The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #321  
Old 09-12-2014, 09:22 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
I get the impression that no-one on the "no" side thought there was a serious chance of the "yes" team winning, and once it seemed that was indeed a possibility they have resorted to threats which have drawn attention to issues that were previously glossed over or ignored by the "yes" side.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
They are not threats. alex Salmond has equivocated on major issues. He has said that Scotland will have the £ even though the BoE has repeatedly said it will not happen. Therefore He needs a Bank of England equivalent with sufficient reserves to cover all potential risk. He hasn't answered this question.

It isnt a threat, its a fact. The BoE (which will spk for UK without Scotland) cannot guarantee the debts and management of a foreign country (Scotland) unless that country accepts the financial decisions of the UK. Where is the independence in that?

Salmond has assumed Uk is bluffing. It isnt.

Ive said that I want UK to remain but I will respect their decision. I still feel like that. but I am being told by individuals that they are already moving their businesses.

today we made arrangements to move our savings out of a Scotland based bank.

Its all we have and it needs to be safe.
IMHO I believe the UK didn't really think this was a "Real" option. That there would be a referendum, the No's would win and everything would stay the same. A lot of very educated politicians, on both sides, took things for granted. In essence they just plain didn't do their homework. People are confused about the effect it will have on their familes and their future. And Alex Salmond and David Cameron both head governments that didn't bother to really do their homework.

However, with some very sharp politicing it is suddenly looking as though it could actually be a "Real" threat and banks and businesses are now forced to look at the impact of operating in what will be a "Foreign Country".

How does tax in the UK impact on firms that operate in a foreign country? Do each and every firm that operates throughout the UK actually want to be dealing with foreign government and a whole new set of commercial law that is about to slam into them. Do they want to deal with Scottish tax as well as UK tax? Will a supermarket in one town be paying diffent rates in two towns, one each side of an invisible divide.

What about immigration, will you need passports since it would be travel to and from a foreign country. What if you live in the UK but work in another country just up the road? What about health, pensions, education, etc. The military have some very succinct, if somewhat colourful expressions to discribe the current situation: SNAFU, FUBAR and the ever faithfully discriptive 'Charley Foxtrot'.

Suddenly it is a real game changer and because these matters have not been seriously addressed to the satisfaction of the financial sector we hear the RBS will shut it's Scottish banks, and at ground level, firms and people moving their money and some even preparing to "return to the UK" should the vote be 'Yes'.

It's turned into an angry and spiteful mess, regardless of what the politicians are saying, what is happening at ground level with families, workplaces, even church congregations, divided is doing far more harm to the people that live in Scotland. Makes one think of Mark 3:25: If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.

Whichever way the vote goes now, the collateral damage will not just fade away. The breach will not be healed, at least not any time soon.
__________________

__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #322  
Old 09-12-2014, 09:57 AM
PrincessOfPeace's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: York, United Kingdom
Posts: 180
Quote:
This was meant to be the day Alex Salmond showed off his statesmanlike qualities to the world.
But instead of meeting the founding father of a brave new nation, the world’s media came to his grandly-named ‘international press conference’ to find a peevish man bristling with indignation over the parochial details of a very inconvenient truth.
For the grandest bank in Scotland had just announced it would pack up the boardroom and move its HQ to London if Scots vote for independence next week.
Peevish and bristling, Salmond exploded at man from the Beeb by ROBERT HARDMAN | Mail Online
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #323  
Old 09-12-2014, 10:39 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 5,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
[....]
Suddenly it is a real game changer and because these matters have not been seriously addressed to the satisfaction of the financial sector we hear the RBS will shut it's Scottish banks, and at ground level, firms and people moving their money and some even preparing to "return to the UK" should the vote be 'Yes'. [....]
The RBS and other banks are not threathening to shut their Scottish banks. They are threathening to remove their headquarters out of Scotland, which is really not the same. RBS "has" to say that since it is for 85% owned by the UK Government and as we know they are throwing all and everything in the battle to let the Union survive.

My own country (France), the Netherlands and Ireland faced the same threat. When they would vote against an European Constitution, the banks would leave, the industries would move, the prices would rise, the financial markets would downgrade causing interests to rise. Anyway: France, the Netherlands and Ireland voted against the European Constitution. Nothing happened, no any multinational, bank or insurance company has left. The interests rates did not rise. The prices stayed exactly the same. The people in the EU hear and read these threats uttered to Scotland and think: "Been there before, heard that before"...



http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...s-9727596.html
Reply With Quote
  #324  
Old 09-12-2014, 11:39 AM
PrincessOfPeace's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: York, United Kingdom
Posts: 180
Quote:
The former deputy leader of the Scottish nationalists has threatened a 'day of reckoning' for businesses speaking out against independence.
SNP grandee Jim Sillars lashed out after a host of banks, finance firms, supermarkets and retail giants warned about the dangers of separation.

