Cameron begs Scotland: Don't rip our family of nations apart

[hmm 979]

Scotland requested the Union of Parliaments. They were not conquered. I think many NO supporters feel being British is part of their identity, and they share a language and 300 years of proud history with the southern part of the British Isles. Old people have living memory of that history, like fighting together against Hitler. 

 

Get rid of Westminster, you'll still like Brussels/Berlin, and international bankers constraining what you can do, and you'll just be blaming politicians in Glasgow instead of Westminster. With Devo-Max, your Glasgow politicians will have plenty of say anyway.

 

The parliament of Scotland is in Edinburgh though?

 

The whole "fought as one" thing is nonsense tbh, plenty of Irish people did the same yet the free state was eventually formed. Same goes for a language similarity, should reunification of the British empire due to anglophonic similarities be brought about?

[hmm 979]

Their "national honour?" Those are some frightening words in this context. It brings up connotations of Nazi Germany, not something I would want to associate with Scotland. The bullying and intimidation tactics from the yes voters are getting more extreme now. I don't want to be part of a country where its citizens harrass people who don't think the same way they do. Some view of a free, democratic, independent Scotland, where anyone who goes against the so-called status quo is put down. It's a big misconception that no voters are not patriotic. We're voting no because we are patriotic and don't want Scotland to be destroyed by the negatives of independence. I am not voting no because I'm afraid of change. I'm voting no because I'm afraid of guaranteed failure. Two different things. Yes voters will not know what they have until it's gone, mark my words. The sad thing is, whatever the result is, both sides will blame one another for Scotland's outcome. If we gain independence and everything goes wrong, no voters will be cursing the yes voters. If we don't gain independence and life in the UK gets worse, the yes voters will curse the no voters. No one will truly win. This referendum has brought out the true colours of a lot of Scots and turned fellow Scots against each other and no matter which way this goes, Scotland will not be the same again. The closer the vote is, the more divided it will be as a nation. I'm absolutely positive fights and riots might begin in some regions. God help us.

 

Nice post btw  

 

Does the bolded part not give off the same vibe of "lack of freedom" that you're criticising? In my opinion, regardless of the outcome the referendum is a positive because it at least highlights the desires of the Scottish people of this generation, wherever the majority may lie. Saying that it shouldn't go ahead because it causes a few arguments is ignoring the problem and the huge numbers that do support independence

[craig 680]

The parliament of Scotland is in Edinburgh though?

 

The whole "fought as one" thing is nonsense tbh, plenty of Irish people did the same yet the free state was eventually formed. Same goes for a language similarity, should reunification of the British empire due to anglophonic similarities be brought about?

 

An EU like arrangement involving UK, Canada, Australia, and NZ could work just fine. Free trade, free movement of peoples, etc. Ireland was independent before WWII and stayed neutral. During WWI they staged the Easter Rebellion.

[craig 680]

Does the bolded part not give off the same vibe of "lack of freedom" that you're criticising? In my opinion, regardless of the outcome the referendum is a positive because it at least highlights the desires of the Scottish people of this generation, wherever the majority may lie. Saying that it shouldn't go ahead because it causes a few arguments is ignoring the problem and the huge numbers that do support independence

Interesting that in Quebec during the 1970s'-90s the separatists were sure time was on their side, because the older generation was NO and Francophone youth were YES. But after two divisive referendums, the economic fallout, and having the separatists run the province for a couple decades, the current youth is much more federalist!

[hmm 979]

An EU like arrangement involving UK, Canada, Australia, and NZ could work just fine. Free trade, free movement of peoples, etc. Ireland was independent before WWII and stayed neutral. During WWI they staged the Easter Rebellion.

The Easter rising was in 1916, two years after the war broke out, plenty of Irishmen still served before (and after) that point.

[StrawberryBlond 15,568]

Nazi Germany has nothing to do with national honour 

 

Those kinda phrases were used, though. It was claimed that this is what made a good German. Telling a country how they should vote and think to be a good, patriotic representative of the country is murky business. Telling a no voter that they can't love Scotland by voting no is one of the many elements of this murky business.

 

Nice post btw

 

Does the bolded part not give off the same vibe of "lack of freedom" that you're criticising? In my opinion, regardless of the outcome the referendum is a positive because it at least highlights the desires of the Scottish people of this generation, wherever the majority may lie. Saying that it shouldn't go ahead because it causes a few arguments is ignoring the problem and the huge numbers that do support independence

 

It's nice to see a yes voter who doesn't display hostility towards a no voter.

