Pendraken Miniatures Forum

So....If I've understood correctly, if Scotland votes for independence this September, it becomes independent in March of 2016. (I think that's right.)

Now.....As there's an election scheduled for the 'whole of' the UK in 2015.....What happens to all the Scottish seats in Westminster ?
Are these 'voided' from the 2015 UK election ?...Or do the prospective Scottish MPs get to sit in Westminster until Scotland becomes independent, and then 'kicked out' as their seats no longer represent part of the UK.
Are there other options ?
Anyone know ? :-\

Cheers - Phil

Phil the only thing known is nothing - isn't this the "Mid-Lothian" question, and insoluble.

Only thing I do know is that if Wales tries for independence the "Free Flint" movement will appear, demanding annexation by England.

IanS

"Free Flint" ? Sounds like a neolithic protest group  ;)

 ;D ;D ;D

Understandable when you consider the Flint accent sounds almost scouse.

From a BBC interview about the white paper :

"Sovereignty will be fully exercised by the people of Scotland from the point Scotland becomes independent on 24 March 2016," it explained.

"Until that point, the people of Scotland must be represented politically at the UK level. Scotland will therefore elect MPs to Westminster to represent Scotland up until the date of independence."

So according to this it claims that we should keep seats in the house, but come 24th March Scottish seat holders will pretty much stand up and walk over the border...

Quote from: Ric on 10 June 2014, 10:20:53 AM
From a BBC interview about the white paper :

"Sovereignty will be fully exercised by the people of Scotland from the point Scotland becomes independent on 24 March 2016," it explained.

"Until that point, the people of Scotland must be represented politically at the UK level. Scotland will therefore elect MPs to Westminster to represent Scotland up until the date of independence."

So according to this it claims that we should keep seats in the house, but come 24th March Scottish seat holders will pretty much stand up and walk over the border...

That should be a sight to see.

Quotebut come 24th March Scottish seat holders will pretty much stand up and walk over the border

Don't be silly, they'll go first class by train to Carlisle or Berwick upon Tweed and after that.....

Who cares, with the union in tatters and King Eric on his thrones it's every nation for itself  :(

Quote from: DanJ on 10 June 2014, 11:02:28 AM
Don't be silly, they'll go first class by train to Carlisle or Berwick upon Tweed and after that.....

Who cares, with the union in tatters and King Eric on his thrones it's every nation for itself  :(

King Eric??

Personally I don't see independence happening as things stand, despite the Better Together campaign doing their damndest to alienate the Scottish voters and bring about independence!!

Mark my words...if England win the world cup, we will be independent, haha! :p

Quote from: Ric on 10 June 2014, 10:20:53 AM
From a BBC interview about the white paper :
"Sovereignty will be fully exercised by the people of Scotland from the point Scotland becomes independent on 24 March 2016," it explained.
"Until that point, the people of Scotland must be represented politically at the UK level. Scotland will therefore elect MPs to Westminster to represent Scotland up until the date of independence."
So according to this it claims that we should keep seats in the house, but come 24th March Scottish seat holders will pretty much stand up and walk over the border...

Thanks Ric.... :)
So.....If we end up with some sort of coalition, or Government, in Westminster that depends on some of the MPs North of the border, we'll probably have another election in 2016 ?
Oh....the fun ! ;)

Quote from: Ithoriel on 10 June 2014, 11:07:24 AM
......., despite the Better Together campaign doing their damndest to alienate the Scottish voters and bring about independence!!

I'm so glad somebody else thinks that. ;)


Cheers - Phil

I predict
  2016, Scotland becomes independent
  2017 England votes under Prime Minister Farrage (or Cameron) to come out of Europe
   2018 Scotland still hasn't been accepted as a member of the EU so
   2020 The UK of GB and NI is reunited. 

:P

QuoteKing Eric??

Eric, Alex.....

They all look the same to me  :-[

Now I think I need to go and lie down

Quote from: DanJ on 10 June 2014, 02:15:33 PM
Eric, Alex.....

They all look the same to me  :-[

Now I think I need to go and lie down

See, that's the sort of comment pushing Scots towards independence :)

No certainty that Salmond would lead an independent Scotland, of course. It's likely he would but we would have to elect a Scottish government after independence was agreed. Who knows what new parties might arise or what old ones might appeal to an newly independent electorate.

Personally I think the "Better Together" campaign was a big mistake, wee fat Alec is doing his damndest to make sure the vote fails. On the other hand its definitly in the Tories favour to get rid of Scotland, there would never be another Labour government in Westminster.

I hope people DO wake up and vote for Independence (48/52 atm for status quo).

Scotland as such is financially better off for itself, that is a fact. Most of Northern England already wants to join (joke aside). The problem is not a British or Scottish one.

We have a bunch of representatives that only fill their own pockets and those of their friends. We need to take back what is rightfully ours, our countries.

Concerning EU membership I would beg to differ.

Yes it does "cost" a truckload of money BUT consider this before opting out:

You need agreements for tax-free trade - which you are unlikely to get (for pissing off the Europeans we WILL get punished).

All foreign workers will need work permits - unlikely to happen under Tory/UKIP and all our plumbers and lots of paramedics are not British (fact!). Same as above. Why would anyone give us what we want if we ain't paying our share? So have fun if that crap gets through.

Until travel relaxations are confirmed or established you will need a bloody visa for any kind of travel. You really think leaving Eu is asucha  great idea?

Being Anti-EU and employing a German national as his office manager makes Farage a bigot! The fact that she is his (second) wife makes him a nepotistic bigot and snuggling with his "campaign manager" makes him a potentially cheating, nepotistic bigot. And for such people I would be ashamed to vote.

Britain, like a potentially independent Scotland, Germany or ANY other country that wants to enjoy the benefits of a common European movement (and market) must pay their share, period!

I understand it is in fashion to "want the money back" but first of all Britain already pays less than they should (which btw pisses off everybody in the EU). Secondly everybody pays and does not solely aim to get the benefits without the duties. Especially the Torys should stfu about getting something for nothing.

I also understand politics is a topic people can get really stroppy with one another but party politics aside what do YOU call a government celebrating itself for recovering 7 million in benefit fraud (where the truth was that this sum was named "unjustly awarded" and repaid mostly without objection) while spending 150+ million on investigating that very "fraud"? Economically I wonder if we were better off shutting up, not investigating that much and just be productive? There has been and will always be people playing the system. But the real culprits are those in the positions where they abuse the system to the point we see nowadays. I am speaking of bankers, politicians and companies - it is NOT "the foreigners" or the EU that rips you off - it is the very people that incite you to attack these groups.

Coming back to Scottish independence: With economic policies that do not work (historic fact) I say Scotland rather breaks off and does for itself. If we fail, it is our fault. If we thrive, it is our glory. Final question: IF Scotland is really unable to survive without being subsidised by rest-UK then why is Westminster so keen on keeping the scroungers? If someone pickpocketting me wants to stop doing that I would be glad and not beg them to keep doing it. but then again I am German and all my ranting above does not necessarily have to make sense.

QuoteMost of Northern England already wants to join

I live in the North of England and I don't want to join an independant Scotland, nor do any of my fiends and relatives.

I suspect that if Scotland gets it's independance and please could someone explain EXACTLY what that would mean, there would be a shift of capital away from Scotland to England, specifically to London.

I also think the EU is a good idea, if for no other reason than it amy have been instrumental in keeping the peace in Europe for the past 70 years.

The problem with the EU is that it either doesn't go far enough or it goes to far.  Currently we're caught in a situation where there is a huge and expensive beaurocracy but the actual European Parliement doesn't have real responsibilities or power.  I'd like to scale it down to a free market border free zone OR a fully federated state, although given that national politicians would have to give up power that's never going to happen.

I know quite a few people who think Wee Eck is the best thing to happen to Scottish politics for three hundred years and who see the Better Together campaign as the latest incarnation of what Rabbie Burns called the "parcel of rogues." I'm grateful they are not (yet!) a majority.

We did an informal poll on the notice board at my work a few weeks ago (tally marks yes/no) , we have 262 employees, 248 replys, and 203 voted yes... Its a working class environment, so I'd say represents a good portion of the voting public in  Scotland. The bigger issue was the second question on our poll - 'will you be voting?' - it only had 104 tallys...  So almost half the people who would vote yes, won't actually bother to vote. It really could go either way on the day.

Quote from: DanJ on 10 June 2014, 04:02:56 PM
I live in the North of England and I don't want to join an independant Scotland, nor do any of my fiends and relatives.

I suspect that if Scotland gets it's independance and please could someone explain EXACTLY what that would mean, there would be a shift of capital away from Scotland to England, specifically to London.

I also think the EU is a good idea, if for no other reason than it amy have been instrumental in keeping the peace in Europe for the past 70 years.

The problem with the EU is that it either doesn't go far enough or it goes to far.  Currently we're caught in a situation where there is a huge and expensive beaurocracy but the actual European Parliement doesn't have real responsibilities or power.  I'd like to scale it down to a free market border free zone OR a fully federated state, although given that national politicians would have to give up power that's never going to happen.

You may not be representative. Neither may I be representative.

Concerning companies and investment moving from Scotland to London:

You mean the Standard Life fool that was quickly corrected by majority vote ? Or the BP non-entity (American) CEO that was told they would lose their drilling rights if they indeed move and his board told him what a stupid idea he blabed out? That crap -and there really is no other word for it- is a myth sown by better together. It certainly is not the truth. I did not believe any side but got my own facts from white papers and other freely available information.

