Great Scot(land)!

garion333 wrote:
omni wrote:

I'm voting No.

I don't know enough of the "problems" of Scotland having a voice in the UK, but damned if you didn't sell me on No being the smarter decision right now.

However, I really think you should vote yes and then take over the nuclear arsenal and declare war on England.

It's the only way to be sure?

LouZiffer wrote:
garion333 wrote:
omni wrote:

I'm voting No.

I don't know enough of the "problems" of Scotland having a voice in the UK, but damned if you didn't sell me on No being the smarter decision right now.

However, I really think you should vote yes and then take over the nuclear arsenal and declare war on England.

It's the only way to be sure?

Shhh, you can't let them in on that portion of the plan!

Omni wrote:

The Scotland I know is lazy, work-shy, angry, and bitter about what anyone else has got, without being willing to work for it themselves. I worry about being left in a country like that.

Isn't that true of the UK as well, by GDP per capita?

In fact, when you include the oil, Scotland's rating is higher than the UK... In the US, it would rate just below Maine and above West Virginia in that first article.

Food for thought.

Robear wrote:
Omni wrote:

The Scotland I know is lazy, work-shy, angry, and bitter about what anyone else has got, without being willing to work for it themselves. I worry about being left in a country like that.

Isn't that true of the UK as well, by GDP per capita?

In fact, when you include the oil, Scotland's rating is higher than the UK... In the US, it would rate just below Maine and above West Virginia in that first article.

Food for thought.

Is that offset by the huge cost of living that exists in the UK though? I mean, like he said, a tenner a pint in some places and it wasn't cheap in Scotland when I went there a month ago. Two drinks was nine-plus... If we had the purchasing power of the US states to lower the cost of living and if we hadn't been on the end of a huge loss of wealth due to the financial crisis which ended up putting up the cost of living in the first place what then? Still as poor as Alabama?

Hahahahaha!

Duoae wrote:

Still as poor as Alabama?

Hey! Mississippi and Arkansas are still lower than us!

Duoae wrote:

Hahahahaha!

:D

Sounds like more incentive to vote "Yes" to me.

Nevin73 wrote:
Duoae wrote:

Hahahahaha!

:D

Sounds like more incentive to vote "Yes" to me.

The problem is that "no one' voted for this government and no majority voted for Cameron and the Tories. If the Northwest could leave the union at this point we would but I guess we have less democracy than up north.

Paleocon wrote:
Maq wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

If it's a yes, my understanding is it's not official until they also choose a special unit, unique building, and leader.

The Black Watch, Pub, Robert the Bruce.

I think by unit, he was talking in Civilization terms. In that case, you are probably better off choosing either the Highlander or the Schiltron.

The Pub is a building commonly seen in all the UK, but this one is a lot less stringent. It is also possible to forgo the special building if you want two special units.

Highlanders is a poor choice. You're stuck with building only one.

Maq wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
Maq wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

If it's a yes, my understanding is it's not official until they also choose a special unit, unique building, and leader.

The Black Watch, Pub, Robert the Bruce.

I think by unit, he was talking in Civilization terms. In that case, you are probably better off choosing either the Highlander or the Schiltron.

The Pub is a building commonly seen in all the UK, but this one is a lot less stringent. It is also possible to forgo the special building if you want two special units.

Highlanders is a poor choice. You're stuck with building only one.

Special building:
IMAGE(http://starreviews.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/trainspotting3.jpg)

This is a really risky move for Scotland because the UK has held the territory long enough to get cores on all of the provinces. That means that once the truce wears off the UK will have a really easy Casus Belli and be able to swoop in and take a state or two, or maybe even Annex the whole thing, with minimal Infamy cost.

The UK has the infamy to spare as well, they were flirting with a "Bad Boy" of 25 for awhile there, but after releasing India, Canada, Hong Kong, and Australia, as well as just waiting it out over the last several decades they totally have it to burn.

The only way to prevent that will be if they can get an Alliance with another Great Power to protect them from the UK, but that seems unlikely. The US is allied with the UK and has great relations, so the US will almost certainly be on the UK's side. Together the US and UK have the naval power to prevent any other power from landing troops in England, or reinforcing Scotland, so they'll almost certainly be going it alone.

Serious time! A couple people in this thread have commented that Scotland doesn't have as much of a voice in the UK as it should. I think the person who put it the most strongly was:

Maq wrote:

I no longer have a horse in this race but I'm broadly in favour of the Yes vote if for no other reason than the democratic principle that Westminster rule of Scotland is breathtakingly undemocratic.

Could someone expand on that a little bit please. Are the districts or seats or whatever drawn up so that Scotland has less representation per capita than England, Wales, or Northern Ireland?

As a counterpoint to omni's no, here's my roundup post on why I'm voting Yes, including links to all of my previous posts. Warning - somewhere around 10,000 words of verbiage, across all of my posts.

Needless to say, I don't share many of omni's opinions.

A point that was raised in this piece, which was new to me, but probably not new news, was that Scotland could realign itself economically with the Scandinavian nations, since they'd have closer ideological ties, and convenient shipping lanes.

Yonder wrote:

Serious time! A couple people in this thread have commented that Scotland doesn't have as much of a voice in the UK as it should. I think the person who put it the most strongly was:

Maq wrote:

I no longer have a horse in this race but I'm broadly in favour of the Yes vote if for no other reason than the democratic principle that Westminster rule of Scotland is breathtakingly undemocratic.

Could someone expand on that a little bit please. Are the districts or seats or whatever drawn up so that Scotland has less representation per capita than England, Wales, or Northern Ireland?

Actually, that was the content of my deleted post. The Scottish are represented twice as opposed to English people's once. They get to vote for the people who go to parliament and to their own devolved parliament. The fact that they are able to vote on getting out of the union at all shows the nonsense that they are devoid of any democratic possibilities compared to those in the rest of England, Wales and Northern Ireland...

Tanglebones wrote:

A point that was raised in this piece, which was new to me, but probably not new news, was that Scotland could realign itself economically with the Scandinavian nations, since they'd have closer ideological ties, and convenient shipping lanes.

Indeed - this is the piece that pushed me from passively thinking 'that'd be nice' to actively campaigning.

I'm always slightly baffled by the whole 'oh, but they pay £9 a pint in Norway' arguments. Yes, they are, but their wages are 30-40% higher and a sh*tload of things are state-subsidised (childcare, for example).

We'll see, I guess. Polls open in less than 12 hours.

Duoae wrote:

Actually, that was the content of my deleted post. The Scottish are represented twice as opposed to English people's once. They get to vote for the people who go to parliament and to their own devolved parliament. The fact that they are able to vote on getting out of the union at all shows the nonsense that they are devoid of any democratic possibilities compared to those in the rest of England, Wales and Northern Ireland...

Well, yes, but that's the problem. The UK has a weird half-arsed compromise version of federalism where the purse strings are still held by Westminster, even if we get to decide how (some) of the money is spent. The problem isn't that we're lacking for politicians in suits, it's that we frequently vote at the national level (where the overall financial and societal agenda is set) and get precisely the opposite to what we vote for. The national agenda of the UK is set by a tiny handful of marginal constituencies, mostly in the South East. They drift slowly a bit left, then a lot right, then a bit left again, and have for decades. Each time, the damage done to our public services gets a little worse and the difference between what Scots want from their leaders and what they get gets a little wider.

Happy Dave wrote:

As a counterpoint to omni's no, here's my roundup post on why I'm voting Yes, including links to all of my previous posts. Warning - somewhere around 10,000 words of verbiage, across all of my posts.

Needless to say, I don't share many of omni's opinions.

The way things are looking, there stands a better than average chance you may need to change your location to ....

Edinburgh, Scotland

Let's get down to the most important question. What would a Yes vote mean for Irn Bru availability in the USA?

Happy Dave wrote:
Duoae wrote:

Actually, that was the content of my deleted post. The Scottish are represented twice as opposed to English people's once. They get to vote for the people who go to parliament and to their own devolved parliament. The fact that they are able to vote on getting out of the union at all shows the nonsense that they are devoid of any democratic possibilities compared to those in the rest of England, Wales and Northern Ireland...

Well, yes, but that's the problem. The UK has a weird half-arsed compromise version of federalism where the purse strings are still held by Westminster, even if we get to decide how (some) of the money is spent. The problem isn't that we're lacking for politicians in suits, it's that we frequently vote at the national level (where the overall financial and societal agenda is set) and get precisely the opposite to what we vote for. The national agenda of the UK is set by a tiny handful of marginal constituencies, mostly in the South East. They drift slowly a bit left, then a lot right, then a bit left again, and have for decades. Each time, the damage done to our public services gets a little worse and the difference between what Scots want from their leaders and what they get gets a little wider.

Yes but that wasn't the point. The point is that they are represented - it is democratic, even if it isn't even... and there aren't many proper representative democracies in the world. I voted Lib Dems because they wanted to put in the new voting system... see how that went?