 

I don't think Scots lack freedom. The definition of freedom depends on where you grew up. As a nation of Westerners who are predominantly white, our idea of freedom is very superficial compared to foreigners' idea of freedom. There are so many countries in this world that are dictatorships and its citizens are being worked to the bone for barely nothing, have very little human rights and are tortured and/or killed if they speak out against the system. Those are countries that are not free. Those are countries that deserve and need freedom. Compare them to Scotland and we're living in paradise. It drives me crazy how so many people moan about the UK going to the dogs when so many other people have it so much worse. There's a reason why the UK has so many immigrants - because the benefits to living here are massive and everyone can see it except its native populace.

 

Personally, I think referendums are nothing but trouble as they turn a nation against one another and the separation result may be disasterous. If someone dislikes the way their country's run, move elsewhere, but don't force the people who are happy with the way the country is into separating it. The idea of Scotland becoming independent makes me want to move to somewhere like Canada...but then, Quebec's trying to be independent and Alberta supposedly wants to try as well, so maybe not. I would want to live somewhere where there's no threat of future splitting of the nation. Who would want to live with that uncertainty? Isn't life filled with enough hassle and stress? I don't understand why, in this day and age, that splitting up nations is such an attractive concept. What happened to the phrase "united we stand, divided we fall?" In these uncertain times, with poverty, economic downturn, terrorism and war, why would anyone want to go it alone? The bigger your nation, the stronger your nation and that is just a fact. The top ten richest countries in the world are USA, China, India, Japan, Germany, Russia, Brazil, UK, France and Mexico. All of them have huge populations, with the UK, ironically, being the smallest. A country of 5 million cannot be the 14th richest world country no matter what the yes campaign have stated. I looked through the GDP of the world's countries and the country closest to resembling Scotland's population was Singapore (5.3 million, exactly like us) and it was ranked the 38th richest country in the world. Every nation above it had higher populations. I think that's a better reflection of where Scotland would really be ranked. The prospect of that compared to being the #8 richest country in the world as part of the UK? Why would you not want that?

[hmm 979]

Those kinda phrases were used, though. It was claimed that this is what made a good German. Telling a country how they should vote and think to be a good, patriotic representative of the country is murky business. Telling a no voter that they can't love Scotland by voting no is one of the many elements of this murky business.

It's nice to see a yes voter who doesn't display hostility towards a no voter.

I don't think Scots lack freedom. The definition of freedom depends on where you grew up. As a nation of Westerners who are predominantly white, our idea of freedom is very superficial compared to foreigners' idea of freedom. There are so many countries in this world that are dictatorships and its citizens are being worked to the bone for barely nothing, have very little human rights and are tortured and/or killed if they speak out against the system. Those are countries that are not free. Those are countries that deserve and need freedom. Compare them to Scotland and we're living in paradise. It drives me crazy how so many people moan about the UK going to the dogs when so many other people have it so much worse. There's a reason why the UK has so many immigrants - because the benefits to living here are massive and everyone can see it except its native populace.

Personally, I think referendums are nothing but trouble as they turn a nation against one another and the separation result may be disasterous. If someone dislikes the way their country's run, move elsewhere, but don't force the people who are happy with the way the country is into separating it. The idea of Scotland becoming independent makes me want to move to somewhere like Canada...but then, Quebec's trying to be independent and Alberta supposedly wants to try as well, so maybe not. I would want to live somewhere where there's no threat of future splitting of the nation. Who would want to live with that uncertainty? Isn't life filled with enough hassle and stress? I don't understand why, in this day and age, that splitting up nations is such an attractive concept. What happened to the phrase "united we stand, divided we fall?" In these uncertain times, with poverty, economic downturn, terrorism and war, why would anyone want to go it alone? The bigger your nation, the stronger your nation and that is just a fact. The top ten richest countries in the world are USA, China, India, Japan, Germany, Russia, Brazil, UK, France and Mexico. All of them have huge populations, with the UK, ironically, being the smallest. A country of 5 million cannot be the 14th richest world country no matter what the yes campaign have stated. I looked through the GDP of the world's countries and the country closest to resembling Scotland's population was Singapore (5.3 million, exactly like us) and it was ranked the 38th richest country in the world. Every nation above it had higher populations. I think that's a better reflection of where Scotland would really be ranked. The prospect of that compared to being the #8 richest country in the world as part of the UK? Why would you not want that?

To me, quality of life ranks more important than the wealth or power of a country and compared to some smaller European countries (even the UK's neighbour Ireland) the UK has a pretty poor ranking.

An independent Scotland whilst collectively poorer and small could improve on its standards of quality of life, especially given that Scotland's votes tend to be more left wing than England (particularly the South of England).