No one sane in their mind will abandon a new market! No one in their right mind would NOT want a currency union. Scotland will tell SNP what we want. THEN we negotiate and find solutions. Scotland is entitled to its share of assets (and debt). That is the position we have put across and it is what SNP has said all along. Why would we not get a fair deal? Why do we bomb people to Liberty in Iraq and Afghanistan but do not allow some people at home to run their own affairs? Why do we want to leave EU but at home we are better together?

What would REALLY happen is that Scotland is accountable for their own financial affairs - nothing else. No more "subsidy scrounging". Scotland per capita is the 14 wealthiest country (UK is 18th btw) and taking out Glasgow we would be the 6th richest!

So the question persists:  

Why would England (rUK, rGB...) WANT to send money to Scotland IF Scotland asks to NOT have that money anymore? One wonders about the real flows of money - which also can be checked quite easily.

Just a question

Who does own the oil fields in the North Sea?...Is it Scotland or the UK?...If the UK would  Scotland have to pay for them

I have no idea of answer myself

Most are owned by Scotland legally. But some went to England as England -against the existing border agreements- unitarily changed the accords.  I think even after this shambles it is 90/10 for Scotland.

That only is important AFTER independence and if I was the Scottish government I would demand status quo ante, not unitarily changed borders for ones convenience.

Currently they are owned by the UK (taxpayers).



Let's imagine Scotland could keep the money they raise in a total devolution (which is what SNP originally wanted). Why would there be a reason to split up the Union?

IF a Union works for all parties then it is indeed a case where we are better off together. The problem is Scotland is financially better off alone. If I was to argue the case I would want devolution BUT I would agree to send some surplus south and would expect a more mutually beneficial relationship.

A bit like the EU it is not really working for everybody and that is the problem. Red Tape and people filling their own pockets are a common problem. As a German I can state SNP has given Scottish taxpayers what they want and thus get support for their political agenda. Leave nationalism and independence aside for a moment and name a party other than the Greens that has presented a sustainable energy policy in Europe. Only SNP came forward (after the German Greens in the 80s).

I do not agree with everything they say and I am not a fan of Alex Salmond but I do see they have a point. Most importantly my argument is if people want to decide in their own house they should be entitled to it - with all consequences though.

QuoteMost importantly my argument is if people want to decide in their own house they should be entitled to it - with all consequences though.

I actually agree with this, I'm just not sure that the politicians know exactly what they mean by an independant Scotland, it's certainly not been made clear sounth of the border.  The SNP say an independant Scotland would keep the Queen as head of state, keep sterling as the currency (linked to the Endlish pound) and be part of the EU by default; while English politicians say not.  Personally I think an independant Scotland should be totaly independant, having the same relationship With England as France or Germany or Belgium has, anything else would be illogical and a political fudge, which probably means that's what will happen.

While I'm all for letting people decide their own future, where do you draw the line?  If the Highlands and Western Isles decide that their heritage and tradition means that they should be independant from Scotland, as was the case historically, should they be allowed to do so?  And what about the towns of the southern borders who look more towards Newcastle and Carlisle than Glasgow, could they move towards England?

What about Berwick? Country by itself?

Haven't England and Wales both tried to disclaim ownership of Monmouth ever since they noticed it was the dullest dump in Europe?

As far as Europe is concerned I can only echo a friend of mine: I signed up for the EEC - I didn't sign up for the EU.

Quote from: Hertsblue on 11 June 2014, 10:26:18 AM
As far as Europe is concerned I can only echo a friend of mine: I signed up for the EEC - I didn't sign up for the EU.

To quote an idiom: In some days, some rain must fall.


If such was not the case you would all be worshipping me, sacrificing your piles of lead to my feet - one can dream, right?

Quotesacrificing your piles

I'm not sacrificing my piles to anyone!

Quote from: DanJ on 11 June 2014, 12:42:37 PM
I'm not sacrificing my piles to anyone!

Burn you shall in hell . Without the blessing of the Dark lord thou shallst live.  :d

Quote from: DanJ on 11 June 2014, 12:42:37 PM
I'm not sacrificing my piles to anyone!

Isnt there a cream now?

Sod off Jocks!

Can't go independent of the City of London? Just wall it off, cut off the power, let them fight it out without screwing the rest of us...

If the Scots vote sensibly and leave, I welcome the chance we might have for an independent Peoples Republic of Birmingham :D

Sod off Alec, you power crazed numpty.

Better apart in my opinion - tightwads, lousy weather, midges, men in skirts  :o. Bet the Spanish, Belgians and Italians will be dead pleased to welcome an independent Scotland into the EU. Now why did we unite in the first place? Oh yeah, the nascent Scottish Empire went belly up in the West Indies and they needed bailing out. Now of course they have all that oil, so ...... see yah.

I already rule my own independent Mercian Kingdom, shame its only 13ft by 7ft  :(

edit (sorry that should be Kingdom's)

Why did we unite in the first place?

Oh yeah your pox-ridden House of Tudor died out and our good king James the Sixth, suddenly became James the First.

A stupid decision thats taken us about 400 years to rectify.

Mind you if it goes anything like last tiime, winning wont be nearly enough, I mean we won then all of a sudden not voting becomes a NO vote, just shows how desperate the English government is to keep this nation of spongers and scroungers in the Union.

By the way that last little gem has irked me for quite a few years.

I've got no dog in this fight at all, I'll wait and see what the result of the vote is and see what effect is has on us as a business, if any.  One thing that concerns me, is if independence comes along, I hope Scotland will be able to stay in the EU, otherwise it's going to get very tricky for us to come to the Scottish shows!  Having to take a passport and faff about with all the VAT / no-VAT / declarations at the border would mean I can't just go to sleep in the van like normal!

One extra note though, this is obviously an issue with strong viewpoints on both sides, so if we can make sure to keep things civil please.

8)

Quote from: Leon on 11 June 2014, 04:47:37 PM
I've got no dog in this fight at all, I'll wait and see what the result of the vote is and see what effect is has on us as a business, if any.  One thing that concerns me, is if independence comes along, I hope Scotland will be able to stay in the EU, otherwise it's going to get very tricky for us to come to the Scottish shows!  Having to take a passport and faff about with all the VAT / no-VAT / declarations at the border would mean I can't just go to sleep in the van like normal!

One extra note though, this is obviously an issue with strong viewpoints on both sides, so if we can make sure to keep things civil please.

8)

You may always open a branch north of the border. Employ a few illegal immigrants from England  ( :P ), dodge taxes and claim how bad the climate for doing business has become.

Should however independence hinder me getting your goods I shall personally invade and claim half of England for Scotland. While I am at it, anyone have any idea where to pillage and burn in the area of, say Nottingham Lenton? :P

Oh, of course, James VI, the man who rushed to save his mum from having her head cut off. Anyway that was not the union of Scvotland and the rest of the UK. That happened in 1707 when the investment in the West Indies went belly up and the rest of the UK had to step in and sort out the mess. Don't expect it a second time! And as I've already said, I hope you get your independence then you can turn your drab, grey, rainy, vitriol on someone else. Byeee.

The government wont allow us to leave, or the Welsh, its the last wee buts of an empire that was squandered to feed Churchill's ego.

Having a Scots grandfather, I hope independence might mean I qualify for a real passport at last.

That'll be the Nicaraguan passport then.

This Scottish independence thing is such tosh. The Scots came from Ireland, Wallace was a minor Saxon noble living in Scotland, which was really the land of the Caledonians, Picts and northern Britons; and if it's good enough for the immigrant Scots from Ireland to claim it all, then what about the immigrant Islesmen from  Scandinavia. Maybe we should be looking at an independent Norseland? The silliness of it all is emphasised by statements like "my grandfather came from Scotland." Precisely; it's extremely difficult to find anyone on this island who is pure anything. However, if you have such a loathing for those of us who are of the same island stock but happen to live south of the Tweed then goodbye and good luck and once you've got your so-called independence in these days of the global economy and multinationals you can stop your bloody moaning and cheer up!

Quote from: Dour Puritan on 11 June 2014, 10:34:44 PM
This Scottish independence thing is such tosh. The Scots came from Ireland, Wallace was a minor Saxon noble living in Scotland, which was really the land of the Caledonians, Picts and northern Britons; and if it's good enough for the immigrant Scots from Ireland to claim it all, then what about the immigrant Islesmen from  Scandinavia. Maybe we should be looking at an independent Norseland? The silliness of it all is emphasised by statements like "my grandfather came from Scotland." Precisely; it's extremely difficult to find anyone on this island who is pure anything. However, if you have such a loathing for those of us who are of the same island stock but happen to live south of the Tweed then goodbye and good luck and once you've got your so-called independence in these days of the global economy and multinationals you can stop your bloody moaning and cheer up!

The only loathing righ now comes from you actually.

I am German and I am for independence. You are right it is all or nothing and failure/ glory is up to Scotland then.

Concerning global economy I wonder why some "south of the Tweed" are so desparate to alienate the rest of Europ by being pricks?

And to correct another misconception: Most Scots do not give a toss whether you are English, German, Chilean or Scottish. If Scotland wants to be independent then they are as much entitled to it as the Iraquis and Afghanis we bombed to liberty. AFTER a vote pro independence Scotland CAN ask the Queen if she is up to be head of state of yet another country. We will also negotiate for a currency union. Whether it is with the Bank of England, the ECB or the State Bank of Uganda is a secondary issue. Croatia is using the Euro without consent of the ECB, Andorra after more than 10 years finally has consent to do the same.

Whether you or Osborne/Alexander like it, Scotland WILL use the pound, end of story. If Osbourne/Alexander in their wisdom tries to run down the currency to teach Scotland a lesson then go ahead. It is your economy you are screwing.

