Selfsufficientish.com

MKG wrote:Nationalism, as far as I'm concerned, has a nasty smell. It is to be avoided like the plague.

So you'd be perfectly happy, and indeed keen, to have the UK governed directly from Strasbourg then? Or is that somehow different?

Thomzo wrote:Speaking for myself I hope Scotland doesn't leave us. One of my best friends is Scottish, she would become a foreigner living in this country. My cousin, who's English, lives in Edinburgh so he'd be abroad.

We'd have to have passports and border guards between us and the Scotts would have to have a different currency (Euros?). Calling Scotland would be an overseas call and we'd have to have special car insurance just to drive up to see friends and family.

We'd go back to separate Olympic teams and Scotland wouldn't have an F1 team or circuit.

Presumably, the Scots wouldn't be able to access the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) or iPlayer.

Oh and Scottish MP's wouldn't have any say on matters that only concern England!

Zoe

I've nearly got a full house on my Unionist Myth bingo card...

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.ph ... nformation

"the Action Krankie"! Love it

@OJ - No, there's no difference. But then I'm not a British Nationalist, and certainly not an English one. I've lived and worked in England, Scotland and Wales, though, and want everyone else in Britain to have similar free choices. To put it bluntly, I simply do not believe that the best way forward for Scotland is full independence, and I suspect that the majority of Scots don't believe it either. We shall see.

@Dunc - Yes, it is somehow different. The UK (complete with centralised government) has been around in one form or another since 1707. Government of the UK from Strasbourg has never happened (and probably never will). The UK has history - some of it good, some of it bad - and I'm a bit of a stick in the mud for history.

I'm in favour of devolved government - and I'd apply that more severely than it is at present. I would like, for instance, the devolution of powers to the north of England. I can see advantages in that. But I wouldn't like to see the reinstatement of Northumbria as a separate, fully independent, state. That way lies duplication of efforts and expenditures - complete waste. And that's why I do not wish to see the secession of Scotland from the UK.

Mike

A very good explanation Mike, but it begs the question of whether you include states and countries that were originally subjugated.
Would your ideal United Kingdom include a fully stocked British Empire, and especially an unpartitioned Ireland ?

MKG wrote:@Dunc - Yes, it is somehow different. The UK (complete with centralised government) has been around in one form or another since 1707. Government of the UK from Strasbourg has never happened (and probably never will). The UK has history - some of it good, some of it bad - and I'm a bit of a stick in the mud for history.

Well, I've never been a conservative, even with the smallest of "c"s... I don't think "that's the way it's always been" is a good argument for anything, and when I see people resorting to it, I tend to assume it's because they don't have a better one. As far as I'm concerned, the question of interest is simply whether Scotland is sufficiently different (socially, politically, and economically) from the rest of the UK that our interests cannot be effectively served by a single government dominated (as is numerically inevitable) by the south-east of England - and my answer to that question is an unequivocal "Yes".

So far as David Cameron is concerned England only consists of the 'Home Counties' anything outside doesn't count.

gregorach wrote:

MKG wrote:@Dunc - Yes, it is somehow different. The UK (complete with centralised government) has been around in one form or another since 1707. Government of the UK from Strasbourg has never happened (and probably never will). The UK has history - some of it good, some of it bad - and I'm a bit of a stick in the mud for history.

Well, I've never been a conservative, even with the smallest of "c"s... I don't think "that's the way it's always been" is a good argument for anything, and when I see people resorting to it, I tend to assume it's because they don't have a better one. As far as I'm concerned, the question of interest is simply whether Scotland is sufficiently different (socially, politically, and economically) from the rest of the UK that our interests cannot be effectively served by a single government dominated (as is numerically inevitable) by the south-east of England - and my answer to that question is an unequivocal "Yes".

we are different to England and the rest of the uk. we have a different justice system, different education system and a different health care system. remember all those 'reforms of the NHS'? that was all in England and had nothing to do with Scotland. they are always going on about political stuff on the news refering to the whole of the uk when in fact it only applys to England. that always annoys me. also when they say on the weather for the UK they spend loads of time going over England them skimp over Scotland, also they say things like' across the rest of the country' implying the UK as a whole when in fact its just England they are talking about. also notice when they are talking about athletes, for example, if they are English they refer to them as English and this is grate for England, but if they are from Scotland they get referred to as British not Scottish.
other things are different too, like the housing market for example.

we already have our own government and laws and education and healthcare and loads of other things, we are practically independent as it is. its just that England controls the taxes and the oil. would it really make that much difference if we became completely independent? they way things are at the moment it seems only the finances are the issue, and thats a pretty big issue. is it financially better to be independent or not? iv no idea, im totally stumped and quite relieved that im no loinger resident in Scotland and so will not be voting.

also what do people think about letting 16 year old kids vote? they say the kids are the future and they should have a say, but im not convinced they are mature enough and know enough about whats going on to be included on such am important decision.

demi wrote:also what do people think about letting 16 year old kids vote? they say the kids are the future and they should have a say, but im not convinced they are mature enough and know enough about whats going on to be included on such am important decision.

Have no strong feeling about the referendum, but YES to this question. There are plenty of people in their early 20s I could judge as being not mature enough to vote and far too many older than that who don't even bother exercising their right to vote. I reckon 16 is a good age to start voting, where you can be more passionate about something and much more likely to actually cast a vote. They could debate about whatever issue at school/with their peers and come to their own conclusion. It might be a choice they regret making later in life, but that can happen when you're 30 (OH voted LibDem in the last election).

chickenchargrill wrote: It might be a choice they regret making later in life, but that can happen when you're 30 (OH voted LibDem in the last election).

I'm not Scottish nor do I live in Scotland.

But I'd vote for Independence every time.

Scotland ought not to be run from London.

demi wrote:Ierland has not done well since they seperated.

This is true but separation is not the cause.

greenorelse wrote:

demi wrote:Ierland has not done well since they seperated.

This is true but separation is not the cause.

maybe not, they all mad over there. no offence to irish people, i really dig the accent, but all the crazy religious stuff scares me