Hi there, Guest! Login Register


Poll: Do you agree Scotland should be an independent Country ?
Yes
No
Unsure
[Show Results]
 
Note: This is a public poll; other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Independence ? Aye or Naw ?
#41
Quote:I've travelled all around Europe and the only Border controls/ problems are re-entry to the UK as all the other EU states have open borders, like we will have.

What exactly says we will have open borders? Scotland as an independent nation would have to reapply to any body that is currently is associated with as part of the UK (NATO, the UN, etc). While I'm not saying that there will be another Hadrian's wall slapped up if we break away, I'm just saying re-election onto these political bodies is not an absolute guarantee.
 
Reply
#42
(10-27-2013, 03:14 AM)Comrie Wrote:
Quote:I've travelled all around Europe and the only Border controls/ problems are re-entry to the UK as all the other EU states have open borders, like we will have.

What exactly says we will have open borders? Scotland as an independent nation would have to reapply to any body that is currently is associated with as part of the UK (NATO, the UN, etc). While I'm not saying that there will be another Hadrian's wall slapped up if we break away, I'm just saying re-election onto these political bodies is not an absolute guarantee.

1st things 1st - Do you want nuclear weapons on Scottish soil? If you do then don't vote for independence. A government which we haven’t voted for keeps nuclear weapons in Scotland being part of NATO (Remember NATO was created to stop the spread of communism)...

I see no advantage in remaining in NATO.

UN - Why wouldn’t the UN want an independent Scotland as a member?

The EU would gladly have an independent Scotland as a member. We are a model of a modern democracy, especially if we vote yes. Anyway - England and Wales would be new states and require re-entry also.
Highlander29
 
Reply
#43
The borders issue is a frequently occurring scare story.

Response from the (admittedly usually awful) site Newsnetscotland FAQ.

Border controls: There would be border controls and we'd need passports to visit Newcastle.

The anti-independence parties want us to believe there would be an electrified fence, a moat and magic towers with long-haired princesses guarded by a dragons all along the border. Sadly for those of us for whom being strip-searched by big burly men sounds like ideal Saturday night entertainment, this is untrue.

There are no passport controls between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Neither are there passport controls between the UK and the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, which are not only outside the UK, they're not even a part of the EU.

The anti-independence parties claim that Scotland would be forced to join the Schengen free travel area after independence, meaning we'd be able to visit Paris and Lisbon without passports, but we'd need a passport to go to the Metro Centre in Newcastle for a Saturday shopping trip.

Membership of the Schengen area is not a precondition of EU membership. Romania and Bulgaria are EU members, but are not members of Schengen. Since Scotland's only land frontier with the EU is our border with England, part of the British Isles Common Travel Area, we'd continue to remain a part of the existing Common Travel Area.
 
Reply
#44
(10-27-2013, 07:03 AM)Son of Earl. Wrote: I see no advantage in remaining in NATO.


What are the disadvantages of joining NATO? It's cheaper to be a NATO member than to be a neutral country, as well as the economic benefits of joining NATO (increased foreign investment in recent members).

Don't spout the nuclear weapons line because it's bullshit. Only 3 states possess nuclear weapons in NATO and a further 5 host US nuclear weapons. You don't need nuclear weapons to join NATO.
 
Reply
#45
(10-27-2013, 03:02 PM)StrathyStaggie Wrote:
(10-27-2013, 07:03 AM)Son of Earl. Wrote: I see no advantage in remaining in NATO.


What are the disadvantages of joining NATO? It's cheaper to be a NATO member than to be a neutral country, as well as the economic benefits of joining NATO (increased foreign investment in recent members).

Don't spout the nuclear weapons line because it's bullshit. Only 3 states possess nuclear weapons in NATO and a further 5 host US nuclear weapons. You don't need nuclear weapons to join NATO.

Do we or do we not have Nuclear submarines in Faslane ? As per our current NATO role and arrangement we house a Nuclear submarine.

Disadvantages of being in NATO are - Nuclear weapons in Scotland, reduced investment opportunities with Russia and other Eastern countries. The cold war is over. Why are we still behaving like an american puppet on the matter ?
Highlander29
 
Reply
#46
(10-27-2013, 03:57 PM)Son of Earl. Wrote: Do we or do we not have Nuclear submarines in Faslane ? As per our current NATO role and arrangement we house a Nuclear submarine.

Disadvantages of being in NATO are - Nuclear weapons in Scotland, reduced investment opportunities with Russia and other Eastern countries. The cold war is over. Why are we still behaving like an american puppet on the matter ?

We house nuclear weapons because the UK is a nuclear state, NATO membership is irrelevant for that point really. Norway don't house nuclear weapons, neither does Iceland or the majority of NATO members.

NATO membership doesn't = housing nuclear weapons

Reduced investment opportunities with Russia? Russia exports almost 50% of all its exports to NATO countries and imports a similar percentage of all their imports from NATO countries.

I'm curious as to why Russian investment concerns you when you favour EU membership. Russia's relationship with NATO is similar to its relationship with the EU, low-level cooperation but a recognition that a relationship is necessary.

As for the Cold War point, the only country squaring up for a second Cold War is Russia, particularly when it threatens to bankrupt Ukraine over any EU or NATO membership.
 
Reply
#47
(10-27-2013, 06:03 PM)StrathyStaggie Wrote:
(10-27-2013, 03:57 PM)Son of Earl. Wrote: Do we or do we not have Nuclear submarines in Faslane ? As per our current NATO role and arrangement we house a Nuclear submarine.

Disadvantages of being in NATO are - Nuclear weapons in Scotland, reduced investment opportunities with Russia and other Eastern countries. The cold war is over. Why are we still behaving like an american puppet on the matter ?

We house nuclear weapons because the UK is a nuclear state, NATO membership is irrelevant for that point really. Norway don't house nuclear weapons, neither does Iceland or the majority of NATO members.

NATO membership doesn't = housing nuclear weapons

Reduced investment opportunities with Russia? Russia exports almost 50% of all its exports to NATO countries and imports a similar percentage of all their imports from NATO countries.

I'm curious as to why Russian investment concerns you when you favour EU membership. Russia's relationship with NATO is similar to its relationship with the EU, low-level cooperation but a recognition that a relationship is necessary.

As for the Cold War point, the only country squaring up for a second Cold War is Russia, particularly when it threatens to bankrupt Ukraine over any EU or NATO membership.

With your tone and view point with severe lack of education. I'm sorry I see no further point in response required.
Highlander29
 
Reply
#48
(10-26-2013, 12:55 PM)Son of Earl. Wrote: Can someone give me 3 reasons we should stay in the Union ??
That's easy.....

1. Because Alex Salmond is a [censored].
2. Because Alex Salmond is a [censored].
3. Because Alex Salmond is a [censored].
 
Reply
#49
(10-30-2013, 07:52 PM)Pete The Jakey Wrote:
(10-26-2013, 12:55 PM)Son of Earl. Wrote: Can someone give me 3 reasons we should stay in the Union ??
That's easy.....

1. Because Alex Salmond is a [censored].
2. Because Alex Salmond is a [censored].
3. Because Alex Salmond is a [censored].

Just wondering like, what do you think of David Cameron and his party?? Any better?
 
Reply
#50
Voting no because you don't like Alex Salmond makes exactly as much sense as voting no because you think Queen Victoria was hot.
 
Reply
#51
Talking to Nats is like trying to convince Jehovahs that fossils are real.
 
Reply
#52
i am keeping an open mind until all the information is available. SNP have always been a good protest vote but currently i think devo max is the best option.
 
Reply
#53
[Image: 524685_552973128114032_352235298_n.png]
 
Reply
#54
What illegal wars has Scotland been involved in?
 
Reply
#55
This one, for a start.
 
Reply
#56
Using Kofi Annan's "logic", intervention in the Balkans was illegal. Oops.

Ultimately, with the evidence available at the time - alongside Resolution 1441 and the jus ad bellum principle of international law - it was entirely legal. Illegitimate maybe but not illegal.
 
Reply
#57
(10-31-2013, 07:40 PM)willwelcome Wrote: i am keeping an open mind until all the information is available. SNP have always been a good protest vote but currently i think devo max is the best option.

(11-01-2013, 08:15 PM)StrathyStaggie Wrote: Using Kofi Annan's "logic", intervention in the Balkans was illegal. Oops.

Ultimately, with the evidence available at the time - alongside Resolution 1441 and the jus ad bellum principle of international law - it was entirely legal. Illegitimate maybe but not illegal.

It's not as simple as that - LINK.

What about the rest, though? Trident's fine? Lack of democracy is fine? David Cameron's a cracking fellow with Scotland's best interests at heart? All of that (and loads more) is more important than a personal dislike for a single politician?
 
Reply
#58
Given I've bored myself to near tears with the volume of literature I've read on the Iraq War (and related conflicts) I'm going to suggest that linking a Wikipedia page isn't a reasonable argument.

I'm fairly neutral on the subject of nuclear weapons. I'm indifferent towards David Cameron (and Salmond for that matter) but I'll take swipes at either of them.

Define a lack of democracy. If the sole definition is "unfair representation" then that goes with the territory, nearly every democratic nation on the planet has "unfair representation".

I'm undecided about the referendum but I'm going to criticise arguments that I see as not at all important. Trident isn't an issue, neither is "illegal wars". The only issue in this whole referendum debate is Scotland's economy, unfortunately both sides bring up unimportant side issues to deflect from their own failings on the economic argument.
 
Reply
#59
Actually, my only point was that a dislike for Alex Salmond is a ridiculous reason to vote no.

I agree entirely about wikipedia - it is for and by idiots. However, a simple glance at that page is enough to demonstrate that there's considerably more to the consideration of the invasion of Iraq as illegal than what Kofi Annan is quoted as saying in the original BBC link. It was linked to for convenience, rather than for it's own academic excellence.
 
Reply
#60
(10-31-2013, 10:00 AM)Pete The Jakey Wrote: Talking to Nats is like trying to convince Jehovahs that fossils are real.

On the other hand, dealing with unionists is like trying to convince bible belt Americans that maybe just maybe Darwin had a point.
 
Reply
  


Forum Jump:


Browsing: 1 Guest(s)