To make the independence debate a little easier for you, how about the rest of the forum is taking turns telling you what to do and what not in total disregard what you actually want. You may wonder why we should be entitled to do so, well that is easy, we are more than you. If that is OK for you I shall organise the daily torture of your free will, at your expense of course or you may reconsider your position about who should be the master of their own house.

Actually there's a decent chance Wallace was of Welsh descent, but yes we're all mongrels of one sort of another.

Personally I'd rather see a United States of Europe than an independent Scotland but I fail to see why those living in Scotland should have any less right to self-determination than anywhere else and don't currently expect to find myself in a cattle truck heading south after the vote, whichever way it goes. :)

I don't believe this is about loathing those in the rest of the UK so much as a realisation that we see the world differently from our southern neighbours - hence having twice as many giant pandas in Scotland as Conservative MPs at a time when the Torys are the largest of the minority parties at Westminster.

Have to say the Scots I know are a pretty cheerful bunch, the red-headed calvinist in his kilt and bunnet sharing his one room croft with his highland cow as he ate salted porridge is a stereotype I thought we might have shaken off by now.

Here's tae us!
Wh'a like us?
Gie few!
An' they're a' deid! :)

Lang may yer lum reek DP!

News just in..................

Alec reveals his REAL campaign plan

The night before the Election STV and Grampian are continually broadcasting Braveheart

Freeeeeeeddduuummmmm!

... and then we all become Australian??  ;)

Quote from: Ithoriel on 12 June 2014, 07:43:56 AM
... and then we all become Australian??  ;)

Well then at least we proper people could understand what uze is speaking.....


FREEDOM FOR FLINT

IanS  :D

A yes vote in Scotland would mean higher employment in Northern England...

All those jobs as border guards and actually rebuilding the border defenses to keep the unemployed Scots hordes out when their economy goes belly up as the oil runs out.

Please don't suggest rebuilding Hadrian's Wall, if we did we'd be giving some of England to the 'Weasel Scot'.

Seriously, though my heart says, let them have their little independence fantasy. My head says, for better or worse we're probably better together.

Remember Flanders and Swann?

The English, the English, the English are best
I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest.

The rottenest bits of these islands of ours
We've left in the hands of three unfriendly powers
Examine the Irishman, Welshman or Scot
You'll find he's a stinker, as likely as not.

Och aye, awa' wi' yon Edinburgh Festival

The Scotsman is mean, as we're all well aware
And bony and blotchy and covered with hair
He eats salty porridge, he works all the day
And he hasn't got bishops to show him the way!

Quote from: Ithoriel on 12 June 2014, 07:43:56 AM
... and then we all become Australian??  ;)

Actually Mel Gibson is American

Born in the USA and raised in AUS from the age of ten or twelve or something but no part of his alphabet-soup upbringing is Scots :)

Will the Better Together campaign be sponsoring "Trainspotting" on other channels, perhaps? :D

Quote from: Steeleye on 12 June 2014, 07:52:52 AM
A yes vote in Scotland would mean higher employment in Northern England...

All those jobs as border guards and actually rebuilding the border defenses to keep the unemployed Scots hordes out when their economy goes belly up as the oil runs out.

Please don't suggest rebuilding Hadrian's Wall, if we did we'd be giving some of England to the 'Weasel Scot'.

Seriously, though my heart says, let them have their little independence fantasy. My head says, for better or worse we're probably better together.

Remember Flanders and Swann?

The English, the English, the English are best
I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest.

The rottenest bits of these islands of ours
We've left in the hands of three unfriendly powers
Examine the Irishman, Welshman or Scot
You'll find he's a stinker, as likely as not.

Och aye, awa' wi' yon Edinburgh Festival

The Scotsman is mean, as we're all well aware
And bony and blotchy and covered with hair
He eats salty porridge, he works all the day
And he hasn't got bishops to show him the way!

I totally endorse the re-building of Hadrians wall and I volunteer for laying a full row to keep the barbarians out. Again as a German I feel compelled to say we DO have very good experience with walls.

Concerning employment and economy (tax per capita) you should check the figures though ;)

And crossing the Channel, one cannot say much
Of French and the Spanish, the Danish or Dutch
The Germans are German, the Russians are red,
And the Greeks and Italians eat garlic in bed!

It's not that they're wicked or naturally bad
It's knowing they're foreign that makes them so mad!

Quote from: sebigboss79 on 12 June 2014, 08:24:37 AM
I totally endorse the re-building of Hadrian's wall and I volunteer for laying a full row to keep the barbarians out. Again as a German I feel compelled to say we DO have very good experience with walls.

Mmm, but your example does rather point out that a very expensive wall might just be avoided altogether. Some Scots are sober long enough to work that out for themselves too.

Quote from: FierceKitty on 13 June 2014, 12:38:22 AM
Mmm, but your example does rather point out that a very expensive wall might just be avoided altogether. Some Scots are sober long enough to work that out for themselves too.

Not sure what you are implying but.... sober=/=sane.

There are simply no reasons for a Union where one side pays the banker mistakes of the other. The myths of better together have been exposed. The real question therefore is philosophycal (SHOULD Scotland be independent).

You certainly may argue against that but liberty for Iraquis, Afghanis and Southern Sudenese will then question you why Scots rank below these examples. I totally second the notion that independnce should be total. I am sober and sane enough to argue for a Sterling Zone to facilitate trade - although the name of a currency has little to do with its stability. I also argue for taking up our portion of the national debt but ONLY if we also get the same share of assets.

In the end Scotland will be ultimately responsible for its success and failure.

Quote from: sebigboss79 on 12 June 2014, 08:24:37 AM
Again as a German I feel compelled to say we DO have very good experience with walls.

That was a good experience?  :o :o :o :o :o

The 'Today' programme on Radio 4 has had quite a few good pieces in its finance slot on the pros and cons of the independence debate. For example North Sea oil revenues will continue to fall sharply due to dwindling reserves, so the revenues will not be as much as many people think.

Another programme, 'More or Less' on Radio 4, looked into the headline arguments by both sides. Well worth a listen if you can still get it on I-Player.

From what I've heard on the above programmes, Scotland would be worse being independent from an economic perspective. However, even if the vote is a 'no', Scotland will get increased devolved powers. I don't think the West Lothian question will be addressed though, which seems strange to me :-\.

Quote from: Hertsblue on 13 June 2014, 08:14:14 AM
That was a good experience?  :o :o :o :o :o

At least until we removed it.

Quote from: Steve J on 13 June 2014, 09:12:05 AM
The 'Today' programme on Radio 4 has had quite a few good pieces in its finance slot on the pros and cons of the independence debate. For example North Sea oil revenues will continue to fall sharply due to dwindling reserves, so the revenues will not be as much as many people think.

Another programme, 'More or Less' on Radio 4, looked into the headline arguments by both sides. Well worth a listen if you can still get it on I-Player.

From what I've heard on the above programmes, Scotland would be worse being independent from an economic perspective. However, even if the vote is a 'no', Scotland will get increased devolved powers. I don't think the West Lothian question will be addressed though, which seems strange to me :-\.

You mean the same devolution Scotland was promised after the 1979 -No- vote?  :d

The "white paper" (whoch was actually green) from Westminster on financial questions was done by a Tory sponsored University (cuius regio, eius religio). From the research point it was so badly flawed that my professor would have me fail instantly. I had to stop after 13 pages with a massive academic headache!

The same nonsense suggests oil will immediately stop flowing if Scotland votes Yes and Aliens will invade. I reiterate what I said about sustainable economic policy. As of now England depends with ~25% energy consumption on Scottish renewables. Renewables are being expanded and will more than match the dwindeling oil income. Concerning oil reserve figures there is no consensus on how much and the flaw in your assumption is that declining reserves mean lower income. With worldwide reserves falling, prices will increase. Thus the income effect could also be the opposite.

What we know is that we don't know. As of now the facts are Scotland generates per capita more tax revenue. Besides higher per capita expenditure the government runs a deficit lower than rUK / UKnow which means the other parts run a higher deficit. It stands to reason that the same devolution promises were made 1979. It stands to reason that 1 in 5 Scottish children is classed as poor due to welfare reforms that benefit the rich and hurt the poor.

It further stands to reason that devoMax and more devolution was sought by SNP and rebuffed by the Rt honourable PM. Now why would they offer more devolution in this situation? Realising they are losing the battle? Why would anyone believe it? Because they kept the 1979 promises (almost 20 years later)?

You cannot promise what I can rightfully take.

What you hear on TV and radio strangely only is for one side - not a really unbiased journalism. Facts you can find and read when you are doing your research are being falsified and interpreted in one way only. I stopped listening to "the news" and got myself the figures. I did the maths and asked myself one question: Should I make my own decisions and stand up to them?

My answer on that is clear.

I forgot the Berlin Wall; I was thinking how the Maginot line didn't keep you out of France.

QuoteWhat you hear on TV and radio strangely only is for one side

The coverage mentioned above has looked at both sides of the debate, with impartiality IMHO. The latter programme really does highlight the flaws/assumptions made by both campaigns, so once again well worth a listen.

Quote from: Steve J on 13 June 2014, 10:33:44 AM
The coverage mentioned above has looked at both sides of the debate, with impartiality IMHO. The latter programme really does highlight the flaws/assumptions made by both campaigns, so once again well worth a listen.

Cui bono is always the most important question. If one -like me- generally does not believe any politician or journalist the final question still persists: Who should decide your fate. I am quite sure most people will disagree if I feel inclined to run their affairs.

Doug Adams had it right - anyone who wants power should NOT have it.....

IanS

Quote from: ianrs54 on 14 June 2014, 06:46:27 AM
Doug Adams had it right - anyone who wants power should NOT have it.....

IanS

Wise and wrong at the same time.

With power comes responsibility.

For God he knows, and you yourselves may partly see, how far I am from the desire of this....What do you mean, in a carpark?

(from ageing memory)

As long as the Scots are comfortable with the idea that every other European country of recent years which has seceded from a larger union has ended up being occupied by the Russians, they can vote as their hearts want.

Yoiur "recent" must be very recent indeed.

Quote from: ianrs54 on 14 June 2014, 06:46:27 AM
Doug Adams had it right - anyone who wants power should NOT have it.....

IanS

I think he nicked it from Plato's Republic, where, if my memory doesn't play tricks, one of the key necessary characteristics of the Philosopher King is he should not want to wield the power, but does so out of an altruistic belief (knowledge?) that there is no-one who could wield it better!

Mollinary

Quote from: mollinary on 16 June 2014, 07:55:46 AM
... there is no-one who could wield it better!

Mollinary

The excuse of every tyrant, junta and tinpot dictator!

Dare I mention Lord Acton's stricture? "All power corrupts.... "

Absolutely   ;) :D


(Sorry - I'll leave)

IanS

I had a drink (well a few) with Scots Nats in Glasgow union some weeks ago.  What strikes me is the broad church that is represented.  Yes, you have the Dominion status that is the official centre, but to the right you have Devolution Max brigade who want the same status as Isle of Man, Channel Isles etc (not in the Union but under the Crown), and to the left you have republicans.  I was surprised how many "blue noses"  (middle class Rangers types) are up for devo- max.

The Nats plans for Scottish defence is interesting.

Quote from: Sunray on 16 June 2014, 09:44:25 AM
The Nats plans for Scottish defence is interesting.

Do tell ...

Canna b bothed te recant dis...
Ere ya gow!
https://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2013/mar/snp-highlight-defence-advantages-independence (https://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2013/mar/snp-highlight-defence-advantages-independence)

We'll be like Sweden, nwutral.

You're only neutral for as long as no one can be bothered to invade. How long do you suppose Sweden would have lasted as an independent country in WW2 if they'd denied their iron ore to Germany? 

Quote from: FierceKitty on 16 June 2014, 06:25:58 AM
Yoiur "recent" must be very recent indeed.

Back to South Ossetia in 2008...

Quote from: Techno on 10 June 2014, 07:13:56 AM
So....If I've understood correctly, if Scotland votes for independence this September, it becomes independent in March of 2016. (I think that's right.)

Now.....As there's an election scheduled for the 'whole of' the UK in 2015.....What happens to all the Scottish seats in Westminster ?
Are these 'voided' from the 2015 UK election ?...Or do the prospective Scottish MPs get to sit in Westminster until Scotland becomes independent, and then 'kicked out' as their seats no longer represent part of the UK.
Are there other options ?
Anyone know ? :-\

Cheers - Phil

This cannot be far away now but it seems for a potentially major change to our constitution that the news seems strangely quiet.  ???

Have all of the contentious issues such as the pound and EU membership been settled?

I have no idea how to measure the cost of all of this to our economy but I would be surprised if there hasn't been some foreign investment put off or sent elsewhere because of the uncertainty. Would it be possible now its gone this far for the Northern Irish, Welsh and English to have a referendum on whether we think Scotland should be allowed to stay in the union or not?

Or, as a separate question could England seperate from the the rest of the union members?

You can tell I have a bit of time on my hands today  ;D ;D I have just though of another question.

If the Shetlands and Orkneys vote to stay in the union and the rest of Scotland votes to leave, can they stay, or do they have to follow the rest of Scotland?

Or, if the Shetlands and Orkneys vote to leave and the rest of Scotland votes to stay, can they leave and claim the oil and gas belong to them and deny any revenues to Scotland and the rest of the union?

It's Complicated (good film title)

Quote from: Rob on 04 August 2014, 03:20:00 PM
If the Shetlands and Orkneys vote to stay in the union and the rest of Scotland votes to leave, can they stay, or do they have to follow the rest of Scotland?

Or, if the Shetlands and Orkneys vote to leave and the rest of Scotland votes to stay, can they leave and claim the oil and gas belong to them and deny any revenues to Scotland and the rest of the union?

This is one of the major problems I see in breaking up a happy marriage. How can you deny the kids going it alone as well?

Just like the UK as a whole, Scotland is made up of many independently minded regions who traditionally square up to their immediate neighbour. My own feeling is that all the highlands, islands and lowlands of these isles (including Ireland) should come together in some form of unity and choose a new place to meet (say, the Isle of Man) to discuss how to cooperate in this baffling, crazy, increasingly technological new world. Our children would thank us for it.

USE ... United States of Europe ... only solution.

The Germans provide the engineers, the French provide the chefs, the British provide the police, the lovers are Italian, the artists are Spanish and the whole thing is run by the Swiss :-)

U! S! E! ... U! S! E! ... U! S! E!

;) :o :P ;D ;D ;D ;D

So glad I am learning Italian.

I suppose people remember Charles V's comment on European languages?

Quote from: FierceKitty on 04 August 2014, 11:51:35 PM
I suppose people remember Charles V's comment on European languages?

If you wish to threaten someone do it in German - or words to that effect, as far as I recall.

I had a friend who used to say that if god hadn't wanted us to listen to Heavy Metal he wouldn't have invented German.

Even though I know only a smattering of words in it, and most of them military terms, I rather like the crunchy texture of spoken German.

Quote from: FierceKitty on 04 August 2014, 11:51:35 PM
I suppose people remember Charles V's comment on European languages?

'I speak Spanish to God, Italian to Women, French to Men, and German to my Horse.' Pretty much debunked these days as first published well after his death.

Quote from: Ithoriel on 04 August 2014, 05:20:31 PM
USE ... United States of Europe ... only solution.

The Germans provide the engineers, the French provide the chefs, the British provide the police, the lovers are Italian, the artists are Spanish and the whole thing is run by the Swiss :-)

U! S! E! ... U! S! E! ... U! S! E!

;) :o :P ;D ;D ;D ;D

And have even more unelected "commissioners" laying down the law? No thanks.

Another approach might be to look at the way commissioners are appointed/elected and the way in which new laws are discussed. Living in a tiny country separated from the rest of the world seems absurd in this day and age.

Okay, we've missed the major point here, IF Scotland becomes independent, the English Government will be able to charge import duty on two items that make life bearable:
Tunnocks Teacakes and Irn Brew!!  :-SS :Ph :-q

Rather go with the Tunnocks and a good peaty single malt.

Quote from: Dour Puritan on 05 August 2014, 07:43:14 AM
........ Living in a tiny country separated from the rest of the world seems absurd in this day and age.

A bit like the UK you mean? =O

Tunnocks ?

Looks like another banned word to me.  ;)
Cheers - Phil

Well no, because the UK is part of the EU, but should it vote to leave, then yes. I do worry that such a momentous  decision is to be put into the hands of, quite frankly, a pretty dopey public laced with a heavy dose of xenophobia if not outright racism.

Remember Churchill's remark that five minutes' conversation with the average voter was the best argument against democracy?

Or Pratchett's quote that the IQ of a mob is the square root of it's mean? ;)

What exactly is it that King Alex wants independence from?

Not really sure. Could be to do with a feeling of remoteness or seclusion, but I've been aware of Scotland ever since I was tiny, thanks to the likes of Dr.Finlay's Casebook, Fife Robertson et al. I would suggest that Alex Salmond is careful about what he wishes for. He said in the debate last night that he believes Scotland would be better off being run by Scots (obviously Cameron and Blair are not  Scottish names, and Mr.Brown clearly came from Newcastle) but remember what happened to Britain when the Romans left it to gover itself.

Quote from: Dour Puritan on 06 August 2014, 07:44:25 AM
He said in the debate last night that he believes Scotland would be better off being run by Scots

A brief glance at Scottish history might raise some doubts about that. Anyway, I was under the impression that Scotland was effectively run by the Scots now. Would Salmon really want to take on the burden of defence and direct taxation? The oil's not going to last for ever.

Quote from: Hertsblue on 06 August 2014, 08:54:01 AM
The oil's not going to last for ever.

Aye, but we've got endless wind.

The point I was trying to make is that for the past three governments England has also been run by Scots!

Quote from: WeeWars on 06 August 2014, 10:31:58 AM
Aye, but we've got endless wind.

That the Tunnoks and irn bru ?

ianS

Politically, the Scottish electorate appears to be considerably more left wing, more pro-Europe, more anti-nuclear, more pro-nationalisation, etc., etc. than the electorate of the UK as a whole.

The mismatch between the policies of the UK government and the political aspirations of, at least, a sizeable portion of the population of Scotland has lead some to believe that Scotland would be happier running it's own affairs.

I'm sure there are a few Xenophobes who simply want nothing to do with "The Auld Enemy" but then there are oddballs in every population.

Does "Wee Eck" want responsibility for defence and direct taxation? Indeed he does and one of the first items on the defence agenda is the removal of nuclear weapons from Scotland. Which should reduce the burden of the defence budget and could reduce the levels of taxation required.

Personally, I'm still slightly inclined to vote No but it's finely balanced at the moment and my move from being staunchly in favour of the Union to that position has been entirely driven by the Better Together campaign.

There are plenty of countries round the world with smaller populations, worse infrastructure and fewer natural resources than Scotland who are doing perfectly well, thank you so there no reason Scotland couldn't do well enough too.

Burkina Faso?

Would even the English choose to be run by the English if they had any choice, in all fairness?

Aren't we normally run by Scot's

IanS

Scot's what?

Antarctic Emusion, wasn't it?

Quote from: FierceKitty on 06 August 2014, 12:10:03 PM
Would even the English choose to be run by the English if they had any choice, in all fairness?

Nope, that would be the worst possible scenario!
Can we be run by Andorra please?
Btw, if you want a good Independence Party, try: http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-26382847 (http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-26382847)

We could always apply to become a Swiss canton.

Quote from: FierceKitty on 06 August 2014, 12:10:03 PM
Would even the English choose to be run by the English if they had any choice, in all fairness?

Well, we've run everybody else at one time or another.

Kind of my point. Note the past tense.

Well, I don't think we've ever run Tailand. I see the junta has just lifted the curfew recently.

Have they? I hadn't noticed we had one. 5555

Well, the tourist industry seemed to think so.

We're doomed as soon as people realise that Burma's got more to offer than we have.

Quote from: FierceKitty on 08 August 2014, 11:07:49 AM
We're doomed as soon as people realise that Burma's got more to offer than we have.

That Thailand, Scotland or England ?

IanS

We Siamese. Though I'll certainly apply for Scottish citizenship through my paternal grandfather if that becomes an option, even if I never use it.

Imagine the revenue for a whole country applying for a new passport.

Gad. Not a nation to refuse that offer!

Oddly enough I've never considered myself as being English, Scotish, Welsh or anything else but as British.  Given the size of these islands claiming to be anything else except British seems rather parochial and narrow minded.

This may be due to having roots in Northumberland which traditionaly saw both the Scots and English as being equally suspicious, or because since the early 1950's my family's moved arround a lot and never having stayed anywhere for more than a few years I've a broader perspective than most.  Listening to the whole debate it strikes me as ironic that in an age when we can fly to Australia in a couple of days or speak directly to someone in Antartica we're so concerned with small scale differences that we're willing to spend millions on the minutae of whether a few million people should be govened from London or Edinburgh.

Maybe it's a case of "I can't cope or don't want to see the global picture so I'll just concentrate on the small differences I can see".  As Dr Johnson once remarked "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel".

Hmmm. And he was famed for his sensitivity to what Scotland was all about.

Agree wholeheartedly with Dan J.

So let's assume the Scots gain their freedom from the oppressive English.

We currently have a two and a few bits party democracy. This oscillates between Conservative and Labour. The Conservatives generally get the country economically fit and then descend into a shambles. The Labour Party takes over and after a couple of terms we are back in an economic mess. And so-on a so forth, but whenever sleaze or corruption hits the headlines the perpetrators are carpeted and often the government changes.

With the split we will have no opposition in England and Wales to a Conservative dominated government, forever. In Scotland there will be a contest between socialist Labour and the socialist Scottish Nationalists.

I don't like politics but I think the current system forces the parties back on to the straight and narrow again and again. Without the few checks and balances this provides I do not like the prospects for either country.

Or am I completely wrong?

Dan, millions is pocket change to nations and the idea that decisions on where the seats of power should be constitutes minutiae horrifies me.

I am still shading towards voting No but get a step closer to Yes with every pronouncement I hear from the Better Together camp who seem to me to be continuing the current trend of governments to push through policies on a wave of fear and paranoia. The Yes campaign is at least suggesting that tomorrow could be better than today, even if I don't entirely believe them!!

Rob, as a socialist through and through the idea of socialist Labour vs socialist SNP rather appeals.

We already let you share our monarchy when you so carelessly lost yours are we to let you share our Opposition too?  After all look what you did with the monarchs! ;)

Funny how this thread constantly veers between the serious and the daft - bit like politics itself. In the final analysis the whole thing is a bit like the nobody knows round in QI from a couple of years ago. In the end it's a case of puff your chest out and cut yourself off from the rest of the world or take on board that the world is now a much smaller place, even more than it was 20 years ago, and the only real reason for independence is to be a a nice little tourism oddity. As for that Germano-anglo-scottish-welsh-french-portuguese-danish, tartan-wearing, posh family......

QuoteDan, millions is pocket change to nations and the idea that decisions on where the seats of power should be constitutes minutiae horrifies me.

Sorry,  obviously I expressed myself badly I only live 80 miles from Scotland, however speaking from over the border the Yes vote seem to be concentrating on what would be better for a small part of a small island.  I see only fragmentation based on parochial self interest, mostly by politicians who can't or don't want to look at the big issues so they concentate on the small and easy ones, making political capital out of easy targets like nationalism.

I also have a huge distrust for the politicians who choose to go down this route, they want to be big fish in a small pond, carving out small but lucrative pools for themselves.  I wonder just how much difference the current 'devolution' has provided, what it costs in terms of hard cash (apart from the £400,000,000 overspend on the Scotish Parliament building) and what the 'return on investment' is for the average Scot.  But the politicians won't consider these questions as it's not in the 'national interest'.

Whatever the result Scotland will still be a liberal western democracy as will England and Wales, however as has been pointed out all sides will loose out democratically but the nationalists don't care as the wider picture is not what they're interested in.  All politicians are pretty dodgy but any form of 'Nationalist' is the lowest of the lot.

And as for Dr Johnson's comment it sums up my feelings about any form of nationalism, it's context is unknown and irrelivant to his views on Scotland, which he visited at a time when the journey was expensive, difficult and physically challenging.

There still seems to be a misconception that this is about "freedom from the oppressive English" as Rob put it.

If this were a divorce it wouldn't be about England getting drunk every Friday night, coming home and giving Scotland a good hiding. It would be because Scotland thinks that it's important to get new shoes for the kids and to sort out who owes who what for the repairs to the garden fence while England thinks we should get a new telly and that we shouldn't have anything to do with the riff-raff living next door :)

Hope the riff-raff next door doesn't refer to the Irish Republic, France, Belgium or the Netherlands. Still have to agree with Dan J. Look where nationalism got everyone in 1914.

I think it's a great shame, that whichever way the vote goes, almost half the electorate are going to feel well miffed !
(Assuming that it's as close a call as it's supposed to be.)
Cheers - Phil

Indeed! And for what?

Quote from: Techno on 11 August 2014, 07:03:13 PM
I think it's a great shame, that whichever way the vote goes, almost half the electorate are going to feel well miffed !
(Assuming that it's as close a call as it's supposed to be.)
Cheers - Phil

And half of those who voted in favour of the winning option won't get the future they wanted, expected or thought they were promised, I suspect, which ever way the vote goes.

And you must put up with the result, because that is the only way democracy works (which is what a very large part of the world either fails to understand or refuses to accept).

Democracy works?

From Churchill by Him­self, page 574:

"Many forms of Gov­ern­ment have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pre­tends that democ­racy is per­fect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democ­racy is the worst form of Gov­ern­ment except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time...."

Didn't claim anything else worked either, please note. But among the causes I'd risk my life for, democracy is not to be found by the most microscopic search.

Time to try ailurocracy, perhaps.

You've just made that up! It's total discomtransposition.

Quote from: FierceKitty on 12 August 2014, 02:48:59 AM
Didn't claim anything else worked either, please note. But among the causes I'd risk my life for, democracy is not to be found by the most microscopic search.

Time to try ailurocracy, perhaps.

Ailurocracy, that gives one paws fur thought  :P

As a proud Scotsman (from Shetland, so I don't do kilts, haggis and bagpipes) who lives in England by accident of history, I note the divergence of the Scottish and Westminster governments. I also see, on my many trips to Scotland, a country where there is  a feeling of a national identity that is absent in England. Count the Saltires proudly waving all year long, and not just when there's international football on (in which case they'd never be aired).

Scotland is already achieving independence from Westminster bit by bit. Apart from foreign and defence policies, and some taxation which Mr Darling has promised to transfer, Scotland is largely self governing. I see the independence campaign as a shunning of Westminster (not England and that other place ... Walls, Wells, something like that) rather than a desire to destroy the Union.

If a fairly socialist party, like say the Labour party before that nice Mr Blair mucked it up, got elected as the Government of the UK, and re-evaluated our place in the world, I think that the  ardour for Scottish independence would be cooled. If this New New Labour scrapped Trident, wouldn't that cut one of the hairy wee legs of Alex Salmond? It's a waste of money any way as they proved in "Yes Prime Minister" thirty years ago ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX_d_vMKswE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX_d_vMKswE)

While France has ballistic missile submarines, so will we. Would the navy have got new aircraft carriers before the advent of the Charles de Gaulle? I think not.

Democracy may or may not be the best form of government, but it's certainly the least bad.

The development of democracy in Europe over the past 200 years or so has been in parallel with a more tollerant, open and inclusive society.  Unfortunately most people forget that democracy was hard fought for and is a prize worth having.  If you don't have democracy what have you got?  Tyrany in one form or another, be it a monarchy or some other form of dictatorship, religious or secular.

The bad reputation of democracy seems to come from the West imposing it on people who take the concept but create parties based arround nationalistic, ethnic, tribal, religious or some other insular grouping.  The result is factionalism which often leads to one group dominating the others and using their inbuilt powerbase to further their personal and supporters welfare at the cost of everyone else, eventually the result is civil war.

Western democracy works because there is much less of that factionism, the exception being Northern Ireland which witnessed exactly the above senario (based on religious bigotry) from Partition to the instigation of the Goodfriday Agreement and we're still living with that legacy and probably will be for decades.

For the rest of Britain democracy works because there are enough posh people who don't automatically vote Tory, enough working class people who don't automatically vote labour and a big swathe in the midddle who tip the balance from one to the other to ensure that the difference between Left and Right in Westminster is relatively small.  The extremists on either end of the spectrum are tolerated but not able to break the balance too much.

Nationalism is, by it's very nature, small minded, factional and devisive.  Most Eupopean countries, including Britain, have, over the years elected govenerments with some sort of 'nationalist' bias, and generally the result has been, to say the least, unhappy.  But European democracy developed and since 1945 nationalism has generally been out of favour, giving us 70 years of peace and unparalleled prosperity.  You may or may not agree with everything 'Europe' says and does but the more or less united Europe of 2014 is a much safer, tolerant and prosperous place than the nationalistic Europe of 1914.

So while I wouldn't fight for democracy as an abstract concept I'd be the first on the baracades if David Cameron disolved Parliament and tried to grab power.

"Count the saltires proudly waving all year." Now where was that European country in the 1930s where you couldn't turn a corner without seeing their flag "proudly waving all year." My GOD I'm bloody sick of this nationalism. You'd think as wargamers we'd see how counter-productive it is.

Oh, yes, certainly the best. It gave us Hitler, Reagan, the Bushes, Thatchler, the Shinawatras. What could be better than a system that gives power to those voted in by telling the mass of people what they want to hear and are certainly not qualified to understand? I include myself in that category, btw.

Quote from: FierceKitty on 12 August 2014, 10:13:23 AM
Oh, yes, certainly the best. It gave us Hitler, Reagan, the Bushes, Thatchler, the Shinawatras. What could be better than a system that gives power to those voted in by telling the mass of people what they want to hear and are certainly not qualified to understand? I include myself in that category, btw.

I think that is largely the point of what makes democracy worth it. You need to get the mass of people to vote for you. This ensures that you do not go to war for "silly" reasons. You can argue this point but as war-gamers most of us will read history and if we look at the reasons Kings and Emperors went to war the "declare war" threshold was a lot lower than in a mature democracy.

In your leader list Hitler should not be there in my opinion as he was elected by an immature democracy. You might have added Blair, Brown and Wilson for balance.

Democracy is a very long way from being ideal but it ensures we have a good debate on important matters and although we do not vote on everything "public opinion" does carry weight in political circles.

Cheers  Rob :)

It's very easy to assume a king goes to war because he's personally ambitious or needs to gain a reputation or is paranoid, and that only autocrats do so. But ask anyone who remembers Thatchler and and the Falklands, or any US president and any place where they wear turbans....

It gave us Hitler, Reagan, the Bushes, Thatcher, the Shinawatras but not Pol Pot, Caligula, Papa Doc, Idi Amin or Qin Shi Huang.

The suggestion is not that Democracy is necessarily good merely that the alternatives are worse.

Democracy did give us Hitler who was a nationalist and who then prodeded democracy in Germany, he was eventually beaten by Russia, the USA and the Britain, two of whom were and still are democracies.  I may be wrong, but I suspect Europe under a totalitarian nationalistic regime would not be as nice a place to live as it is under it's current rather ramshacled democracies.

The power of Democracy is not only in the vote of the individual but in the power of the law, all of the above were subject to the law, Regan didn't try and grab a third term as president and Thatcher at least was answerable to Parliament and there was a public enquiry after the Falklands.

And if you don't think democracy works what about the Vietnam War?  Wilson refused to get drawn into that one despite a lot of pressure as he knew there was no was he could get Parliament or the people to agree.  And the USA pulled out of Vietnam not because it was loosing but because of the political pressure at home, pressure which would not have existed if the US hadn't been a democracy.

Also, the single biggest upheaval in the US since the civil war, the civil rights movement of the 1960s was only achievable because the US was a democracy. 

Quote from: Dour Puritan on 12 August 2014, 10:07:04 AM
My GOD I'm bloody sick of this nationalism.

Think of it as "community".

"Patriotism is, fundamentally, a conviction that a particular country is the best in the world because you were born in it...."
― George Bernard Shaw

When I look at the mess that has been made in places like Afganistan and Iraq, by trying to give them democracy. I do wonder if they were not better when ruled by a Dictator or the Taliban.

Yes we might not agree with thier laws,or the oppression of women or some parts of the population, but less peple seemed to end up dead on a daily basis.

They do not seem to be ready for democracy and would probably be better off under an autocracy.

Bear in mind that it took hundreds of years for our democracy to develop. It's not something that you can just drop on another culture that is not used to it. Look at Egypt - Muslim Brotherhood voted in - we don't like that result - uprising and throw them out.

Quote from: Just a few Orcs on 13 August 2014, 05:45:55 AM
When I look at the mess that has been made in places like Afganistan and Iraq, by trying to give them democracy. I do wonder if they were not better when ruled by a Dictator or the Taliban.

Yes we might not agree with thier laws,or the oppression of women or some parts of the population, but less peple seemed to end up dead on a daily basis.

They do not seem to be ready for democracy and would probably be better off under an autocracy.

There is no such thing as a benevolent dictatorship. Acton was right; "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Quote from: Hertsblue on 13 August 2014, 02:06:17 PM
There is no such thing as a benevolent dictatorship. Acton was right; "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

No I fully agree.  Its just thatvwhen you see headlines like "90 killed by car bomb"  on an almost daily basis I sometimes think that a corrupt leadership would end up with less people dead and living in fear.

Well less people dead maybe. Not sure about the second part of the sentence.

Reminds me of the comment that the east end of London was a safer, more peaceful place when the Krays held sway. Possibly, but at what price?

Having a coffee table nailed to your head apparently. Just in the middle of watching the Whitechapel series on the Krays, on On Demand.

I thought that was the Piranha brothers ?
"Dinsdale, Dinsdale !" :D
Cheers - Spiny Norman.

Who let the hedgehog in ?????

IanS

Guess the question is who'll pick him up and puts him outside again... :(

Tempt it outside with a bowl of cat food.
Cheers - Phil

QuoteTempt it outside with a bowl of cat food

Isn't that what Alex Salmon is trying?

Is Alex Salmon what the cat is hoping to find in the bowl?

It seems appropriate that an Alexander should be a salmon, if he is to be a fish.

Try this for a quote - "All 20th and 21st Century history is Bismarks fault". So Scottish independence must be.....

IanS

The First Minister is Salmond not Salmon .... though the Deputy First Minister is a Sturgeon

She operates on people?

And Rosamund Pike is a very tasty bit of English crumpet.

I think Ithoriel missed the fish link, ie it was deliberately misspelt,

Quote from: fsn on 15 August 2014, 06:23:49 PM
She operates on people?

Had to go back to the previous page to get that..... :D

Da, da, da, da, dah, dah,
Da, da, da, da, dah, dah,

Come on......Everyone join in with the conger

Cheers - Phil

Eel be milking this for a while yet!

Pardon...
Sorry, my herring seems to be a trifle fuzzy this morning.
Cheers - Phil

Oh Cod! Salmon started fish puns again!

It's the old Goldfish attention.........


Sorry lost my thread there.

IanS  :D

I'm floundering arround for something to say to bring this thread back on line, maybe I'll go away for a while and mullet over.

Or maybe I'll bass over the opportunuity as we're all hooked on puns, any forum whose members can mangle the English language to this extent has my gudgeon respect.

You're certainly in the right plaice. Just mussel in.

Sometimes.....I really think some folk derail threads on porpoise.
Cheers - Phil

Whale, whale, whale.

Is this the classic example of political discussion ? A sensible question being reduced to taking the urine out of the politicians names. . . .Keep up the good work.
If Scotland wants to be independent then so be it !
The politics afterwards will be something to behold.
                                                                            :)

Warning! Warning! Humour bypass, humour bypass!

QuoteIs this the classic example of political discussion ? A sensible question being reduced to taking the urine out of the politicians names. . . .Keep up the good work.

No, it's not just reducing the question to a joke.

If you trawl (sorry) the previous 12 pages or so of this thread there are serious discussions about not just the future of Scotland an independant nation but also the who process of government including methods of government, the viability of democracy etc.

And Yes

Many of these comments here are here are irreverent (and irrelevant) but are also in the fine tradition of political satire, whose porpoise is to poke fun at the political leaders of our nation whether it be their fitness to govern, financial integrity, waistlines or just their name is one of the hallmarks of our democracy and to regress a few pages I very much doubt if nationalistic governments are in favour of such insubordinate behaviour.

I think I was responsible for kicking off this fishy bit of the threat (fishing line?) due to a typo but don't regret the current direction it's taken.

Appologies for dragging this back on theme, but I just hake it when someone doesn't appreciate a good pun (or even a bad one).

And now for something completly different:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLdK9zaLaG8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLdK9zaLaG8)

Well as far as I'm aware the leader of our nation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as Head of State, and the Right Honourable David Cameron, MP, as Prime Minister, neither of which is easy to make fish jokes out of. As far as I am concerned my nation is the UK and nobody has given me the right to have a say in its future, so I am understandably a bit  p****d off about some jumped up council leader trying to break it all up.

Well said DP.  :)

If the Scots vote no, does that mean the SNP will disband and the whole thing will be never spoken of again?
Or can they keep asking the same question until they are happy the answer is correct?

Alternatively if after a Yes vote and independence there was a combination of unfortunate circumstances such as:
  * The New Scottish pound collapses
  * EU membership refused
  * English, Welsh and Northern Irish scientists perfect the fusion reactor" thereby giving nearly free, clean and limitless energy causing the collapse of the oil price

Would a reunion be possible, and who would vote on it?  :-\


Cheers, Rob  :)

I think you have mistaken my comment as a criticism, not at all, bring on the p*** take, of all the people who need to be taken down a peg its politicians.
I have close family living in Scotland most of whom are Nationalists to some degree, however strangely few of them will vote Yes this time.
So smile you miserable sod.    :D

 :)

It'll be interesting to see what will happen if Scotland does get independence. A lot of the SNP's policies are based on the oil revenue, which is in Shetland's waters.

Shetlanders tend not to see themselves as Scottish. I think of myself as a Shetlander first, British second and Scottish third. From my family still in Shetland there isn't a great deal of affection for Salmond et al, and some grumbling about "going back to Norway." This may not be entirely serious, but I can see the Shetlanders being quite happy to point a very large calibre loaded gun at the head of the parliament in Edinburgh.

My question would be, if the Scotland becomes independent do all Scots become immigrants in England ,even if they didn't get a vote, so will it effect any benefits, pensions payable, housing and certain employment positions available. Also will phone calls/postal rates be charged as going abroad?
There must be thousands of daft little things ,never mind the BIG things, that will suddenly crop up after a yes vote.
Thought the Shetlands do all right out of the oil as it is, but what if they decide to become an independent state or even a Federal state, would Scotland let them go?
We live in interesting times.   ;)

It occurred to me that, should independence happen, Scotland would not be a member state of the EU, therefore all Scots south of the border would be illegal immigrants and should be deported forthwith. Should Scotland decide to do the same with UK citizens, then their loss.

How would that apply to Scots serving in the British armed forces; would they be considered 'in foreign service' and denied their nationality/rights in Scotland?  :-\

Maybe they could be given the option of being treated in the same way as the Ghurkas.

Given that the UK looks to have a good chance to be heading out of the EU the lack of membership for Scotland may not be a problem! Of course if rUK leaves the EU iScotland may be considerably more welcome ... well welcomed by everyone but the Spanish who would worry about the signals that might send to Catalonia!

And the Belgians - Walloons and Flemish, and the Italians - The Northern League, Sardinia.

Quote from: Dour Puritan on 21 August 2014, 01:43:47 PM
And the Belgians - Walloons and Flemish, and the Italians - The Northern League, Sardinia.

There are two relevant points here:

1.   Modern communications
Internet and mobile phones allow groups and organisations to communicate and co-operate as never before. Communications channels once the reserve of the state are now available to everyone facilitating separate groups promoting their own agendas e.g. Ukrainian separatists, Bosnian Serbs, Boko-Haram, Isis etc. I don't know this as a fact but I would bet there is a Catalonian network, for instance, with some sort of agenda which spans the French and Spanish border. The point being it is relativly easy to be organised these days if you have the will and determination.

2.   Gradual creeping expansion of  EU control over foreign policy and the military
The gradual subsuming of the EU member states independence to the point where these smaller staes can feel "safe" to exist apart from their current parent country if they remain part of the EU. This is important because if these smaller states gain independence they will have little in the way of intelligence services or military forces to protect their interest and nationals abroad, they would have to rely on the EU. The point being these smaller potential states can bolt themselves into the "big country" services that are gradually becoming stronger in the EU.

Cheers, Rob  :)

So that 's independence then? Leave a small union to become part of something bigger. I'm just not getting this at all. Saw Newsnight from Edinburgh last night and felt very sorry for the Scots chap who lives and works in England and so is denied a vote on the issue. Similarly I don't get how someone born in ,say, Basingstoke but living and working in Glasgow gets a vote. The whole thing just seems to be cooked up by a few people who want more power based on a mythical evocation of a past Scotland which doesn't take into account the Caledonians, Picts, Britons, Norse, Saxons and Normans who also settled there. The first three were there before the Scots even set foot in the place.

One of my university lecturers used to have two bumper stickers on his car:

"Say Yes To The Highland Clearances!"

and

"Send The Scots Back To Ireland Where They Came From!"

Have to say though that being part of a bigger union doesn't sound like a bad thing necessarily. The assumption is that your "Basingstoke Man" is going to stay here and should therefore have a say in how the country is run whereas ex-pat Scots have less invested in the country. It's the usual problem with drawing electoral lines, there will always be people who are, or think they are, disadvantaged. If you start including the diaspora where do you stop? Do we include those Americans who used to come in to the library I worked in looking to research their Scottish ancestors despite having surnames like Schmidt or Gonzales?

The problem with any of these potential small states wishing to leave their parent country to then join the EU is that they will need to apply, and none of the EU countries are going to agree otherwise they will potentially open up the flood gates to all of the countries in the EU to go back to the medieval fracturing of all the major countries. This will result in the potential new states of Aragon, Picardy, Bavaria, Saxony, Burgundy, and Naples having less voting power than Poland.

I don't know if Mr Salmond has explained this away or is it still an obstacle? It's a bit like the turkey voting for Christmas, it ain't going to happen.

Yeah, bring back the Holy Roman Empire, that's what I say.  ;)

North German Confederation anyone?

Ukraine for the Poles! (Thumping the Russians en route is not a prospect that most Poles would find disagreeable).

Watched a programme on Walter Scott and Robert Burns last night, presented by Andrew Marr. It was certainly an eye opener about Scottish culture and history and might persuade me towards the yes campaign, (never thought I'd say that) although of course I do't have a vote. Would be interested to see what else Marr has to offer in the next programme.

Have the Traitor Marr confined to the Tower until his fate is decided!

Scots finally managed to wallop the Sassenachs today. It can be done, laddies! Having a unit of Highlanders take the Ironsides in flank was decidedly useful.

Ah, a fantasy game....

Does the rest of the UK care?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28783688

Well it does feel a little like losing a part of your cake.

Best summary of the situation up here I've seen in a while.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/05/independence-referendum-debate-intoxicated-scotland

tl:dr - Should've offered Devo Max :)

Not too long to wait now !  :-\
Cheers - Phil

Great article.

Very interesting article. I now want a referendum for the North of England. Independence for Northumbria. We've had it before and it was taken rather than given up.

Has anyone noticed the spooky connection between the date of the Referendum vote and my 1809 Blog?

18.09

Is it a sign?

Yes. It means Scotland will be uniting with either Portugal or Austria.

Not France?  :P

Bored, bored, bored, bored, bored. Go or stay - just get on with it!

Shall we vote on having a separate Scottish Wargaming Message Board? Then we can chatter away on our own.  :P 

Only Scottish members can vote to have a separate Scottish Wargaming Message Board, of course.

Shouldn't that be only members currently residing in Scotland?

Yes, of course, but we'd have to work out some form of postal vote as well.

I know how to save the Union!

Get Mr Cameron to stand in the Scottish Parliament and say "actually, the SNP have some good ideas. Perhaps Mr Salmond is right."

Complete collapse of "yes" vote guaranteed.

I'm out!

Quote from: fsn on 09 September 2014, 08:56:35 PM
I know how to save the Union!
Get Mr Cameron to stand in the Scottish Parliament and say "actually, the SNP have some good ideas. Perhaps Mr Salmond is right."
Complete collapse of "yes" vote guaranteed.

Sad....But probably true. X_X X_X
Cheers - Phil

Never mind London-town, they're all up here today, buying stuff for the kids from the tartan gift shop and eating deep-fried Mars Bars for lunch.

Dont forget the tartan berets with attached ginger wig.

ianS

If Scotland becomes independent does that mean Scottish forum members can purchase Pendraken sans VAT?

Quote from: Matt of Munslow on 10 September 2014, 04:52:14 PM
If Scotland becomes independent does that mean Scottish forum members can purchase Pendraken sans VAT?

If the new Scotland end up outside of the EU, then yes.  It would also mean that every time we go up to a Scottish show, we would need to declare the takings at the border and pay a sales tax to the Scottish government.  That's in theory, hopefully common sense would prevail and they'd figure out some kind of trade agreement between the two countries.

It wouldn't be so bad for us only going to 4 shows north of the border each year, but for the Scottish traders, they'd have to do the same thing every time they come down to the UK shows, potentially adding a huge amount of costs to their businesses.

You'd also have increases to the postage costs to deal with, as Scotland would become classed as 'Europe' as far as Royal Mail are concerned, so you wouldn't be able to just stick it through 1st class as we do now.  There'd be potential 'Remote Area' fees as well for some parts of the Highlands, which Royal Mail currently just absorb into their regular prices.  Many courier services will charge a premium to deliver north of Aberdeen or out to the Shetlands.

Leon I think you will be wrong about Royal Mail "Europe" charges. (I did a contract at Parcel-Force) They use a Europen carrier for ebery thing across the channel and an American carrier for world-wide deliveries. I would suggest they would continue using the same arrangements for Scotland when they break away.

:)

Interesting point on taxes. If Scotland manges to join the EU they will of course not have the UK (that terrible Maggie did this)  opt-out so will have to then pay taxes on food, childrens cloths and believe it or not newspapers. VAT is a minimum of 15%

On the postage, I think there'll be some kind of increase for Scottish post.  We can currently send 1st class UK to Northern Ireland, but Republic of Ireland is Europe rated, despite it going on the same network for the majority of the journey.  I don't think Royal Mail would miss out on the opportunity to grab some extra pennies where they can.

I am sure you are right Leon. I was just thinking that they have employees and distribution hubs in Scotland so it shouldn't make a difference.

Having thought about it I do know they have a policy of not worrying about foreign rules and regulations as these are dealt with by the foreign carriers - simple. In this case their systems could not cope so I wonder what will actually happen. Logically to keep with their current practices they should sack all Scottish workers and have the American carrier carry out all deliveries north of the border, but that just doesnt seem right.

This is probably going to be a fairly common problem across services and industry and it looks like we will be paying for these changes and reorganisations  through higher charges although we havn't voted or had a say in the process at all.