[Luc 4,776]

It's not Scotland's oil. It never has been and never will be. Just because it's on Scottish territory doesn't mean it's in Scotland's possession. As part of a union, it had to be shared, which means it was never Scotland's alone. Only an independent country can completely claim possession of its oil, not one that got independent later. I can answer those questions above and it's nothing to do with being non-independent. How can there be only be jobs for 1 in 5 school leavers? There's job's everywhere, it's just that not everyone is trained for them or interested in them. Plus, as a small country, there's only so many jobs around despite a growing population. And there are lots of people unemployed because they're looking for a specific job that they can't achieve or don't want to work at all and live off benefits. Maybe it's the work ethic that's the problem, not the lack of independence? It's frequently noted that foreign immigrants are great workers and are willing to take any job, no matter how low paid or unskilled. But in the UK, we approach employment differently. We want jobs, but only good ones and we treat low paid, low skilled jobs like they're beneath us, even if we can barely pay the rent. There are jobs out there, we just don't want them.

And even if oil production does continue on for 30-40 years, it peaked in 1999 and has dropped ever since, running a deficit in 20 out of 21 years. And if it is still going to be produced for the next 40 years, what happens after that? If oil is going to pay for everything, what will happen when it all runs out, less than half a century away? That is the question I can't get any yes voters to confirm. And future generations are going to grow up in a Scotland where the so-called biggest revenue is extinct. Independence is forever, oil is not.

 

 

It isn't scaremongering, it's fact, confirmed not by politicians, but by the respective experts. This is what ultimately is getting to me about the yes campaign - the truth is toxic to them. Any time a fact is brought up that the yes voters don't like, they write it off as scaremongering. But the no voters write off the things they say as delusion, fantasy and downright lies. What remains is that there is no solid plan in place as to how things will function. The reply to a lot of topics is "We'll see to it when we get to it." Basically, we're being told to vote for independence with no solid information about what it'll bring. You cannot vote for something if you don't know for sure what you're going to get out of it. It's clear to listen to the Yes politicians that they have done no planning in the four years they had to build up to this referendum. I can't support a decision that will cause loss of jobs and cuts to major services just to fufil an independence fantasy. But as long as it's not their job they're losing, yes voters don't seem to care. All I've seen from the yes side is greed and self-importance and its made me very disappointed in the nation I love so much. I can't believe so many are falling for Salmond's lies and acting so anti English. I have seen some English admitting that independence is going to be terrible for us and think that if we want to make a stupid gamble, we deserve whatever we get. They can see it, why can't we?

 

Remember that if we do get independence, we can no longer blame England for any problems we face. No hand-outs, no funding, no connections, nothing. If independence does bring Scotland to its knees, we can't re-join the union and we'd have to admit that our downfall was all our fault because we voted for it. Consider if that's a risk you want to take.

You act like oil is the only thing that would keep the country alive. No, that's not true. It will provide Scotland a great start to later be as rich as Scandinavian countries. Oil will provide great education to create a highly educated work-force which will make Scotland attractive for international business. The oil will be used, till at some point they won't need it anymore and they'll probably run out of it anyways.

[craig 680]

To me, quality of life ranks more important than the wealth or power of a country and compared to some smaller European countries (even the UK's neighbour Ireland) the UK has a pretty poor ranking.

An independent Scotland whilst collectively poorer and small could improve on its standards of quality of life, especially given that Scotland's votes tend to be more left wing than England (particularly the South of England).

 

All you need is to give a devolved regional govt. the power to raise taxes and decide spending on health, education and welfare. Won't you get that via Devo Max?

 

The downside is that higher taxes and more socialism will drive business out of Scotland, and that will be even more of a problem for an independent Scotland within the EU.

[Better Day 5,766]

All you need is to give a devolved regional govt. the power to raise taxes and decide spending on health, education and welfare. Won't you get that via Devo Max?

 

The downside is that higher taxes and more socialism will drive business out of Scotland, and that will be even more of a problem for an independent Scotland within the EU.

 

Yes Westminister (if we vote no) is saying we will have more "devolved" powers, but since when could we trust the tories or Labour at that fact. The only way of guaranteeing devolved powers is voting 'Yes'

[hmm 979]

All you need is to give a devolved regional govt. the power to raise taxes and decide spending on health, education and welfare. Won't you get that via Devo Max?

 

The downside is that higher taxes and more socialism will drive business out of Scotland, and that will be even more of a problem for an independent Scotland within the EU.

 

 

All you need is to give a devolved regional govt. the power to raise taxes and decide spending on health, education and welfare. Won't you get that via Devo Max?

 

The downside is that higher taxes and more socialism will drive business out of Scotland, and that will be even more of a problem for an independent Scotland within the EU.

 

Devo Max that only came about following the idea of an independence referendum? Really shows how much the Westminster parliament cares...

