return the question to you, what do the Scottish hope to obtain through independence? They already have the same freedoms and protections of British citizens, a point I note you didn't refute. Is it only because they don't have an equal voice in the parliament, as said a couple times in this thread? If so, their goals are more short-sighted than I thought.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

How about protections provided by the military, for one?

But is that a real thing, though? Who is itching to invade Scotland? How do all the other countries in the EU survive without being merged in with power like the UK?

The other side of the coin is Scotland's obligations to UK military force, and is a much more real concern. Iraq, Trident, etc.

However, there is no real reason to think a future government of an independent Scotland would be unequal to this task. Moreover, as Crawford points out in his report: “The chances of a credible military threat to an independent Scotland would be close to zero.”

The direction set out by the SNP – and given a mandate by Scottish voters should the referendum result in a yes – can be seen as a step away from the military policy taken by the UK. As another report from Rusi, Defence in an Independent Scotland, concluded:

"Many military capabilities currently possessed by the UK are ones that an independent Scotland would have no desire, or need, to possess …

Those who argue that independence will bring defence benefits to Scotland … want Scotland to have the right of refusal in future British military adventures."

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/sep/04/scottish-independence-scotland-defence-trident

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

How about protections provided by the military, for one?

Well, Scotland will have a military to protect us. But I don't really consider us under threat. We have a pretty good relationship with the rest of Europe and there's basically no prospect of Scotland being attacked by a neighbour.

Sadly being part of the UK seems to make us more of a target as the UK seems to want to project power and get involved around the globe.

Absent that, I'm not sure what protection Scotland needs other than a basic defence force.

But I return the question to you, what do the Scottish hope to obtain through independence? They already have the same freedoms and protections of British citizens, a point I note you didn't refute. Is it only because they don't have an equal voice in the parliament, as said a couple times in this thread? If so, their goals are more short-sighted than I thought.

The Scottish who vote Yes hope to obtain many things, each of them probably hopes to obtain different things. Amongst them are:

1. The same sense of nationhood that pretty much every other country in the world enjoys. Are any of them looking to give that up?

2. A government that is representative of us and represents us

3. The opportunity to build a fairer and more progressive small European nation

4. Proper and direct representation in international organisations like the UN, EU, NATO, etc.

5. The chance not to be railroaded into short-sighted and/or xenophobic policies by those who dominate the discussion in other parts of the UK - e.g. privatisation of the NHS, withdrawal from the EU, immigration controls, austerity, etc etc.

There's a long long list...but there's a start.

Yes, Scottish people have the same freedoms and protections of British citizens - because we are - but so what? If the US was governed from Beijing and you had all the same freedoms and protections of Chinese citizens would that be a reason to oppose US independence?

 

[platonov]

Which planet is this ?

How about protections provided by the military, for one?
But I return the question to you, what do the Scottish hope to obtain through independence? They already have the same freedoms and protections of British citizens, a point I note you didn't refute. Is it only because they don't have an equal voice in the parliament, as said a couple times in this thread? If so, their goals are more short-sighted than I thought.

Wow.

OK.

Who exactly (bar the Belgians & Swiss) are about to wage aggressive war against an independent Scotland. Even if such a threat existed [outside of the 'teenage' fears of communist Russian or Muslim aggression ] wouldn’t the 'independent' nuclear arsenal deterrent of London deter any potential foes. After all they would hardly stand for a red/brown occupation of their northern neighbour.

I presume, if your geopolitical worldview is consistent, you fully empathise with the Russian actions in Ukraine & the desire of the Iranian regime for a nuclear deterrent.

ps Like the kitty/bowtie avatar.

 

[platonov]

While I'm here.

Really? Because you named this specific issue as the reason for voting for independence and dissolving the union:



Perhaps some other posters would like to chime in and give their opinion on whether or not it could be accurately said that England conquered and subjugated Scotland, particularly given that one of the options in the polls is "Yes, break the chains of English oppression".

Now, of course, this does not mean that there were not wars of conquest. England certainly did fight to conquer Scotland at various times, but calling the union itself "conquest and subjugation" is hyperbolic at best, I would think.

OK, I'm not a native speaker and the redefinition of 'copious' in line with popular usage I can accept (apparently I have no choice).

But, Sir, this is a step too far.

I presume from your laxity with her majesty’s English you have been among the 'natives' for too long.

Or, worse again, watching TV.

 

[angrysoba]

OK, I'm not a native speaker and the redefinition of 'copious' in line with popular usage I can accept (apparently I have no choice).

But, Sir, this is a step too far.

I presume from your laxity with her majesty’s English you have been among the 'natives' for too long.

Or, worse again, watching TV.

Could you please clearly explain what you mean?

Specifically,

1.) What is a step too far?

2.) What exactly is lax about my use of "her majesty's [sic] English"?

3.) Why did you highlight the word "hyperbolic"?

 

[angrysoba]

what has amazed me in this whole process is commentators and politicians who argue against the EU using the same arguments that pro EU people use to argue that the UK should stay in the EU.

How about protections provided by the military, for one?

But I return the question to you, what do the Scottish hope to obtain through independence? They already have the same freedoms and protections of British citizens, a point I note you didn't refute. Is it only because they don't have an equal voice in the parliament, as said a couple times in this thread? If so, their goals are more short-sighted than I thought.

These are two of the things that show up a weakness in the unionist position and which actually turn out to be self-defeating arguments under even the slightest scrutiny.

When it comes to the EU the biggest likelihood of Scotland not being in the EU comes from a promised referendum on the UK being in or out. By staying in the union Scotland may end up tied to the UKIP anvil when it gets pushed out of the ...er... EU window.

As for defence, I think that the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and future possible wars in where...Ukraine? Syria? Iraq again? Falklands? do not have much appeal in Scotland, and it is far more likely that Scottish troops would be deployed in places like that than having to fend off the Icelandic or Norwegian military, but who knows. Maybe another Cod War could erupt in the North Sea.

 

[Craig B]

Speaking as an American, I understand that the Scottish desire independence but I have to say that I'm provisionally against it the same way I'm against the secessionists here in the states.

Sorry.

Don't apologise. Just tell us what you think of the "Independencists" of 1776.

 

[platonov]

Could you please clearly explain what you mean?

Specifically,

1.) What is a step too far?

2.) What exactly is lax about my use of "her majesty's [sic] English"?

3.) Why did you highlight the word "hyperbolic"?

It was merely a rant aimed at the use of 'hyperbolic' to describe something that is exaggerated as opposed to a mathematical function.
No doubt some would argue that this is correct usage – and they may be right.
I simply refuse to accept it.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I'd use the noun (hyperbole) myself.
It's a bit like Wells' use of "chronic" in "the chronic argonaut" it klinks nicht gut.

 

[angrysoba]

It was merely a rant aimed at the use of 'hyperbolic' to describe something that is exaggerated as opposed to a mathematical function.

Either one is fine and both are in common use.

No doubt some would argue that this is correct usage – and they may be right.

They are.

I simply refuse to accept it.

It will make no difference.

 

[platonov]

It just sounds off.

Anyway my apologies to angrysoba – I was merely jesting.
I thought my use of the phrase you have been among the 'natives' was a giveaway.
Had I intended an insult I would have accused him of 'turning Japanese'

 

[MikeG]

Don't apologise. Just tell us what you think of the "Independencists" of 1776.

......because the two situations are obviously so similar..........

 

[Craig B]

......because the two situations are obviously so similar..........

Well, tell us. The situation of "secessionists", is it "similar"?

Or you could read http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/robertburns/works/ode_for_general_washingtons_birthday/