:-\

I just hope that regardless of which way the vote goes, the powers that be can work out systems to reduce the impact on small businesses like us.  I've been following some discussions on other forums and Facebook from Scottish traders, who aren't looking forward to the prospect of independence as it relates to their businesses.

How is the Xbox these days Leon?

Quote from: mad lemmey on 11 September 2014, 03:36:57 PM
How is the Xbox these days Leon?

:-\ ^#(^

I havent really followed all this independence thing very closely...If there is a yes vote then when does it all change?. The next day or a year later, or some other time?

Quote from: Leon on 11 September 2014, 03:14:31 PM
I just hope that regardless of which way the vote goes, the powers that be can work out systems to reduce the impact on small businesses like us.  I've been following some discussions on other forums and Facebook from Scottish traders, who aren't looking forward to the prospect of independence as it relates to their businesses.

If you are looking at the debate it is only one side that is trying to put up barriers in order to discourage a YES vote.

We are bombing people to liberty that in most cases do not care about the Western Way of Life but when it comes to our own house we accept that one makes the decisions (crap ones at that to be brutally honest)?

I accept that Independence brings responsibilities and I am happy to work for that as long as the government (wherever it resides) has my best interest in mind. Unfortunately I cannot say that about the current one in Westminster - a concern that many people in England share actually.

The sane thing is to create a Pound Sterling zone in opposition to the EURO and Dollar zones. It is also smart to stay in the EU so we do not have to pay all the import charges but then again: Since when is the majority of the electorate or who they vote for smart?

@Fenton: Independence day would be 2016 after 2 years of organising a separation. Now how that separation goes is up to both governments but just on one point of the No campaign (No pound argument): No pound, no debt. I do not think Cameron will risk that.

I've not read through this whole thread, so apologies in advance if this has been asked, but what happens to our beautiful union flag if the Scots leave us?

Personally I hope they don't go and still find it hard to believe it could happen.

Quote from: Mickey Sims on 13 September 2014, 12:18:36 AM
I've not read through this whole thread, so apologies in advance if this has been asked, but what happens to our beautiful union flag if the Scots leave us?

You lose the blue bits.

Twenty years from now the Sassenachs will be marching under a cross St Andrew argent on a field azure. Gae for it, Sco'lan'!

We'll all be driving flying cars and there will be a colony on Mars

So, the blue bits are staying. Now lets have a devolved Assembly in Manchester.

Praise be! The Scots have found their sense and decided not to destroy the UK!

Now we just have to put Scotland back together. 

Quote from: Dour Puritan on 19 September 2014, 06:39:01 AM
So, the blue bits are staying. Now lets have a devolved Assembly in Manchester.

MANCHESTER !!!!  >:( >:( >:(

IanS

Quote from: Dour Puritan on 19 September 2014, 06:39:01 AM
So, the blue bits are staying. Now lets have a devolved Assembly in Manchester.

I'd settle for an English assembly that doesn't allow the other countries to meddle in English affairs.

I'm really glad the Scots decided to stay, independance for Scotland would have been a disater for the whole Union but now it looks like our not particularly large country is going to be split by regional factionalism.

With Scotland looking like its going to get some form of Devo-Max other areas will, quite justifiably, want the same.

All I can see is the opportunity for more layers of burocracy, local politics, factional arguments and wrangling coming to the fore.  It will be complex, expensive and in then not much will change. :(

Quote from: Hertsblue on 19 September 2014, 07:38:53 AM
I'd settle for an English assembly that doesn't allow the other countries to meddle in English affairs.

Everyone will still get shafted by the vested interests of the London based bankers who f***ed it all.

So, nothing will change  >:(

With 9 of the poorest regions in Northern Europe being in the UK, I think we have to start concentrating on getting this fixed

Disappointed to hear on the lunchtime news that Labour is not too keen on federating the UK. Probably because they would be totally shafted in the South-east, the bedrock of greed in this country, or is that countries. Who knows any more? It is interesting to note that we are one of the few major countries where the centre of finance and the centre of government are located in the same city. Thinking of Washington/New York, Berlin/Frankfurt, Ottawa/Toronto, Den Haag/Amsterdam, Canberra/Sydney and so on.

Twenty-somethings to forty-somethings seem to have been more pro-independence and fifty-somethings and up more pro-union.

With luck, and good medical care, I may yet live to see the re-run!

I suspect I am personally better off but my country is worse off as a result of yesterday's vote.

Greetings

Quote from: Dour Puritan on 19 September 2014, 12:31:46 PM
[snip] It is interesting to note that we are one of the few major countries where the centre of finance and the centre of government are located in the same city. Thinking of Washington/New York, Berlin/Frankfurt, Ottawa/Toronto, Den Haag/Amsterdam, Canberra/Sydney and so on.

Washington, Ottawa and Canberra are to some extent 'created' capitals.  Government in W Germany was set up in Bonn artificially and finance developed in Frankfurt. Not sure of development of The Hague but the Netherlands were in origin a collection of States anyway.   You could I suspect add to your list Istanbul/Ankara (a case of moving the capital). You may also use Italy as an example with Milan being more of a finance centre than Rome.  Mind you these may not meet your 'major' criterion.

But many countries financial centres are in fact in the capital city, absent unusual circumstances.  Whether this is a good or bad thing is another matter entirely.  I am not sure that the physical separation of the location of government from that of finance has a great deal of effect on policy.

Regards

Edward

Maybe not, but if they were separate I doubt 15 million people would live within thirty miles of the centre of London, resulting in a much less London-centric viewpoint.

I find it all baffling.

The Nationalists nearly destroyed this country by fragmenting it, and the response from the political 'elite' and many others is 'lets fragment the country into 'devolved regions'.  Baffling.

As i've posted across social media:

Some Scots want 'independence' from the 307 year Union that they created, and for 3 centuries have vigorously contributed to, benefited from, and continue to be a powerful part of.

Together the Scots, English, Welsh, and Northern Irish, through a wonderful, often bitter and tumultuous union, invented the modern world and via the Enlightenment, developed science, reason, engineering and progress that created the industrial revolution and founded an Empire on which 'the Sun never set'. In the process we created great modern nations like America and Australia, defeated European fascism time and again, (from Napoleon (I, II, and III), to Emperor Wilhelm, to Hitler) saving the Europeans from themselves. We now stand in the twilight of that amazing and bitter past, staring into the bright glare of a possible future.

We truly are better together.

Now, if our Scots brothers and sisters can heal their wounds and pitch in with the rest of us again, there's a fight to be won to wrest control of our UK back from corporately owned Westminster, and their political cabal consensus that denies us all in equal measure.

I never thought I would type this, but I am truly delighted that Scotland decided to stay a part of the Union.  I am sure it would not only have been worse for them if they had become independent, but also for the rest of us. It is now for all of us to involve ourselves in the process of ensuring that the reforms which will now follow do not just add yet more layers of mindless bureaucracy to the huge array we already possess.  Our real problem has much in common with that of the Austrian Army of 1866. We do not have enough staff qualified officers and generals (read senior politicians/statesmen) to man all the levels of command effectively.  Where are we going to find them?   Volunteers, one pace forward!   :D

Mollinary

Quote from: mollinary on 19 September 2014, 05:35:54 PM
I never thought I would type this, but I am truly delighted that Scotland decided to stay a part of the Union.  I am sure it would not only have been worse for them if they had become independent, but also for the rest of us. It is now for all of us to involve ourselves in the process of ensuring that the reforms which will now follow do not just add yet more layers of mindless bureaucracy to the huge array we already possess.  Our real problem has much in common with that of the Austrian Army of 1866. We do not have enough staff qualified officers and generals (read senior politicians/statesmen) to man all the levels of command effectively.  Where are we going to find them?   Volunteers, one pace forward!   :D

Mollinary

(http://www.spaceg.com/multimedia/collection/meme%20responses/likes%20-%20machine%20gun.jpg)

Erm...
Napoleon II?
An Austrian Leuitenent in the Hussars who died from TB before he was 30?

Oops.  Slip of the typing finger.  I could correct the mistype, but i'll take the shame.   <)

Quote from: mad lemmey on 19 September 2014, 06:38:04 PM
Erm...
Napoleon II?
An Austrian Leuitenent in the Hussars who died from TB before he was 30?

Yeah! He was a right swine, and a danger to the Empire. They said he died of TB, but in fact is was a British covert operation that cannot yet be talked off openly. If fact just by typing this I may have laid myself open to reprisals from the state. 

Quote from: fsn on 20 September 2014, 07:54:26 AM
Yeah! He was a right swine, and a danger to the Empire. They said he died of TB, but in fact is was a British covert operation that cannot yet be talked off openly. If fact just by typing this I may have laid myself open to reprisals from the state. 

More likely the Bourbons. For theory and medical condition read Assassination at St Helena Revisited.

Quote from: fsn on 20 September 2014, 07:54:26 AM
If fact just by typing this I may have laid myself open to reprisals from the state. 

Good, mind you it wont be poison, living in Runcorn makes you immune to it.  ;)

IanS

Quote from: WeeWars on 20 September 2014, 11:11:26 AM
More likely the Bourbons. For theory and medical condition read Assassination at St Helena Revisited.

Wrong Napoleon?   I thought we were talking about the Little Eagle?

Mollinary

The Bourbons got him ? Dangerous biscuits them.

 ;D ;D ;D

Quote from: mollinary on 20 September 2014, 11:24:57 AM
Wrong Napoleon?   I thought we were talking about the Little Eagle?

Mollinary

We are. The Bourbon net was a wide one, apparently. Don't want to spoil the tale for anyone who hasn't read it, though.