|
|
Post by Markw on Sept 19, 2014 4:27:56 GMT -5
Their wishes were respected, they got the democratic vote they wanted and they lost fair and square. I really don't see how you, someone who has very little personal investment in this issue, can be disappointed with the result. You were saying before the vote that the people of Scotland should decide (as did I) and they have. Slim majority or not (and it's not that slim at all). Hooray for Democracy. Doesn't mean the Scots shouldn't be given basic autonomy regardless. Yes democracy won out, doesn't mean they still shouldn't get some concessions. Having 46% of a population royally pissed off isn't gonna help matters, anyone can tell you that. Cameron better keep his word with what he promised with a no vote. I have enough personal involvement to care that if people want freedom they should be allowed to have it. Democracy won out, but this wasn't simply a vote to decide who's going to run a country. If it was deciding who is in charge, Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Labor, well...I've lived under Presidents that I loved and that I hated. But I always lived in a country that was its own, and if we're in the losing party for leader then we just suck it up for four years. But this wasn't simply a vote for a leader or something of the sort. It was to determine if Scotland could even be a country. And here you had 46% of Scotland saying they want nothing to do with England. That's bad. That's REALLY bad. If you had an election and 46% voted against the Conservatives, no biggie. If you had a vote asking if they wanted the UK to remain entirely intact and 46% said no...problem. The latter is what England's going to have to deal with. The ramifications could be just as bad due to the no as they may have been with a yes. This isn't the Yank in me talking either, it's the political activist of a plethora of causes within my country, and elsewhere. You'd be surprised Mark.  45%. And I certainly disagree that here we had 45% of people saying they want nothing to do with England, they wanted independence yes but that's not the same thing. They were afterall saying that in the event of a yes vote close ties would remain with the United Kingdom and the United States. I don't think, personally, that we're going to see quite the backlash that you seem to expect, because I think your making an assumption that all those people who voted yes won't be willing to accept what happened today, and while that's true in some cases I don't think that's how the majority will react. The Scottish are very reasonable people, I think it's highly likely that the Yes voters will accept this result and accept that it was a fair democratic vote. Of course they will expect David Cameron to deliver what he has promised. What's your solution to appease the 45% who voted Yes without alienating the majority of the population Shawn? Is it just to do everything David Cameron has said he'll do? |
|
|
|
Post by bad guy™ on Sept 19, 2014 4:58:34 GMT -5
Doesn't mean the Scots shouldn't be given basic autonomy regardless. Yes democracy won out, doesn't mean they still shouldn't get some concessions. Having 46% of a population royally pissed off isn't gonna help matters, anyone can tell you that. Cameron better keep his word with what he promised with a no vote. I have enough personal involvement to care that if people want freedom they should be allowed to have it. Democracy won out, but this wasn't simply a vote to decide who's going to run a country. If it was deciding who is in charge, Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Labor, well...I've lived under Presidents that I loved and that I hated. But I always lived in a country that was its own, and if we're in the losing party for leader then we just suck it up for four years. But this wasn't simply a vote for a leader or something of the sort. It was to determine if Scotland could even be a country. And here you had 46% of Scotland saying they want nothing to do with England. That's bad. That's REALLY bad. If you had an election and 46% voted against the Conservatives, no biggie. If you had a vote asking if they wanted the UK to remain entirely intact and 46% said no...problem. The latter is what England's going to have to deal with. The ramifications could be just as bad due to the no as they may have been with a yes. This isn't the Yank in me talking either, it's the political activist of a plethora of causes within my country, and elsewhere. You'd be surprised Mark. 45%. And I certainly disagree that here we had 45% of people saying they want nothing to do with England, they wanted independence yes but that's not the same thing. They were afterall saying that in the event of a yes vote close ties would remain with the United Kingdom and the United States. I don't think, personally, that we're going to see quite the backlash that you seem to expect, because I think your making an assumption that all those people who voted yes won't be willing to accept what happened today, and while that's true in some cases I don't think that's how the majority will react. The Scottish are very reasonable people, I think it's highly likely that the Yes voters will accept this result and accept that it was a fair democratic vote. Of course they will expect David Cameron to deliver what he has promised. What's your solution to appease the 45% who voted Yes without alienating the majority of the population Shawn? Is it just to do everything David Cameron has said he'll do? Never said they were unreasonable. But to have independence snatched from your fingers by just the slimmest of margins, it's going to irritate a lot of people. To think there won't be any rioting and that everyone will just go about their day...that's just not going to happen. Maybe the scale in my mind is exasperated a bit but still. And what is my solution? Yes, short term it is for Cameron to keep his word, which I'm not entirely positive he and Parliament will do but that's the conspiracy theorist in me talking. I saw what Canada did to Quebec to ensure they could never try to leave again, can't help but imagine it's not crossed a few peoples minds across the pond. And ehat he promised hardly alienates those who voted no. If anything it gives them liberties and autonomy that they should have been given a century ago. They're still not independent people, just like they voted not to be, so those who voted no get to stay within the safety net of the UK, but the ones who voted yes will at least get a carrot to horribly torture them with until they can try again for another referendum so that long term, give enough, eventually the land'll be free to where no one will notice the difference and they can actually be fully independent without England. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Sept 19, 2014 5:00:46 GMT -5
'English rule' - you make it sound as if we oppress them and don't let them have any say in anything. Looks like its a no  54%-46%. Do they have the same autonomy as Canada? A country that, while not a part of the UK, still fully recognizes the Queen as the Head of State but has 150% it's own everything? At the very least give Scotland something similar to that. This vote showed that it's a VERY SLIM majority that wants to stay. This battle is far from over I think. Disappointed in the result. I knew they weren't quite ready to be on their own...but I worry now if they ever will be given the opportunity again or if the English will try to quelch it down the road. If you get that many people wanting to be on their own, their wishes should be respected...or at the very least give them so many concessions you can't remember what you started with. I really don't believe Cameron when he says he's going to give Scotland more freedoms. If he doesn't give anything, or worse starts political retribution (let's face it...every country does it to a losing party England is not immune) against Yes leaders...this could get very ugly over there. I look at Quebec who tried to get independence a while back. They failed by a slim margin and were dead set on trying again but Canada moved all of its immigrants in and pays them to this day to stay there so that if Quebec tries to vote again, the immigrants will vote no so they can continue collecting the government checks every year to essentially prevent Quebec from leaving Canada. I worry England proper will do something similar to that. A very underhanded move by the Canadians...not sure if England could get away with that or not though. If the Scots wanted to leave they would have left. We give them plenty - they get a much better deal than the rest of the UK on stuff like Universities and government spending per capita. They get a fine deal out of the union. We do not oppress them in any way. They have plenty of powers in Holyrood, and will soon get even more. Canada isn't even relevant. We haven't owned them for years and have nothing to do with their affairs. They're on a different continent. Head of state is a symbolic position. Scotland meanwhile has been part of our country (not our territory like Canada was) for 300 years, and works with the rest of the UK on almost every decision it makes. 'English rule' - you make it sound as if we oppress them and don't let them have any say in anything. Looks like its a no 54%-46%. I mean...basically yes it's that to a degree. If a country on majority has called to remove nuclear weapons from it, it's "parent" country may oblige in time. I understand the huge cost involved in moving them (I live in a US state with nukes), but in this day and age I would say it's a reasonable request. Or there's these gems: Literally just laughs and talks down to representatives of another country essentially. There's pretty clear examples in recent history of England sh*tting on Scotland because they had the numbers in Parliament to do so. I think if they don't want the UK to break apart, they should address issues like this. You may not see it as England "not letting them have a say", but from an outsiders view I see it as Scotland (also Wales and N.Ire) get a "say" but at the end of the day, majority rules and England has the majority. I think the no vote will get the English politicians to start seeing this as an issue that won't end and start maybe giving more to the other countries that make up the area they want to hold onto so closely. Again, Scotland gets plenty from us. Independent economists predicted that Scottish people would lose a couple of grand per capita in public spending if they went independent, because we give them a great deal in that (among other things). They have plenty of powers. Its not like Tibet where we're forcing them to stay. We gave them the option to leave and they said no. We're better together. If Michigan wanted to leave the union, would you support it? Or would you point out that it would probably leave Michigan worse off in the short and long terms and encourage it to stay a part of your country, as both you and it are improved by being together? Its not oppressing Scotland to point out that both we and it are better off staying in this union. Our interests are largely the same (often unlike us and the rest of the EU) and we work better together. |
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Sept 19, 2014 5:08:59 GMT -5
and they can actually be fully independent without England. The majority don't want that. They actually had a vote really recently about this. |
|
|
|
Post by bad guy™ on Sept 19, 2014 5:21:51 GMT -5
Do they have the same autonomy as Canada? A country that, while not a part of the UK, still fully recognizes the Queen as the Head of State but has 150% it's own everything? At the very least give Scotland something similar to that. This vote showed that it's a VERY SLIM majority that wants to stay. This battle is far from over I think. Disappointed in the result. I knew they weren't quite ready to be on their own...but I worry now if they ever will be given the opportunity again or if the English will try to quelch it down the road. If you get that many people wanting to be on their own, their wishes should be respected...or at the very least give them so many concessions you can't remember what you started with. I really don't believe Cameron when he says he's going to give Scotland more freedoms. If he doesn't give anything, or worse starts political retribution (let's face it...every country does it to a losing party England is not immune) against Yes leaders...this could get very ugly over there. I look at Quebec who tried to get independence a while back. They failed by a slim margin and were dead set on trying again but Canada moved all of its immigrants in and pays them to this day to stay there so that if Quebec tries to vote again, the immigrants will vote no so they can continue collecting the government checks every year to essentially prevent Quebec from leaving Canada. I worry England proper will do something similar to that. A very underhanded move by the Canadians...not sure if England could get away with that or not though. If the Scots wanted to leave they would have left. We give them plenty - they get a much better deal than the rest of the UK on stuff like Universities and government spending per capita. They get a fine deal out of the union. We do not oppress them in any way. They have plenty of powers in Holyrood, and will soon get even more. Canada isn't even relevant. We haven't owned them for years and have nothing to do with their affairs. They're on a different continent. Head of state is a symbolic position. Scotland meanwhile has been part of our country (not our territory like Canada was) for 300 years, and works with the rest of the UK on almost every decision it makes. I mean...basically yes it's that to a degree. If a country on majority has called to remove nuclear weapons from it, it's "parent" country may oblige in time. I understand the huge cost involved in moving them (I live in a US state with nukes), but in this day and age I would say it's a reasonable request. Or there's these gems: Literally just laughs and talks down to representatives of another country essentially. There's pretty clear examples in recent history of England sh*tting on Scotland because they had the numbers in Parliament to do so. I think if they don't want the UK to break apart, they should address issues like this. You may not see it as England "not letting them have a say", but from an outsiders view I see it as Scotland (also Wales and N.Ire) get a "say" but at the end of the day, majority rules and England has the majority. I think the no vote will get the English politicians to start seeing this as an issue that won't end and start maybe giving more to the other countries that make up the area they want to hold onto so closely. Again, Scotland gets plenty from us. Independent economists predicted that Scottish people would lose a couple of grand per capita in public spending if they went independent, because we give them a great deal in that (among other things). They have plenty of powers. Its not like Tibet where we're forcing them to stay. We gave them the option to leave and they said no. We're better together. If Michigan wanted to leave the union, would you support it? Or would you point out that it would probably leave Michigan worse off in the short and long terms and encourage it to stay a part of your country, as both you and it are improved by being together? Its not oppressing Scotland to point out that both we and it are better off staying in this union. Our interests are largely the same (often unlike us and the rest of the EU) and we work better together. I was wondering if someone was going to bring up a state seceding from the Union. 1.) No state can leave the Union. It's deemed unconstitutional because we kind of had a little war where almost a million people died because states left. We learned our lesson. 2.) Yes, I would support them if their gripe was just. I'm for the liberty of all, and freedom for all as long as you follow human law and the such. 3.) And alternatively, we're kind of more populated. There are millions of Scots who want independence. There are millions of Americans who hate everything about America. We lose millions of Americans to emigration (which we do), we've still got 300,000,000 people. Scotland doesn't exactly have that many people. Take the amount that leaves America and take that same amount from Scotland, you've got a giant plot of empty land now. Gotta take a bigger look at the minority when the country as a whole isn't very populated. Not suggesting they all up and leave, but understand the impact of that many people pissed off. Even those who woke up today and saw their yes vote had been for nothing and went to work. If you don't think they're even the slightest bit mad, you're fooling yourself. 4.) Canada's a lot more relevant than you think. Ceremonial or not, because of the ceremonial aspect they're technically part of the empire, just not the Kingdom. You don't see pictures of Queen Elizabeth everywhere in the US and India. I was in Toronto and they were littered with them because she is still recognized as the Head of State even if she has no more power than persuasion. Plus, they had the same issue a while back with Quebec and as I've been beating that dead horse lets keep it going: we saw what happened there. Canada pays immigrants to live there and to keep the resistance at a low, but go to Quebec and it's like two different provinces. Upper, French. Lower, English. Aren't they supposed to be united? Yeah. Are they? No. Why? Because their independence was voted down upon and because of the influx they'll never have the opportunity to see it again. That's what I worry about with Scotland because it's happened before, in modern times, and it's still not going very well years later because of it. |
|
|
|
Post by bad guy™ on Sept 19, 2014 5:31:57 GMT -5
and they can actually be fully independent without England. The majority don't want that. They actually had a vote really recently about this. I'm aware, but a good portion of that can be accounted to the fact that (and I even admitted it) Scotland didn't have the greatest monetary plan in place, and some of the die hards for no wanted to make sure those who were on the fence knew that there was a chance England would cut them off completely. Now I know the argument is there for "Well they should have. They weren't British anymore." If England still worked with the United States as trade partners just months after a bloody revolution where tens of thousands died, if they wouldn't have been willing to work with Scotland due to a vote...historically that just looks bad. War? Yeah, we can work something out. Vote? Nope. Doesn't look very good. Even worse when you consider that a few years later America and England went at it again and soon after worked together. Again. Now I know England wouldn't have let Scotland falter, no one is that petty, and the US would have been right there to help get them on their feet too...but I'm just saying the intimidation was there. And if Canada acknowledges the crown after a hundred plus years of complete autonomy, Scotland shouldn't have been a problem if they took a vote on it and wanted to do so because like you said, they didn't want ties to be cut entirely, at least not yet though. |
|
|
|
Post by McBlake on Sept 19, 2014 7:36:54 GMT -5
Happy days..
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack on Sept 19, 2014 11:17:10 GMT -5
Well I voted No yesterday.
Far too many uncertainties for me to vote Yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Escape The Rules on Sept 19, 2014 12:39:09 GMT -5
Right up until this week I wasn't getting involved, politics bore me and I prefer to just live my own life. I read a couple of Yes pamphlets that were given to me and everyone who's judgment I trust were voting yes while all the complete idiots that I know were voting for No. So I conceded and voted for Yes.
I was actually pretty disappointed when I learned of the result this morning, Facebook was just filled with anger and disappointment this morning. While the atmosphere in the streets this morning was just grim, it was like a funeral... weather was dull too, how appropriate.
So far today I've had to deal with my deeply irritating mother gloating about how the vote went, she's a complete idiot when it comes to politics, part of me voted Yes just to spite her.
Oh well, what's done is done. It's disappointing but in the end, the only person that can dictate my life is me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jord on Sept 21, 2014 18:52:57 GMT -5
I voted yes so obviously I'm a bit gutted about the result. Right up until this week I wasn't getting involved, politics bore me and I prefer to just live my own life. I read a couple of Yes pamphlets that were given to me and everyone who's judgment I trust were voting yes while all the complete idiots that I know were voting for No. So I conceded and voted for Yes. I was actually pretty disappointed when I learned of the result this morning, Facebook was just filled with anger and disappointment this morning. While the atmosphere in the streets this morning was just grim, it was like a funeral... weather was dull too, how appropriate.So far today I've had to deal with my deeply irritating mother gloating about how the vote went, she's a complete idiot when it comes to politics, part of me voted Yes just to spite her. Oh well, what's done is done. It's disappointing but in the end, the only person that can dictate my life is me. So true. I was walking around town on Friday and it was eerily quiet considering how busy it was. |
|