The 'Yes' to independence campaign's economic case for independence was further damaged after one of Britain's most influential industrialists warned that Scotland’s economy could be damaged for a decade if it votes for independence.
Sir Mike Rake, chairman of the BT Group and leading figure in Barclays, said a ‘Yes’ vote would ‘inevitably’ cause a slowdown which he claimed could ‘easily’ last 10 years.
Scotland could face TEN YEAR economic slowdown after independence | Mail Online
Reply With Quote
  #325  
Old 09-12-2014, 10:27 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
The RBS and other banks are not threathening to shut their Scottish banks. They are threathening to remove their headquarters out of Scotland, which is really not the same. RBS "has" to say that since it is for 85% owned by the UK Government and as we know they are throwing all and everything in the battle to let the Union survive.

My own country (France), the Netherlands and Ireland faced the same threat. When they would vote against an European Constitution, the banks would leave, the industries would move, the prices would rise, the financial markets would downgrade causing interests to rise. Anyway: France, the Netherlands and Ireland voted against the European Constitution. Nothing happened, no any multinational, bank or insurance company has left. The interests rates did not rise. The prices stayed exactly the same. The people in the EU hear and read these threats uttered to Scotland and think: "Been there before, heard that before"...



Scottish independence: Ireland since 1919 is a lesson for Scotland in what a Yes vote means - Comment - Voices - The Independent
I am aware the bank branches will still be there and perhaps I wasn't not as clear about what it means, but I also know, when my Provincial bank was swallowed by a National bank things changed but when it was taken over by an Australian Bank, decisions are now made "across the ditch" in another country, namely Australia. We might have an awful lot in common with them but I still live in New Zealand and our concerns are secondary.

Moving the "Headquarters" of the RBS means it will be in another country. That is the point I was trying to make. And believe me . . . it matters!

It's nice that France is able to make it's own decisions but you are missing the point. At this time Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, not a foreign country, and what you are talking about is not in any way, shape or form, the same.

Suddenly there is a landslide of "consequences" not "threats". I find it easy to believe the Royal mail, which delivers under a ‘universal service obligation’ and so has fixed mail prices, may not even exist in a new Scotland let alone continue to subsidise remote areas. Just another little consequence.

There are so many "institutions" both big and small that are going to have to re-evaluate the way they do business.

Will Scotland offer lower taxes to lure industry? Will the UK look at 'export' incentives, or will it cost more to export to Scotland? These are all grass roots type of things that are not, in and of themselves, political, but the affect the way we live our day to day lives.

If nothing else, it has brought the inequalities of the UK into share focus. How the taxepayers of Enland Wales and Northern Ireland are subsidising Scotland with billions and yet their schools and elderly enjoy subsidies that the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland could only dream of.

Regardless of how the vote goes, things are definitely going to change within the UK.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #326  
Old 09-13-2014, 04:48 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 5,925
Funny that you worry about Royal Mail and who might bring the post to Scotland. That Royal Mail is for sale and will be bought by.... Deutsche Post (!)... Citibank, Deutsche Bank, Santander, AIB (Allied Irish Bank) or even unexpected giants as HSBC and Standard Chartered are in foreign hands.

This leads to the question: who destroyed Britain? Will this be Mr Salmond? No! It was the Westminster good-old-boys-network who completely destroyed the backbone of what once was Britain and are facing a possible end of the very same Britain. Who did destroy British Rail? British Telecom? British Aerospace? Britoil? British Gas? British Steel? British Airways? British Coal? Powergen? National Power? British Leyland and other automotive industries? Who is going to destroy the Royal Mail even?

Where other nation states as France and Germany see it as their very core interest to hold and keep essential infrastructure and industries in own hands, "Westminster" itself has caused an implosion of what once was so great in Great Britain. Now Mr Salmond is the ultimate bad guy and targeted by "Westminster" but anyone knows Great Britian has been destroyed already.
Reply With Quote
  #327  
Old 09-13-2014, 05:26 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,079
The Republic of Ireland seems ver expensive when I visit there, but these are the official figures

Consumer Prices in Ireland are 2.44% higher than in United Kingdom Consumer Prices Including Rent in Ireland are 0.37% lower than in United Kingdom Rent Prices in Ireland are 7.33% lower than in United Kingdom Restaurant Prices in Ireland are 0.54% higher than in United Kingdom Groceries Prices in Ireland are 4.19% higher than in United Kingdom
Reply With Quote
  #328  
Old 09-13-2014, 06:07 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 5,925
Is that measured by Irish people being paid in Euro and buying goods with Euro or is that measured by UK citizens who have to exchange Pounds against Euros which always causes everything becoming expensive? For British citizens the EU seems very expensive because they see prices, for an example 100 Euro and make it 100 Pounds in their head but in reality it is around 80 Pounds.