[craig 680]

Yes Westminister (if we vote no) is saying we will have more "devolved" powers, but since when could we trust the tories or Labour at that fact. The only way of guaranteeing devolved powers is voting 'Yes'

 

They created the Scottish parliament. They already devolved a lot of power to Scotland. They agreed to a referendum (which Spain won't do) on favourable terms (50% is enough to secede, something the Canadian govt. disputes with Quebec). So why not trust them to do a bit more?

 

Yes talks like they were still living under a centralized Thatcher govt.

[Better Day 5,766]

They created the Scottish parliament. They already devolved a lot of power to Scotland. They agreed to a referendum (which Spain won't do) on favourable terms (50% is enough to secede, something the Canadian govt. disputes with Quebec). So why not trust them to do a bit more?

 

Yes talks like they were still living under a centralized Thatcher govt.

 

"They" as in Labour. We can't even trust Labour nowadays. We can't trust the tories. We can't trust the Lib Dems. UKIP is rising. I don't want a Government that is homophobic, racist, I mean UKIP will have seats in the next election. 

 

I want to live in a democracy not a dictatorship. Have a lot of some Pro Independence stuff on Tumblr. 

 

BTW gurl, where is it you live? Scotland? England?

[craig 680]

 

BTW gurl, where is it you live? Scotland? England?

I'm Canadian with both English and Scottish ancestry. I lived through two Quebec independence referendums. One sibling lives in Quebec, another worked there, both part of Anglo minority. All the debates and issues are pretty much the same. Even the Scottish flag is blue and white with a cross, just like Quebec. Been following the referendum debate in the Guardian for a long time.

[StrawberryBlond 15,568]

To me, quality of life ranks more important than the wealth or power of a country and compared to some smaller European countries (even the UK's neighbour Ireland) the UK has a pretty poor ranking.

An independent Scotland whilst collectively poorer and small could improve on its standards of quality of life, especially given that Scotland's votes tend to be more left wing than England (particularly the South of England).

 

A high quality of life is the ends, not the means. You can't just create quality of life. It comes about as the result of other factors, namely money. If you don't have money (and I don't mean being rich, just having any kind of money), you will not have a high quality of life. Without money, you won't have food, clothes, accomodation, electricity, heating, a pension, any form of disposible income. So, how can you have a high quality of life? And if the government has less money, how can it provide good public services if there's nothing to pay for them? The idea is to get your country really rich so your populace don't have to worry about these things. Part of what's worrying me is how much of the country is going to be on benefits if we do get independence. I'm not against welfare, but it causes problems when there are a huge percent of a country on them, as those who are working get their wages cut to pay for people's benefits, leading to a nation with less money. A lot of Scots are on benefits because they can't get a job at the moment but are trying to get one, but there also a lot of Scots on benefits who aren't interested in getting a job. With a 5.3 million population, that's rather risky. Then, you've got to add them to the other people in the nation who don't work, like under-16's and retired pensioners. Put them all together, and you get a massive percentage of a 5.3 million population who don't work. That's really risky.

 

I seem to be the only one concerned about how our low population will negatively affect us and I know I sound like a stuck record, but it makes perfect sense. I brought up Singapore earlier, whose population is the exact same as Scotland's. They're really rich, have a great economy and have the highest percentage of millionaries in the world, with 1 in 5 residents being millionaries and poverty is basically nonexistant. But there are reasons for why that is possible with such a small population. The country is just one massive city, with a ton of job opportunities, there's no secluded rural areas or islands. It has a low tax rate and is one of the best tax havens in the world. It has a great market economy and is ranked the second best in the world. And it is not a welfare state: everyone has to work for their money. Scotland is not going to be like that. There's vast portions of the country that have basically no one living in them, taxes will be raised due to independence, there won't be a market economy and it is going to be a welfare state. Put all that together and it sounds primed for disaster.

 

You act like oil is the only thing that would keep the country alive. No, that's not true. It will provide Scotland a great start to later be as rich as Scandinavian countries. Oil will provide great education to create a highly educated work-force which will make Scotland attractive for international business. The oil will be used, till at some point they won't need it anymore and they'll probably run out of it anyways.

 

By what the SNP is saying, it sounds like they want oil to pay for everything. There's been no mention of "using it until we don't need it anymore." They are insinuating that we will always use it and it'll never run out. Even if it does fund a better education system, it's up to the kids if they want to make use of it and not all of them will want high-flying careers in the city with big businesses. Plus, if that was all kids grew up to be, there'd be no one to do all the little jobs that keep the country running. Statistics show that a huge number of UK university graduates don't pursue a career correlated to their degree after graduation. I should know, I'm one of them...and I know other people who are too. So many university graduates, some with several degrees, are stacking supermarket shelves. I don't think that's going to magically change if we're independent.