FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[bud]

So Scotland's Tubby first minister Alex Salmond is campaigning for Scottish Independence with a referendum to be held in 2014 or 2015. With 2014 being the preferred year as its the anniversary of 1314 battle of Bannockburn.
He is also leaning towards joining the Nordic States in a union of sorts with them if independent from England.

So seeing as this will affect the UK as a whole what are people's thoughts if the Scots do vote for independence?
What will be of the Union flag and it's use in countries like Australia and New Zealand?
So many things will be affected its not funny.

[andrew]

It'll never happen. Scottish independance has been on the cards for over 30 years and it's not happened yet.

[darwin dali]

Sounds like Québec - never happens...

[What's Burning?]

Sounds like Québec - never happens...

The Grand Prix of Québec just doesn't have the same ring to it.

[darwin dali]

Sounds like Québec - never happens...

The Grand Prix of Québec just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Still sounds better than Spain or Bahrain or ...

[What's Burning?]

Sounds like Québec - never happens...

The Grand Prix of Québec just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Still sounds better than Spain or Bahrain or ...

Is it a coincidence that there are secession talks in España as well? I know the unrest in Bahrain didn't last long once the bullets started mowing people down.

So to the OP, if there can be a peaceful negotiated and democratically executed secession, I say knock yourself out.

[andrew]

So to the OP, if there can be a peaceful negotiated and democratically executed secession, I say knock yourself out.

It sadly wouldn't work though. Had independence happened in the 60's when drilling operations were just starting in the North Sea then it would have been a more viable option with the revenue from oil and gas reserves more than likely staying in Scotland.

There has already been far too much peaceful negotiation, debate and even a referendum. It's time for the UK and Scottish governments to either s*** or get off the pot with this one.

[bud]

Have they had government issued referendums on this before Andrew? I guess the difference now is the first minister of Scotland who is putting forward his case for independence and is definitely going to hold a referendum. I've read prime minister Cameron is thinking of holding one soon instead of dragging this out just to tie in with a anniversary. To which it's reported Salmond would tell officials to boycott their duties if a Westminster initiated referendum was planned. No doubt he is getting too big a head to consider comitting what is basically treason.

[zurich_allan]

Alex Salmond is a bag of hot air, and him and his awful lackey Nicola Sturgeon are a scurge on Scottish society. They seem to think that they should hold the divine right to holding a referendum on independence which is so unbelievably naive in the assumption that it's ONLY the Scottish people that would be affected by such a secession it's almost criminal.

A break-up of the Union would affect various countries and states depending on the terms of any potential break-up. Certainly it would affect England and the other home nations, as well as the potential effects for example on ex-pats that might be now living in other EU (or non EU) countries. The effects on national defence of Great Britain are another undisputed area that would require consideration. This is not to mention territorial issues (Scotland doesn't actually own most of the North Sea oil in spite of the incorrect myth often discussed. Much of it is owned by Norway (hence the NEED there would be for the aforementioned Nordic agreement), and the boundary between England and Scotland doesn't go in a straight line as many might think, it goes in a sort of upward diagonal from England up to Scotland - as far North as Dundee in Scotland you can be looking out to sea and actually within eyesight be looking at English waters - NOT Scottish waters.

Given the terms of the Scotland Act 1998, as well as general principles of the Acts of Union, not to mention common sense given that the effects are NOT only to Scotland but to the Union as a whole - the ONLY fair and proper way for any proposed independence to come about is by a vote from central Westminster (in fact this would be the only legal referendum in any case as a referendum without the permission of Westminster held in Scotland alone would actually be technically illegal), and this is the only one I would support.

I would like to emphasise that I am not saying at all that I am either pro or anti independence. What I am is pro real life and common sense and very much anti-idiot - i.e. I am anti 'band wagon and harness the idiocy and naivity of others to our own misconceived good' Salmond and Sturgeon.

[What's Burning?]

Alex Salmond is a bag of hot air, and him and his awful lackey Nicola Sturgeon are a scurge on Scottish society. They seem to think that they should hold the divine right to holding a referendum on independence which is so unbelievably naive in the assumption that it's ONLY the Scottish people that would be affected by such a secession it's almost criminal.

A break-up of the Union would affect various countries and states depending on the terms of any potential break-up. Certainly it would affect England and the other home nations, as well as the potential effects for example on ex-pats that might be now living in other EU (or non EU) countries. The effects on national defence of Great Britain are another undisputed area that would require consideration. This is not to mention territorial issues (Scotland doesn't actually own most of the North Sea oil in spite of the incorrect myth often discussed. Much of it is owned by Norway (hence the NEED there would be for the aforementioned Nordic agreement), and the boundary between England and Scotland doesn't go in a straight line as many might think, it goes in a sort of upward diagonal from England up to Scotland - as far North as Dundee in Scotland you can be looking out to sea and actually within eyesight be looking at English waters - NOT Scottish waters.

Given the terms of the Scotland Act 1998, as well as general principles of the Acts of Union, not to mention common sense given that the effects are NOT only to Scotland but to the Union as a whole - the ONLY fair and proper way for any proposed independence to come about is by a vote from central Westminster (in fact this would be the only legal referendum in any case as a referendum without the permission of Westminster held in Scotland alone would actually be technically illegal), and this is the only one I would support.

I would like to emphasise that I am not saying at all that I am either pro or anti independence. What I am is pro real life and common sense and very much anti-idiot - i.e. I am anti 'band wagon and harness the idiocy and naivity of others to our own misconceived good' Salmond and Sturgeon.

The UK is not alone ZA. As I pointed out before, there are a lot of situations around the world where there is a loud and vociferous and often minority group that wan or see secession as a way out of something, without thinking about the real consequences and the economic long term impacts. We stateside have secessionist movements that are frankly idiotic and based mostly on hatred or racism and come with a heaping serving of ignorance.

That being said though, there are instances where it is the right thing to do, countries like South Sudan for example, would not be born if not for the ability of a society and a region to secede peacefully and democratically and ultimately it is the right of society. Whether we like the outcome or not is a different story.

[andrew]

Have they had government issued referendums on this before Andrew? I guess the difference now is the first minister of Scotland who is putting forward his case for independence and is definitely going to hold a referendum. I've read prime minister Cameron is thinking of holding one soon instead of dragging this out just to tie in with a anniversary. To which it's reported Salmond would tell officials to boycott their duties if a Westminster imitated referendum was planned. No doubt he is getting too big a head to consider comitting what is basically treason.

There was a referendum in 1979 which I think can be classed as a disaster with a poor turn-out.

Alex Salmond should stick to getting worked up about the hard-up fishermen of Peterhead who are down to only 2 BMW's each. Scottish independence would be nothing more than a mind fart these days. What I think need to happen is get rid of Scotland, England, Wales & Northern Ireland as countries and have these recognised as states or regions with in the UK. I have always found the current countries within a country completely stupid.

I wonder if Cameron is aiming to let Salmond run with this until he falls flat on his face. Smart move - give 'em enough rope and this issue will finally be settled or at least dead in the water.

[stonemonkey]

Since devolution Scotland has shown it's not fit to govern itself, I dread to think what will happen if it gets independence.

[Selcouth_Feline]

As far as I understand it (and I'm happy to be corrected ), they want to have financial Independence (i.e oil revenues) but not political Independence - so Scottish MP's would still attend and vote in the UK parliament. Either totally cut ties or don't; you can't have your cake and eat it.

It would be such a headache if it did happen though - things like the tax centre up there (Cumbernauld) would have to be brought down South and I can't imagine that it would be a smooth move I'm not that convinced that the vote would be a yes anyway.

[andrew]

Hadrian's Wall would be rebuilt slightly north of its' original position thus creating jobs. Further jobs would be created with border controls to keep the rif-raf out and the drunked rabble in.