It's just as unfair for everyone north of Birmingham really but instead of us all trying to actually sort it out you guys have, fair enough, gone off on your own.

[edit] Maybe on that last line I'm a bit ahead of myself. But I get the feeling that it'll be a Yes.

The funny thing was that the people I spoke to in Scotland had some misguided belief that it would help the northern counties of England in some way... like there'd be some trickle-down elements. Unlikely... unless they start ripping people off when they come over the border.

Would it be fair to say that the popularity of the Independence platform is partially due to the relentless cramming of Thatcherite policies down Scotland's throat? If, for instance, national policy was less London-centric (i.e.: Serving at the pleasure of the financial sector), would independence be a real possibility?

Happy Dave, thanks for the link to your blog. I fully understand your points (which you put to page far better than I could mine), and that's why my opinions above are more my own feelings of what could happen, rather than listening to/fully believing the propaganda drivel that both sides have spewed out. The truth is there can be no hard facts at this stage, from either side. I'd rather pick neither option, if I'm honest. I'm no more aligned to Westminster or the current format of UK politics being the answer than I am to a fully severed Scotland. Something BIG has to change, for everyone in the UK, why not be a part of changing that for everyone? Maybe that's not possible, but then, a lot of people would have thought that being this close to Independence wouldn't have been possible. The prospect of waking up on Friday and knowing that Scotland has officially cut ties with the UK is very exciting, but also terrifies me to the point of feeling sick.

Either way the vote goes tomorrow, I plan to do my best to make the best of it, and convince others around me to put aside their disagreements and squabbles, and make some plan for the future, to make it the best we can possibly make it, whichever path we are on. I just hope the enormous wedge that has been driven throughout the population can be undone, and doesn't leave a lasting resentment from whichever side doesn't get their wish.

Good luck, tomorrow.

omni wrote:

Either way the vote goes tomorrow, I plan to do my best to make the best of it, and convince others around me to put aside their disagreements and squabbles, and make some plan for the future, to make it the best we can possibly make it, whichever path we are on. I just hope the enormous wedge that has been driven throughout the population can be undone, and doesn't leave a lasting resentment from whichever side doesn't get their wish.

Good luck, tomorrow.

You too. We'll all have to live together, whatever happens.

If devo max had been on the ballot, I would very likely have voted for it. If I saw any real chance of actual federalisation, I might even have voted No in this referendum. But I just don't. I see a lot of potential upside for independence, some potential downsides, but what I regard as certain downsides of staying in the UK.

I'm voting with my heart in my mouth to a degree. I want so badly for us not to f*ck it up. But I know I favour the adrenalin of building our own country to the dire certainties of our continuing status quo.

I'll give you a nod if I pass you in central Edinburgh, now that I've seen your face

Seems the No fight saved their best speech till last, most likely too late but going down swinging.

onewild wrote:

Seems the No fight saved their best speech till last, most likely too late but going down swinging.

Though it is clear he seems to be saying that there is hope in an eventual turning of the tide of Thatcherite austerity for the poor (and largesse for the rich), I think this is likely to be viewed by folks on the receiving end of the stick as just more lipstick on the pig when there appears to be no such relief anywhere on the political horizon.

Maq wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
Maq wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

If it's a yes, my understanding is it's not official until they also choose a special unit, unique building, and leader.

The Black Watch, Pub, Robert the Bruce.

I think by unit, he was talking in Civilization terms. In that case, you are probably better off choosing either the Highlander or the Schiltron.

The Pub is a building commonly seen in all the UK, but this one is a lot less stringent. It is also possible to forgo the special building if you want two special units.

Highlanders is a poor choice. You're stuck with building only one.

lol.

How about the Engineer? Replaces the worker at Steam Engine. Gives wildly inaccurate work estimates and completes the project in half the time.

onewild wrote:

Seems the No fight saved their best speech till last, most likely too late but going down swinging.

I was really enjoying this until he said "welfare state" in a non pejorative way and people started clapping.

My fight-or-flight response kicked in, I panicked and closed the window.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

I was really enjoying this until he said "welfare state" in a non pejorative way and people started clapping.

My fight-or-flight response kicked in, I panicked and closed the window.

Nurse, this man needs three hours of conservative talk radio followed by 30 minutes of reading comments from Fox Nation articles, STAT!

I'm eagerly looking forward to seeing the result tomorrow. My mother is Glaswegian and most of my family in Scotland have been campaigning for independence for years.

It's been great reading happy Dave and omni's thoughts. Both make eloquent statements with being strident. Kudos to both of you.