The Irish have a GDP per capita of 43,304 US $ while the UK citizens enjoy a considerably lower GDP per capita of 36,209 US $ (World Development Indicators database, World Bank. Database updated on 1 July 2014. Accessed on 2 July 2014.) In general the costs of living in Ireland are somewhat higher than in the UK (Eurozone prices) but the differences are all within a small margin. It is not all doom and gloom since Ireland decided to say farewell to the Queen anyway, which is what the Unionists try to scare the Scots with. (And the Irish never had the pleasure of a giant oil bubble offshore).
Reply With Quote
  #329  
Old 09-13-2014, 11:23 AM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 4,447
I thank you all for how much I have learned in this Thread!
One thing I learned is how many of you from the UK, but not Scotland, have strong opinions on the referendum. A poll in the DM today shows 56% of you think you should have a say in the vote and having read what you have posted, I understand what's behind that opinion. Thanks.
__________________
A hero is someone who understands the responsibility that comes with his freedom.
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...bob_dylan.html
Reply With Quote
  #330  
Old 09-13-2014, 02:17 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk/Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 4,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
Funny that you worry about Royal Mail and who might bring the post to Scotland. That Royal Mail is for sale and will be bought by.... Deutsche Post (!)... Citibank, Deutsche Bank, Santander, AIB (Allied Irish Bank) or even unexpected giants as HSBC and Standard Chartered are in foreign hands.

This leads to the question: who destroyed Britain? Will this be Mr Salmond? No! It was the Westminster good-old-boys-network who completely destroyed the backbone of what once was Britain and are facing a possible end of the very same Britain. Who did destroy British Rail? British Telecom? British Aerospace? Britoil? British Gas? British Steel? British Airways? British Coal? Powergen? National Power? British Leyland and other automotive industries? Who is going to destroy the Royal Mail even?

Where other nation states as France and Germany see it as their very core interest to hold and keep essential infrastructure and industries in own hands, "Westminster" itself has caused an implosion of what once was so great in Great Britain. Now Mr Salmond is the ultimate bad guy and targeted by "Westminster" but anyone knows Great Britian has been destroyed already.
I cannot help but agree with practically everything you say here! So many national industries were either shut down or privatised without thinking of the medium to long term consequences or having any regard whatsoever to those most affected.

It angers me greatly that only on the last days before the Scottish referendum, Westminster is cobbling together a Devo-max package in the event of a "no" vote, whereas this should have been done years ago! It is a childish, petulant panic on behalf of the government just as it is with all the hot air that comes from the Scottish First Minister.

If ever there was a time for the Queen to handbag everyone it is this!
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #331  
Old 09-13-2014, 02:51 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,451
70 per cent of English want to keep UK united-
70 per cent of English want to keep UK united - ITV News
__________________
"THE REAL POWER OF A MAN IS IN THE SIZE OF THE SMILE OF THE WOMAN SITTING NEXT TO HIM."

GENTLEMAN'S ESSENTIALS
Reply With Quote
  #332  
Old 09-13-2014, 03:13 PM
Al_bina's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 7,033
Quote:
BBC accused of anti-independence bias after editing out Salmond’s reply to ‘bank exodus’ question

The BBC faces accusations of anti-independence bias after its political editor, Nick Robinson, produced a report that wrongly claimed Alex Salmond had ignored his question during a heated press conference.

Calling into question the impartiality of the publicly-owned broadcaster, the veteran BBC correspondent edited out Salmond’s lengthy answer, in which the First Minister claimed the BBC had skewed facts and colluded with the Treasury to undermine the “Yes” campaign.
http://rt.com/uk/187344-bbc-scottish-independence-bias/
__________________
"I never did mind about the little things"
Amanda, "Point of No Return"
Reply With Quote
  #333  
Old 09-13-2014, 03:25 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 1,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
But I don't know how the decision is made. I feel v ignorant of not understanding the process. How did Australia, NZ and the other realms decide on the Queen as Head of State? Did they decide or was the decision placed upon them and who by (ie British Government or the newly established realm government)?
.
Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa were semiautonomous British colonies until they were granted sovereignty from the UK parliament under the Statute of Westminster. Keeping the Queen as Head of State was therefore just a continuation of the status quo prior to sovereignty rather then something they "decided" or voted for. Once those original dominions became sovereign though, they were also given the freedom to dump the Queen in the future if they so wished, as South Africa did in 1961 when it became a republic.

