Originally Posted by Top banana (Post 35669243)

Personally I don't give a hoot about what happens, however you are the only person I have come across from Scotland who wants to break away, so I fully expect Scotland to carry on as it is today, So what are you going to do when you lose Jimi and realise you are in a minority?

Btw the use of tae rather than to makes it difficult to take you seriously.

Originally Posted by Kabaal (Post 35669321)

I'm honestly quite nervous about the vote. With all the nonsense surrounding it i think a lot of people aren't taking it seriously enough. If the vote ends up yes then Salmond and his cronies could well end up completely breaking everything. What happens then? Does he or his successor beg to be let back into the UK? I doubt they would take us back lol.

Originally Posted by Kabaal (Post 35669442)

Next up; The British Isles and how it will look after the zombie apocalypse.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35669336)

Erm no, Scotland did not vote for independence in the 1970s. There was a devolution referendum, which was defeated. The "technicality" was a quorum, which is a totally uncontroversial device in decisions involving constitutional change. IMO there should have been one in 1997 as well, although I believe Scotland would have met it. Wales certainly wouldn't and as a result the Assembly came into existence with the active support of fewer than 25% of Welsh voters.

I believe there should have been a quorum for this year's referendum as well. It can in no way be said to be the settled will of the Scottish people to effect permanent, radical constitutional change unless a majority of adults - all of them, not just the turnout - are sufficiently motivated to go out and vote for it.

Permanent and major constitutional changes should be demonstrated by more than 50% +1 of whichever voters turn out on the day. If the result is 49-51 for the union, the separatists will keep agitating forever and a day until they get what they want, arguing that opinions might have changed, but if it goes 51-49 the other way, the destruction of the modern British state will be permanent.

It's all very well you being happy with the consequences but our children have to live in the land we are at risk of birthing this year and we have a responsibility to them.

Cameron has been a pragmatist in allowing the seps to have their referendum, with votes for teens and no quorum, because he knew there was a risk that Salmond the ever-reckless would simply go ahead anyway and plan to try to fight for his result through the courts if necessary. But there is a real risk now, if the result is close, whichever way it falls, of long lasting social damage.

Originally Posted by Jimi (Post 35669436)

That's odd because I know of just one person up here who is voting for BT.
It may take a wee while for folk down in England tae get over the break up,one thing that's for sure,many folk (I may have posted this before) may seek pastures new in the years ahead due tae the weather situation,the North Pole is melting incredibly fast,so people have a choice,stay put or move tae Scotland where they will be welcomed,they might even like it.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...pspbgaeoaz.JPG

Originally Posted by Jimi (Post 35669436)

Originally Posted by Mr Angry (Post 35669421)

Apologies. As I said, I'm not an economist however banks in Wales did at one stage print their own banknotes if I recall correctly.

I don't believe I did "miss" a point. It's a fact that the electorate of the UK were not asked to vote on the saving of the banking system.

The UK openly loaned seveal billions to Ireland in recent years to shore up their economy so loans and underwriting where there are national interests / assets are concerned are not entirely unheard of.

Clearly you have a far greater grasp of the fiscal side of things than I could wish to have but from a laypersons point of view when it comes to banking and matters of sovereignty things are never as clear cut as you or I would like them to be. To that end, and based on the recklessness of the bankers in recent years, I don't rule anything out when it comes to finances & independence.

EDIT:

Just researched the Welsh banknote history and I see you are right. They were a very limited promissory note run back in the 60's. Cheers.

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 35669465)

Thats funny as there are clearly more people here who will vote No than Yes. Same goes for all the people I know in Glasgow. Yes votes are few and far between.

Originally Posted by Jimi (Post 35669487)

Wrong Stephen,the unionists will vote tae stay together.
BTW,as an aside,I'm on a forum called celticminded.com,I'm assuming you've heard of it before,as well as run of the mill Celtic websites such as KDS,The Huddle board,and TwistnTurns,they all voted heavily in favour of YES,as do Jambos Kickback,(where's there's an excellent debate on Independence) and the Hibs message boards,my cousin is a Rangers fan and on Follow Follow,they obviously want the BT,I'm sure you,as a Celtic fan,would back me up on these stats as I'm pretty certain you will have been on one or two forums,right?

Originally Posted by Jimi (Post 35669487)

Wrong Stephen,the unionists will vote tae stay together.
BTW,as an aside,I'm on a forum called celticminded.com,I'm assuming you've heard of it before,as well as run of the mill Celtic websites such as KDS,The Huddle board,and TwistnTurns,they all voted heavily in favour of YES,as do Jambos Kickback,(where's there's an excellent debate on Independence) and the Hibs message boards,my cousin is a Rangers fan and on Follow Follow,they obviously want the BT,I'm sure you,as a Celtic fan,would back me up on these stats as I'm pretty certain you will have been on one or two forums,right?

Originally Posted by Wad_2002 (Post 35669405)

Yeah, I would be content as I would repspect there vote. But at the end of the day, if the majoirty vote was yes/no (putting voter turnout to the side this now)...I would respect this.

But this is where the draw back is Chris and the fundamental flaw of the "system" is Scotland cannot implement/influence policy decision making in Westminster becuase of the under re-presentation of the Scottish MP's. The same goes for NI, Wales, etc.. I realise we got devo, but sorry, it doesn't satasfy my need and nor would I expect it to satasfy the scottish parliaments needs.

We have 50 or so mp's in westminster out of a representation of 600 for the UK. How can SNP, Salmond or anyone for the fact change things for the better good.

P.s. I didn't want to quote your response to the pound question because of the size, but I acknowledge and respect your answer to my question. It certainly gave me a lesson :)

Its certainlly gave me a different way of looking at it. Yeah the euro is a complete mess and yes I have to agree there are risks on a unpredictable nature of sharing the currency with different polices on each side of the border in play.

I have said before Chris, I don't think leaving the UK is the answer, but uncertainlly over the currency aint going to stop me from voting yes. But this did not explain why Scotland cannot go alone and make a good one out of it.

I quote from DC -

“Supporters of independence will always cite examples of small, independent and thriving economies, such as Switzerland and Norway. It would be wrong to suggest that Scotland could not be another such successful, independent country” - David Cameron (April 2007)

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 35669490)

I sometimes visit KDS but only for the football threads. Personally I am BT because it makes more sense and the Yes team's white paper had so many holes in it, it was like swiss cheese.

There is nae need tae type 'tae' that doesnae make ya sound Scottish. Just looks pure daft like, ken?:angel: