TFARCHIVE FORUMS

Note: This is spun out of the Grumpy Old Men thread in toys, as a result there's a couple of mentions of Transformers in the first few posts.

Here's an entirely accurate representation of the Scottish to get people in the mood for the debate-- dalek.




Ha! Sure! Actually, I was up in Scotlandcestershire just yesterday, in the fine city of Glasgow (love all the murals!) - thought I'd best go before I need a passport to get in...!

The worst of it was how the independence campaign has been seized on by capitalist scum-f**ks to churn out all kinds of horrible SCOTLAND IZ MEGA tie-in compilation CDs, Thistle mascots and all manner of other terrible crap.

I'm honestly not sure what I make of independence. I think Scotland may struggle to go it alone (its already reliant on England to shore up its electric and gas ... which we er, import 'cos we can't get it together to generate our own). There's no guarantee the Scots'll be any better off and I'm deeply suspicious of Salmond's motives given his dealings with the Chinese and Rupert Murdoch (of all people). Its all moot anyway, as the whole debate has been derailed by bickering over whether Scotland can continue to use sterling (my understanding is they'd have to adopt the Euro due to EU stuffs, although Luxembourg has some curious get-out the Scots may be able to invoke - perhaps by becoming a massive tax haven like them. And London).

I think Salmond is just jealous he hasn't got a statue like Donald Dewar!

I did see a lot of Police Boxes (TARDISes!!!!) which was pretty cool. Including a red one. Ooh.

I'm voting Yes next week.

Scotland actually subsidises England. Although we do get more spending per head than elsewhere in the UK (except Northern Ireland), we still give more to Westminster in taxes and revenues than we get back.

As to energy, Scotland generates a surplus of electricity and shores up England's deficit. The UK Government white paper on energy says they will not import electricity from an independent Scotland, but will import from other countries. That's comical as the National Grid already connects us, and there are no connections to other countries. It's even more comical as the only connection in development is spearheaded by Scottish Government and would connect Scotland to Europe. So, just spiteful nonsense from UK Government there...

Scotland votes significantly differently than the rest of the UK, and rarely influences the composition of the UK Government (only 4 out of 18 times since WWII). We're frequently governed by governments we do not elect, because we are a minority vote in the UK. If we were independent we would have the government we choose 100% of the time.

Westminster can strip Scotland's devolved powers without even consulting with Scottish Government, let alone the Scottish electorate. And they have done so before. In fact, in December they stripped Scotland of its devolved renewables powers (a decision by the unelected House of Lords no less!). Since then they have stripped us of our devolved powers over fracking (so licensing decisions and revenues go direct to Westminster). If they are willing to do this in the leadup to a referendum, I don't see why they wouldn't do it any time.

Also, meaningful UK environmental legislation is all built on EU Directives. Yet England is moving towards leaving the EU, and at the same time stripping environmental 'red tape' (and have spent over 10 years in court with the EU over not enforcing environmental legislation). Scotland wants to be part of the EU, but I'm confident we would have strong environmental legislation regardless as we have demonstrated we value our environment as an economic asset and important part of our national identity.

There are lots of other reasons I'm voting Yes, and there are perfectly valid reasons to vote No.

However, I doubt this is the right place to discuss them. If you're interested in more PM me or look me up on Facebook (Chris Cathrine)!



PS - This is nothing about being anti-English. Most of my family, including my dad, are English. English people living in Scotland, as well as Germans, Japanese etc would also be part of building this new independent nation if we vote Yes.

What you've highlighted there is exactly what isn't being widely discussed in the media. It is very much a Scottish question for the Scottish people - you know your country better than I - it looks Scotland may get what it wants anyway with the noises Cameron has been making this week.

I'll be interested to see how it goes anyway.

As for Britain's EU Membership...well that's a whole other can of worms. Our innate hostility to Johnny Foreigner and a lack of understanding about EU regulations and the generally poor way the UK enacts them hasn't given us the best impression of the European Union. Not of course helped by the massive economic collapse which has made a mess of the Euro.

In other more related news, I was in Tescoland and was marvelling at the Dinobots. As that is all they had. The same three figures in every size and scale you could possibly want.

And absolutely s*d all interest in them. Meanwhile, silver chested Optimus and Grimlock 2 pack has clearly been scalped as that seems to be the only set anyone is interested in. Being the proud owner of a FoC Grimlock already, your £30 seems to gets you two mediocre toys for the price. If one breaks the cost between the two figures - one Voyager and one Deluxe, it doesn't quite hit the value for money mark costing roughly the same as the individual figures, saving about £3.00 if bought separately. Woo.

I'm broadly in favour of Star Trek style world government, but Federation politicians don't seem to be ninety percent plus corrupt bastards. Personally consider myself British > European > mongrel, given that the land's been invaded so much. "English" as an identity has become synonymous with racist scum and "Scottish", "Irish" and "Welsh" aren't doing much better.

On a semi-tangent, Nazi Prime (black repaint of TW Orion) arrived recently. He's got the hand articulation for it and everything.

What I really think is unfair is how the Scottish have sneaked this vote upon our politicians with just a few days to go rather than, say, giving at least a year's notice. It means the No campaign are having to scurry around at the last second and make up their promises on the hoof rather than the no doubt serious and considered thought that would have been given if there had been proper time to prepare for such a major vote.

Personally I'd say the Union is better off together (and think Salmond is pulling an awful lot of bullshit out of his ass, nicely showing that politicians are all the same regardless of which side of the border they're on, things like his promises on how the currency will work out are dependant on what remains of the UK just cheerfully going along with whatever he wants), but in a world where there's the very real possibility of Boris Johnson becoming Prime Minister one day, it's hard to argue that running for the hills isn't the best idea.

It's mildly shocking it's only just occurred to people this might create problems for the election next year.

Although it's fascinating to see a country other than Canada have to deal with a secessionist movement for once*, it's really not TF-related. Would you guys mind making a topic in GD if you're going to continue to discuss it?

*I'm curious whether most of the English actually want Scotland to stay, or if there's a big chunk saying "get going already, we never liked you anyway!", like much of English Canada says to Quebec whenever they threaten to leave...

Of course, the main argument is over who gets lumbered with keeping Canada as a pet.


Will move posts into a new thread when I return from work.

Suggest copying rather than moving.

As only two of the relevant posts actually mentioned the original topic (well, beyond being grumpy) I thought moving would be more straightforward.

I have however sensitively edited what is now the first post and come up with an entirely non-racist thread title.

In terms of how the English feel... well, at least where I am, there's a degree of sympathy with wanting to get the hell away from London but equally I live in a part of the country the government genuinely has never even given the slightest **** about (the first election I could vote in the Labour MP had basically fallen on his sword by pushing through a hospital closure nobody wanted knowing it would lose him his seat, but which was made up for by the promise of a nice cushy job at central office afterwards. He cheerfully came to my sixth form ostensibly to cultivate new voters but actually wound up saying everyone who lived in my town was an idiot with the full glee of a man who doesn't give a toss what happens) so hearing Scots go on about how hard done by they are is more than a bit grating.

Sure, there are poor unregarded parts of Scotland the same as there are everywhere in the country, but hearing people from Glasgow acting as if they're living in a third world country under evil English oppression just makes most of the people I talk too around here want them **** off, and **** off completely (no shared currency, proper borders, no sharing of EU membership and so on and so on).

I think we'd let them have the new royal baby though so as to start their own monarchy. Or just make Susan Boyle Queen of Scots, with her Brian May standing on his head muff as the new Stone of Scone.

It's actually staggering how much of a shambles the organisation of the whole thing has been with no one in power seeming to take it seriously until this week, if there is a Yes vote I don't think either side are actually in any sort of state to handle the changeover.

Even more worryingly, if there is a No vote I don't think either side are actually in any sort of state to handle things staying the same.

@Numbat: As you're keen on being in the EU (as am I), what's the most recent on whether Scotland would actually be allowed to be a member if independent? IIRC there was some confusion over Salmond basically saying they would carry on as part of it automatically even though that's against standard EU practice (where if part of a country gains independence they have to reapply, and in the case of Scotland that would also raise the Euro issue in a currency situation no one seems to have still made their mind up about).

I was mildly surprised to see on the news this morning that, alongside Lloyds, the Royal Bank of Scotland have said they'll move their head offices to London if there's a yes vote. Can the actual Scottish bank actually do that?

Warcry wrote:*I'm curious whether most of the English actually want Scotland to stay, or if there's a big chunk saying "get going already, we never liked you anyway!", like much of English Canada says to Quebec whenever they threaten to leave...

I would like Scotland to stay, personally. The campaign for/against has - as dalek says been something of a shambles and there do not seem to be any concrete plans being bandied about to allow a properly informed decision. Its just become a jingoistic debate with neither side convincing on any front.

Devolved powers to the Welsh, Scottish and Irish seems to have - in the main - worked ok. Certainly in areas such as the NHS (er, ok, the Welsh NHS is a huge mess in much the same way as the NHS in England is) and education. Scotland has actually managed to avoid some of the privatisation problems that have crippled the likes of England's health and railway system (oddly, Alastair Darling was keen when Transport Minister to avoid the franchising messes that have plagued England's railway network). There seems enough freedom for these governments to adapt the laws and policies put forward to their own countries. As Numbat says, the English government can revoke certain things where it is said to be in the interests of the Union to do so (and to create equality, one would hope - he says with his rose-tinted glasses), but that seems a fair and sensible thing to do. So long as its done properly. Devolution also offers support if things go a bit pair shaped (again, Wales and their problems with the NHS).

I would also like the UK to retain its EU membership and I wish we'd just jump right in and be properly involved instead of doing as we do at the moment - shouting from the sidelines whilst being utterly ignored. Our attitude of playing up our membership when it suits us and moaning when it doesn't is of no use to anyone and only serves to encourage anti-EU wonks like UKIP.


I also loved The Family Ness (Maddocks animation studios also did Jimbo And The Jetset and Penny Crayon)

When the United Kingdom was originally formed wasn't most of the Scots against it because of all the bad blood between them and England at the time (IIRC being told that UK was formed in the 18 or 19th century again this was a long time ago so maybe I'm off on my history) because the rich landowners and/or nobles were the ones that really wanted it so they could get more money and power.

Is that true or just BS?

I find the role of the EU in British politics fascinating, I can't lie. Everyone who lives outside of London seems to agree that the government can't be bothered to do anything about their problems, to the point where a large chunk of your country stands a very good chance of walking away in a week's time. And yet a lot of you are keen to cede more power to an even more distant government with even more varied and impossible-to-please constituents in Brussels. To an outsider, it seems quite contradictory. Wouldn't devolving more power to local governments be a better idea than giving it to a pan-national federation?

inflatable dalek wrote:Of course, the main argument is over who gets lumbered with keeping Canada as a pet.

We outnumber the Scots six to one, so I'm pretty sure it'd be the other way around...

inflatable dalek wrote:In terms of how the English feel... well, at least where I am, there's a degree of sympathy with wanting to get the hell away from London but equally I live in a part of the country the government genuinely has never even given the slightest **** about (the first election I could vote in the Labour MP had basically fallen on his sword by pushing through a hospital closure nobody wanted knowing it would lose him his seat, but which was made up for by the promise of a nice cushy job at central office afterwards. He cheerfully came to my sixth form ostensibly to cultivate new voters but actually wound up saying everyone who lived in my town was an idiot with the full glee of a man who doesn't give a toss what happens) so hearing Scots go on about how hard done by they are is more than a bit grating.

Sure, there are poor unregarded parts of Scotland the same as there are everywhere in the country, but hearing people from Glasgow acting as if they're living in a third world country under evil English oppression just makes most of the people I talk too around here want them **** off, and **** off completely (no shared currency, proper borders, no sharing of EU membership and so on and so on).

That sounds very familiar. In the 1990s, both of our major political parties basically told the rest of the country to go screw themselves and paid all their attention to Ontario (where the biggest chunk of votes are) and Quebec. Quebec paid them back by holding a referendum on separation, with politicians screaming about how the rest of Canada oppresses them by existing and at the same quietly assuring voters not to worry because they'd be able to keep using our dollar and benefiting from our social safety net. Meanwhile the federal government and the rest of the country were telling them "nope, if you're out you're out!"

There was very little sympathy for Quebec in the west, north or east of the country, since the people there had been screwed over by successive governments for the better part of a century. Generally because those same governments devoted a disproportionate amount of time to placating Quebec.

In the end, the separatists lost the vote by less than 1% and the rest of the country has had to watch our tax dollars spent to bribe Quebeckers into hating us less for the last two decades.

Skyquake87 wrote:I would like Scotland to stay, personally. The campaign for/against has - as dalek says been something of a shambles and there do not seem to be any concrete plans being bandied about to allow a properly informed decision. Its just become a jingoistic debate with neither side convincing on any front.

Also very familiar! Have the separatists played the "our unique culture is being trampled on by the rest of the country!" card yet? And then utterly, completely failed to explain how being a sovereign country would change that in a world where global media penetration is at an all-time high? And has London countered with empty platitudes about how the rest of the country "loves" Scotland?

I have no opinion either way on whether independence would be a good idea, but the language of "national unity" debates seems to be the same no matter where you go.

Warcry wrote:I find the role of the EU in British politics fascinating, I can't lie. Everyone who lives outside of London seems to agree that the government can't be bothered to do anything about their problems, to the point where a large chunk of your country stands a very good chance of walking away in a week's time. And yet a lot of you are keen to cede more power to an even more distant government with even more varied and impossible-to-please constituents in Brussels. To an outsider, it seems quite contradictory. Wouldn't devolving more power to local governments be a better idea than giving it to a pan-national federation?

Personally, I don't by any means think the EU is perfect (though I think the way to change it is to weigh in there and take an active part in it rather than holding it at arms length like a rotten fish as is basically government policy) I also think that the British as a whole really need to wake up to the fact we're not one of the main world powers anymore and haven't been for a long time. Most of our foreign policy is based on the assumption that what we think matters and that's pretty much had disastrous results over the last decade.

It amazes me that Tony Blair is now comfortably the most hated Prime Minister in living memory, you'll still find a depressingly large number of people who will defend Thatcher to the hilt but I can't recall the last time anyone had anything nicer to say about Blair than disgusted disappointment.

Well, apart from him winning GQ Humanitarian of the Year at exactly the same time as most of the regions he's spent the last few years trying to stop erupting into war erupted into war. Which is right up there with Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize when he was a week into office (which in retrospect I would say is a mistake. Poor old Obama, he's wound up a mild sufferer of Blair syndrome- voted in on a massive wave of hope and winding up fairly ineffectual and a let down. His only advantage is he's only carried on nasty pointless wars rather than starting them illegally).

I think in terms of the UK's future on the world stage, working closely with Europe in unison is the only way forward. And with our experience with the Commonwealth we should be right at the front of making a loose alliance of like minded countries work together well rather than sulking at the back.

It's also worth noting that most of the anti-EU stuff in the British press has little to do with it's actual flaws and is mostly based in xenophobia and the general assumption the British are just better, and any story reported only has a 50/50 chance of actually being true (the famous one being that the EU are going to force us to have straight bananas).

That sounds very familiar. In the 1990s, both of our major political parties basically told the rest of the country to go screw themselves and paid all their attention to Ontario (where the biggest chunk of votes are) and Quebec. Quebec paid them back by holding a referendum on separation, with politicians screaming about how the rest of Canada oppresses them by existing and at the same quietly assuring voters not to worry because they'd be able to keep using our dollar and benefiting from our social safety net. Meanwhile the federal government and the rest of the country were telling them "nope, if you're out you're out!"

There also seems to be an increased sense of annoyance at only the Scots getting to have a say in such a big decision that affects the entire country. Though realistically, I can't see what could be done about that even if it were a legitimate complaint.

There was very little sympathy for Quebec in the west, north or east of the country, since the people there had been screwed over by successive governments for the better part of a century. Generally because those same governments devoted a disproportionate amount of time to placating Quebec.

In the end, the separatists lost the vote by less than 1% and the rest of the country has had to watch our tax dollars spent to bribe Quebeckers into hating us less for the last two decades.

I think, assuming a close No vote (and I think the No still stands the strongest chance as the British are depressingly conservative by nature and in the end don't really like change. We didn't rise up and overthrow the government after an entire generation got wiped out in World War I, we're unlikely to break up the union because Scotland is slightly hard done by in terms of money spent on it per head) that's exactly what will happen here. There's already been some very serious backtracking on what will happen if there is a no vote, suddenly the Scots are going to get all sorts of extra devolved powers that weren't on the table originally.

It really is being made up as it goes along.

Just for fun, I think we should let Scotland have the Falklands if they do split.

And Groundskeeper Willie has waded into the debate...and is talking more sense than anyone else. Except Numbat.

http://youtu.be/W6vDzf-wSbk

Living in the UK for a bit more than a year, I think short term it will create a big heap of problems. Long term I can't really say for sure.

Independence is one thing, but what will that make the new Scotland? EU? "Overseas"?

Now, I am only talking education here [the part I have very regular contact with], because I am really unfamiliar about the other things spoken about...but we're talking about a whole new slew of rules for UKVI immigration, massive re-arrangements in the education equivalences for at least the first years and so on.

And on a slightly different matter, UK ever moving out of the EU would be a massive headache both for lawfully abiding citizens ALL over the country, but also for a great deal of the UK economy structure itself.

Lots of people bash the Polish and the Romanians for "coming in and taking the jobs" [this possibly extends to other Europeans as well], but the vast majority of this immigrant crowd is actively giving in by working, whilst a good portion of "locals", at least around my area, thrive off benefits and heck,even build entire families based on them.

These are of course two very different discussions [Immigration and benefits], but it's something Scotland and Scottish people IN the UK will probably face due to the Independence, should it come to pass.

Skyquake87 wrote:And Groundskeeper Willie has waded into the debate...and is talking more sense than anyone else. Except Numbat.

http://youtu.be/W6vDzf-wSbk

I... can think of no rational defence against that.


@Knightdramon: Every question you poise is not only valid... but is something both sides should have agreed in long before this came to a vote. If I were Scotch, I'd have no idea who to vote for because the actually important decisions that need both English and Scottish to come to terms on, haven't been agreed on in advance.

Even though I'm generally pro-Scottish independence (in that I think we work better together but can't argue against anyone wanting to get away from Cameron), I think the English will need to be allowed to have a very big say in how future relations with an independent Scotland will work, even if that means more referendums (should we share a currency or not?), all the pro arguments are currently based on one half of the divorce just having to accept whatever the other says even on issues that affect both of them. And that... is again something that should have been agreed on beforehand.

Warcry wrote:I find the role of the EU in British politics fascinating, I can't lie. Everyone who lives outside of London seems to agree that the government can't be bothered to do anything about their problems, to the point where a large chunk of your country stands a very good chance of walking away in a week's time. And yet a lot of you are keen to cede more power to an even more distant government with even more varied and impossible-to-please constituents in Brussels. To an outsider, it seems quite contradictory. Wouldn't devolving more power to local governments be a better idea than giving it to a pan-national federation?

I forgot to pick up on this point! The problem with the current UK outlook is that from a governmental point of view, it has become extremely London- centric. The level of investment and improvement made in the capital has seen its economy grow much much faster than the rest of the UK, to the point where IIRC, London's economy accounts for something like a third of our overall economy. Largely this has been built on by City deregulation which is seeing what the governement cheerfully calls 'foreign investment' (whilst this is true to an extent, the amount of money laundering happening in our financial centres is worrying - HSBC was recently fined in the US for laundering Mexican drug cartel money to the tune of a few billion dollars through London through a web of funny shell companies. There's also the dubious use of LLPs to hide where funds are orginating - currently beloved of some of Russia's more interesting characters).

A recent example of the government bias towards London would again be in the railways - here the government is spending huge amounts in subsidies to upgrade the rail network around Euston and continues to pour good money after bad on the cross rail project and botched attempts at privatising the Underground.

To compensate for this, commuters in the rest of the country on local branch lines (the majority of which fall in my patch in Yorkshire which has lots of small towns and villages which rely on railway connections as privatised bus services are non-existent) are having their subsides cut or frozen which means commuters are looking at 50% increases on tickets.

There's been a growing division between the capital and everywhere else since the last Labour government, but its just getting silly now. The capital's housing costs are also becoming unsustainable for those key service workers (the police, nurses, firemen etc) whom actually have to live and work in the capital. If ever you wanted a sign of silly things are, a lot of Saudi oligarchs are buying up huge old statley piles in London and not living in them, letting them fester and decay. Recently, a bunch of them flooded the streets of London with high end sports cars (some of which aren't road legal over here).

Also: Boris Johnson - a cartoon character - is somehow Mayor and is going to stand as an MP at the next General Election

All this dubious financial activity is happening now - in era when the banks are supposedly being more tightly regulated. This is incredibly frustrating knowning that some of these banks have been bailed out by the tax payer (IMO, some of them should have been left to fail - HBOS in particular was a pretty lawless entity that only had itself to blame for the mess it was in). There seems to be less agreement in Europe that the banks are the be and end all and seem to be on a much tighter leash - and we could do with that over here.


The Chartist Movement of the C18th did fight for devloved government and was mad keen on a Northern Parliament, but this was the only one of their demands (along with things like votes for the working class) that never came to pass. So that kind of thinking is not a new thing. Then people were more inclinded to stand up and fight for their livelihoods and improving their lot in life. Of course, back then we had actual proper industries and were going through Industrialisation which was having a huge impact on people, so doing something about it was much more of a burning issue.

My own interest in seeing the UK as a whole as part of Europe (even having the Euro and all that) is simply because we are not self sufficient and cannot survive without them. We need them to ensure we have a future. We don't manufacutre on the scale we used to, with such things being cottage industries in the UK now, we can't produce the energy we need to survive as all our Nuclear Power stations are aged and being slowly decomissioned and no new ones built, all our mines are closed (the last functioning one in the North is likely to close as a rescue plan reliant on central government support has been rejected), we have no oil (as the Scots will tell you!) and seem to think Fracking will do us right (leaving aside the probable issues of contaminating the underground acquifers that the majority of our towns and cities rely on for drinking water and the geological ramifications) which is an incredibly finite source of energy (they reckon if fully mined, shale gas will last 60 years. Not long is it, really?).

Things like the working time directive have been positive (why in the UK we demand to work more than 48 hours a week and find Europe's meddling on this front is beyond me) and whilst not everythign has gone to plan - the application of Farming and animal welfare EU directives has been hamfistedly and poorly applied in the UK, I can see that they exist to support and regulate food production and protect farmers (and avoid, ooh I don't know, hilarious scenes of us burning all the cows in Britian if there's an outbreak of vCJD in cattle or organising a piss-poor Badger cull which is doing more to spread bovine TB than curtail it.) - the benefits of membership far outweigh the negative. As dalek says, the UK does have form on being part of a loose-knit group of countries and should be up there leading the charge, instead of cowering from nay-sayers for fear of a political backlash.

I just think if the government of our country is to seriously think we can do without the EU, then we need a massive program of serious investment in traditional industries and a radical rethink of where we are headed. At the moment, we are relying on Private Industries to run everything for us to the point where the government's ability to have any say in how things are run is diminished to the point you wonder why they exist.

These poor choices and a myopic view of the country are probably why some of the Scots want to leave, and I really can't blame them. By the same token, this is yet again something that has been poorly planned without any real thought as to how this is all going to work. You shouldn't be offering something and working the details out later - not on something with such far reaching ramifications - as best I can figure, the Yes campaign is built on maintaining the infrasturcture and instruments of being part of the UK whilst being their own country - and I am not sure that's viable, as many of the banks (funnily enough) have pointed out this week by saying they will move their HQs as independence would mean Scotland is its own country and their policies and procedures are defined by UK laws - not whatever Scotland will have (which isn't clear). I can see them re-establishing local HQs as other multinationals do, but I can see their argument - it would be like operating under Spanish banking regulations from an HQ in France.

inflatable dalek wrote:If I were Scotch

You'd be a drink. There's actually a higher percentage of alcohol in Scots, though.

Cliffjumper wrote:You'd be a drink. There's actually a higher percentage of alcohol in Scots, though.

Being a limey, you would say that.