The only caveat is that, in order to become a republic, the dominions must follow the amendment procedures set out in their own constitutions. In Canada, that would require the consent of both the federal parliament and the legislative assemblies of all ten provinces. In Australia, the end of the monarchy would have to be approved in a referendum by a majority of voters nationwide and by a majority of voters in a majority of states. In New Zealand, since there is no qualified constitutional amendment procedure, an ordinary act of parliament would in theory suffice, but I doubt any NZ government would introduce legislation to that effect without holding a popular referendum first.
Reply With Quote
  #334  
Old 09-13-2014, 03:36 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 1,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
Is that measured by Irish people being paid in Eurand buying goods with Euro or is that measured by UK citizens who have to exchange Pounds against Euros which always causes everything becoming expensive? For British citizens the EU seems very expensive because they see prices, for an example 100 Euro and make it 100 Pounds in their head but in reality it is around 80 Pounds.

The Irish have a GDP per capita of 43,304 US $ while the UK citizens enjoy a considerably lower GDP per capita of 36,209 US $ (World Development Indicators database, World Bank. Database updated on 1 July 2014. Accessed on 2 July 2014.) .

According to the IMF, Ireland's per capita GDP in purchasing power parity was US$ 39,547 in 2013 versus the UK's US$ 37,407, which is just slightly lower. By comparison, France's per capita GDP in PPP in 2013 was estimated by the IMF at US$ 35,784. The World Bank has different estimates due to differences in methodology.

Keep also in mind that southeastern England in particular has a per capita GDP that is much higher than the UK average. Global UK per capita GDP is dragged down by some relatively poorer areas of the kingdom, including Scotland for example.
Reply With Quote
  #335  
Old 09-13-2014, 03:49 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa were semiautonomous British colonies until they were granted sovereignty from the UK parliament under the Statute of Westminster. Keeping the Queen as Head of State was therefore just a continuation of the status quo prior to sovereignty rather then something they "decided" or voted for. Once those original dominions became sovereign though, they were also given the freedom to dump the Queen in the future if they so wished, as South Africa did in 1961 when it became a republic.

The only caveat is that, in order to become a republic, the dominions must follow the amendment procedures set out in their own constitutions. In Canada, that would require the consent of both the federal parliament and the legislative assemblies of all ten provinces. In Australia, the end of the monarchy would have to be approved in a referendum by a majority of voters nationwide and by a majority of voters in a majority of states. In New Zealand, since there is no qualified constitutional amendment procedure, an ordinary act of parliament would in theory suffice, but I doubt any NZ government would introduce legislation to that effect without holding a popular referendum first.

I actually seriously doubt this. If in 1867 when Canada became a Dominion they had wanted to be a republic I seriously believe that there would have been a fight.

The British were willing to allow Canadian confederation because keeping Canada a colony was getting too expensive and there had been fighting (albeit far earlier) in an attempt to assert Canadian independence. However, as much as we became an independent country in 1867, we also remained under British control. We had no constitution, we had no control over foreign affairs, and when we couldn't solve a problem ourselves the British did it. Not to mention the fact that we had a British Governor-General.

All these other things came much later in Canadian history, as I suspect they did in the history of the other Dominions. As such I don't think it was until well into the 20th century that any one of these Dominions really had the "choice" to become a republic.

With Scotland, things are different because independence (if it happens) is happening in a very different way. They're having a referendum, yes or no on independence. To me it seems like unless they have a three tiered vote - yes for independence with a monarchy, yes for independence with a republic, or no for no independence - then the issue of a republic is not at this time on the table. Since doing that would split the yes votes it makes more sense to not do it at this time, but rather take a second referendum at a later date if independence is achieved now.
Reply With Quote
  #336  
Old 09-13-2014, 04:16 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 1,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
I actually seriously doubt this. If in 1867 when Canada became a Dominion they had wanted to be a republic I seriously believe that there would have been a fight.
My point was that Canada was not granted the power in 1867 to become a republic in a manner that would be consistent with British law. In fact, technically speaking, Canada only got that power on its own in 1982 although, between 1931 and 1982, the established constitutional convention was that the UK parliament would have enacted legislation to make Canada a republic if the the Canadian parliament had so requested.

To become a republic in 1867, Canada would probably have had to make a unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) pretty much as the US did in 1776. Whether the UK would have accepted such UDI peacefully or responded with force (as was the case in the Canadian rebellions of 1837-38), it is a matter of speculation that cannot be answered.
Reply With Quote
  #337  
Old 09-14-2014, 07:46 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 1,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
It is not all doom and gloom since Ireland decided to say farewell to the Queen anyway, which is what the Unionists try to scare the Scots with. (And the Irish never had the pleasure of a giant oil bubble offshore).
Let's see if I understand it. The Nats don't trust:

1) The chief secretary of the Treasury, who is a career civil servant with no political party affiliation;

2) The governor of the Bank of England, who is Canadian, and also has no partisan affiliation;

3) The chief economist of Deutsche Bank, who is a German with a PhD from Princeton and also a former employee of the IMF;

4) The president of the European Comission (now former president), who of course is Portuguese and has no conection to UK political parties;

5) The PMs of Australia and Canada;

6) NATO's Danish general secretary ;

7) The American Nobel prize laureate, Paul Krugman, and,

8) Incidentally, the IMF itself.


They do however trust Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon and others alike who tell them that all of the above, plus the CEOs of most top 100 UK companies, the Scottish banks and insurance firms, most Scottish newspapers, etc. are in league with those "effing English Tories" to lie to the Scottish people and scare them about the "doom and gloom" of independence.

As a school student , I learned in History class how nationalism fed on irrationality, but I never imagined I would witness it personally in my life tiime in a 21st century western European country !
Reply With Quote
  #338  
Old 09-14-2014, 08:44 AM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: An Iarmhí, Ireland
Posts: 15,844
Scottish independence: Campaign leaders stress vote importance

BBC News - Scottish independence: Campaign leaders stress vote importance
__________________
20th of December 1963,Birth of The Infanta Elena, Duchess of Lugo
Reply With Quote
  #339  
Old 09-14-2014, 09:47 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 5,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post

[....]

It is not about ration but about emotion. When ration would prevail, the Kingdom of the Netherlands should join the Federal Republic of Germany: both economies are extremely identical and interconnected. What would serve the interests of the Dutch better than being part of the economic and political giant which is the Federal Republic of Germany? The Dutch however, with little ration but lots of emotion, then think: "Over our dead body!"

Apparently the calls by the Scottish nationalists fall in fertile soil. There must be a reason for that. The ration says that Scottish interests are best managed by the Scots themselves. Scottish future should be in Scottish hands. To this pretty strong ration we can add the emotion of the Scottish identity and its great history, voilà... there it is.

The unionists urge the Scots to stay together because... "aren't we great together?" The Scots then look around, look what the state of the United Kingdom is, the policies of "Westminster" which gave them the Poll Tax, the Bedroom Tax, the use of Scotland as a laboratory for experimentation in new (failed) methods of local government finance. Then the question "Aren't we great together?" is probably extremely difficult to answer, other dan with hell and doom and gloom.

Reply With Quote
  #340  
Old 09-14-2014, 09:56 AM
Empress Merel's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: -, Netherlands
Posts: 1,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
It is not about ration but about emotion. When ration would prevail, the Kingdom of the Netherlands should join the Federal Republic of Germany: both economies are extremely identical and interconnected. What would serve the interests of the Dutch better than being part of the economic and political giant which is the Federal Republic of Germany? The Dutch however, with little ration but lots of emotion, then think: "Over our dead body!"

Apparently the calls by the Scottish nationalists fall in fertile soil. There must be a reason for that. The ration says that Scottish interests are best managed by the Scots themselves. Scottish future should be in Scottish hands. To this pretty strong ration we can add the emotion of the Scottish identity and its great history, voilà... there it is.

The unionists urge the Scots to stay together because... "aren't we great together?" The Scots then look around, look what the state of the United Kingdom is, the policies of "Westminster" which gave them the Poll Tax, the Bedroom Tax, the use of Scotland as a laboratory for experimentation in new (failed) methods of local government finance. Then the question "Aren't we great together?" is probably extremely difficult to answer, other dan with hell and doom and gloom.

I agree. From what I've read and heard from the Scots, and I don't pretend to be an expert on this issue, is that they feel that the government is governing in favor of England. That and combine that with what you said, it's easy to tell why there are so many Yes voters.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
referendums, scotland, scottish independence


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Popular Tags
90th birthday of queen elizabeth ii ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit best summer outfit 2016 catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion fashion poll grand duke jean greece hereditary grand duchess stéphanie kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats princess sofia and alexander queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania casual outfit royal fashion september 2016 sheikha moza state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:48 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises