Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:


There is I guess some major subtlety in all this due to the fact that the loss of the British citizenship was tied to the establishment of a Republic. Whereas, if I get this right, prior to this point Ireland was still sort of under the dominion of the British crown and hence rules for "British subjects" applied. So perhaps this is a practical reason for the wish to keep the Queen: so that a status as British subject prevails and allows to avoid a direct loss of British citizenship for most Scots. But I have some difficulty with thinking in terms of crown vs. country in all this, no doubt due to not growing up in a monarchy...

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Now I'm curious: an independent Scotland will still be part of the island called Great Britain, so technically wouldn't they still be "British"?

---

Great Britain is great because it is the largest of the isles called 'British'. The next largest one is called Ireland...

So the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island geographically omits those living on say Anglesey, or Mull, or IoW - but offers them citizenship. I guess any new state might be called the United Kingdom of England, Wales and NI, or something like that.

[ 16. September 2014, 20:03: Message edited by: mark_in_manchester ]

--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:

quote:

---

Now I'm curious: an independent Scotland will still be part of the island called Great Britain, so technically wouldn't they still be "British"?

---

Great Britain is great because it is the largest of the isles called 'British'. The next largest one is called Ireland...

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Ditto - my dad moved away from his birthplace, but doing the family history is incredibly complex as I've got back to 1500ish on the maternal and paternal lines of each of his great grandparents without getting more than 12 miles from where he was born.

It actually goes back to the link I posted yesterday about most people in England being Celt - people have not entered the country in sufficient numbers, and nor have they moved around, enough to actually make a difference in most rural areas (except in the areas where they're Viking, or Saxon, but the point stands). Towns and cities I grant you are different.

As a result of mining on my mum's side I've got Scots and Irish, Geordies and Mackems. On my dad's, 500 years of the Dove Valley and a relationship to practically every surname on every village headstone for a dozen miles radius.

I think if more of the rural types looked at their family trees, many of them may be surprised by the sheer lack of variety as they go back over recorded time.

---

Heavens you did well. One of my cousins did our (family tree on my father's side. He succeeded in tracing my family back to 1790 ( old Carmarthen family) but it gets more and more difficult before the 18th century

As far as I'm aware though I'm a pure breed Celt. Or perhaps not - if you went far enough back we might find a British princess doing a naughty with a Roman general!

Best not pursued perhaps....


--------------------
Best Wishes
Stephen

'Be still,then, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the nations and I will be exalted in the earth' Ps46 v10

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think there has been recognition of the wider impact - on the rest of the UK in particular, but also wider afield. But, when it comes down to it the decision is one of what's best for the people living and working in Scotland, and that's what the Yes campaign has focussed on.

---

For sure, but in the event of a yes vote Westminster will begin negotiating based on what's best for the people who aren't living and working in Scotland, because Westminster will no longer be answerable to the Scots.

The vote itself may be based on what's best for the Scots, but that doesn't mean the entire process will (or even should) be.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Some aspects of Scottish government after a yes vote would also hinge on negotiations with the rump UK govt. There are a lot of issues to be decided - currency, debt, defence management, borders, and so on.

It's also likely that the British govt itself is not all that clear about this. Have the London civil service been preparing for negotiations, and will they hand their masters detailed notes on various categories? Well, maybe.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Whatever the outcome, this is a historical moment. I'll follow it with interest.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
I find some of the antics of Yes supporters very disturbing. Having done a bit of telephone canvassing for No, I wonder whether the reticence of some people to declare their voting intention might be because of fear?

...

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
I find some of the antics of Yes supporters very disturbing. Having done a bit of telephone canvassing for No, I wonder whether the reticence of some people to declare their voting intention might be because of fear?

Some may dismiss this as typical Daily Mail waffle, but I think the piece by Tom Bradby at the foot of the article is worth a look at.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

I find some of the antics of Yes supporters very disturbing.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
I find some of the antics of Yes supporters very disturbing. Having done a bit of telephone canvassing for No, I wonder whether the reticence of some people to declare their voting intention might be because of fear?

...

---

Or just might be because people don't want to tell you something on the phone.

It must be disconcerting for some to get a phone call from some English person asking them if they are supporting x or y, all coached in terms to make No sound better.

This on top of the usual annoyance at being asked for an opinion on something that is very personal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
But much of the rest is Daily Mail twaddle.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

I wonder if the Yes Side would have this much momentum if Ed Milibrand was PM.

---

quote:

---

Tom Bradby is a long-standing, respected ITN journalist. He's not Daily Mail twaddle too?

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I wonder if the Yes Side would have this much momentum if Ed Milibrand was PM.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I would prefer it to see such a negative comparison with NI at the height of the Troubles being made by more than one journalist, and in a better newspaper than the Mail. Not wanting to impune the integrity of Tom Bradby, but if he's correct that "The Yes campaign's bullying and intimidation is worse than anything [he] saw while reporting on the Troubles in Northern Ireland" then it will be evident to every reporter on the ground who has also reported on the Troubles (he can't be the only one) and others will be able to support that accusation.

Of course, I've been away from the action for the last couple of weeks and things may have gone seriously downhill in that time, but I experienced no indication of anyone being bullied or intimidated (by either side). Just an impassioned discussion happening in practically every part of the country - at work, in the pub, church - with people engaging in politics more than I've ever seen before. Impassioned, lively, intelligent ... but not belligerant or nasty. Perhaps Mr Bradby has been unlucky and missed the demonstration of the democratic process at it's finest. Or, perhaps he's sought out the Orange Lodge and seen the nasty underside of Scottish society from an era long gone, that we all wish would just curl up and quietly die.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:

quote:

---

Now I'm curious: an independent Scotland will still be part of the island called Great Britain, so technically wouldn't they still be "British"?

---

Great Britain is great because it is the largest of the isles called 'British'. The next largest one is called Ireland...

---

AIUI it's to distinguish it from Brittany.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
I find some of the antics of Yes supporters very disturbing. Having done a bit of telephone canvassing for No, I wonder whether the reticence of some people to declare their voting intention might be because of fear?

Some may dismiss this as typical Daily Mail waffle, but I think the piece by Tom Bradby at the foot of the article is worth a look at.

---

The Mail has a photo of "proud" Unionists "King William" banner. Frankly, any mention of the sectarian divide causes trouble in Scotland; this predates the referendum.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
If he submits his work to a Daily Mail editor, then categorising it as 'Daily Mail twaddle' is reasonable. They are not going to print anything they strongly disagree with, however highly respected he may be.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

I'll remember this when someone eminent writes for the Guardian or Independent...

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, the comments about N. Ireland baffled me. Is he saying that people treated journalists in Ulster better than in Scotland? Otherwise, it sounds bonkers.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, the comments about N. Ireland baffled me. Is he saying that people treated journalists in Ulster better than in Scotland? Otherwise, it sounds bonkers.

---

Nothing baffling about it. He's absolutely clear that this is about his experience as a journalist in both situations. He is not saying that yes campaigners are terrorists or paramilitary but that they are behaving unpleasantly.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
I'll remember this when someone eminent writes for the Guardian or Independent...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
It seems to be assumed that a “Yes” vote will lead to negotiations that will inevitably lead to the dismemberment of the United Kingdom. I’m not convinced that will necessarily be the case, especially if the “Yes” is carried with only a small majority.

As I understand it the Nationalist prospectus is based on the assumption of a currency union, a virtually automatic membership of the European Union, the end of austerity, and the establishment of a Scandinavian-style tax and welfare system. What, however, if rUK was not bluffing respecting the currency union, that entry into the EU proves as difficult and protracted as its opponents have suggested, and it was to become increasingly clear that independence threatened a period of austerity possibly greater than in rUK, thereby threatening the anticipated welfare bonanza? Is it possible that a significant proportion of the “Yeses” might feel they have been sold a pup and demand a referendum on the negotiated terms?

Furthermore, negotiations are more than likely to continue beyond the optimistic timetable envisaged, and not concluded before the scheduled Scottish Devolved Parliamentary Election in May 2016. If the negotiations were not to have gone well it is possible that a Unionist majority could emerge as a result of those elections, and its leaders would replace the Nationalist negotiators. What then? It could lead to a further referendum, which could lead to a rejection of the independence project.

If it were the case that circumstances led to a demand for a retention of the Union it would not only lead to a mess but the creation of a significant constituency who felt cheated of the 2014 outcome.

---

Well, they’re not going to call themselves Unionists due to the baggage that comes with the name!

Scotland is voting to split off from the Union and to become an independent country. That’s all the yes vote guarantees they get. The White Paper is a wish list of how Scotland would like things to work. Some of those things will come to pass, whilst others won’t. Some things will take longer to sort than others.

It’s possible that a Scottish political party whose USP is restoring the Union may form and become popular. But all sides have said that once the Union is broken, it’s broken forever. But politicians say lots of things!

As Scotland would be the one seeking re-admission, the whole of rUK and Scotland would have to vote on it. RUK is likely to be split between those who still believe that we’re better together and would vote yes; those who believe that what’s done is done and would vote no and all shades in-between.

Heck, whilst I’d vote no on Thursday if I could, if there is another referendum in a generation about readmitting Scotland to the Union, I’d also vote no. Some things can’t be repaired. You have to accept they’re finished and move on.

Tubbs

PS Are we going to have to come up with some sort of varient of Godwin's Law, that an arguement is automatically lost if it is justified by an article in the Daily Mail.

[ 17. September 2014, 10:25: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
I'll remember this when someone eminent writes for the Guardian or Independent...

---

If you're only just waking up to the idea that newspapers have a bias, and that as readers, we have to recognise that to try and sort out the propaganda from the facts... that explains a lot of your posts.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
What, however, if rUK was not bluffing respecting the currency union, that entry into the EU proves as difficult and protracted as its opponents have suggested, and it was to become increasingly clear that independence threatened a period of austerity possibly greater than in rUK, thereby threatening the anticipated welfare bonanza?

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

He is not saying that yes campaigners are terrorists or paramilitary but that they are behaving unpleasantly.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Interesting as I'm currently in Edinburgh. It's all very low key to my eyes - not many posters and a few good natured people out trying to persuade late voters.

For many the decision has been made -- they voted by post. For others, I do suspect that the daily McMail's attempt to back "No" will have a reverse effect: it's so transparent that more will now vote "Yes"

All I want to know is this: will someone now tell me how to get rid of Cameron and his cronies too? How can I get home rule for the Fens which as we all know is the real England?

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

I think everyone has a tendency to question the identity of the messenger when the message is not to one’s liking...

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda in the South Bay:
If there's one thing I've learned by watching this debate from the US, (And no, I can't claim my ancestors 200 years ago were from Scotland) is that *every* no side argument is taken by the yes side as something that will backfire.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda in the South Bay:
If there's one thing I've learned by watching this debate from the US, (And no, I can't claim my ancestors 200 years ago were from Scotland) is that *every* no side argument is taken by the yes side as something that will backfire.

---

It seems to be generally the other way around - it't the arguments from the Yes side that the No side point out are likely to backfire. It's not that easy to point out where the proposals of the No side might backfire because it's so hard to actually get any proposals out of them in the first place!

But, of course we recognise that what we want may not work out. It's part of the risk of growing up and leaving home to live on your own. The Yes campaign have invited us to take the risk of being independent, presenting a vision I believe will be worth the risk.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No, I would say the proposals from the Scottish government are very specific. Retaining membership of the EU is specific, as is currency union with the rest of the UK, maintain pensions and health service funding, encouraging inward investment of talent and people through relaxed immigration controls, getting rid of nuclear weapons from Scottish territory.

The issue isn't their specificity, it's whether or not they're realistically achievable.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
All I want to know is this: will someone now tell me how to get rid of Cameron and his cronies too?

---