ITT: Get in Here you Sheep Shaggers

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
Where do the proceeds from Scottish oil exploration go now? Are they sent to the British Parliament or are they kept in Scotland?[/quote]

This video explains it better than we probably could. Look in the video details for time stamp for tax, oil, etc.

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
I’m voting no, as is most my family and about half my friends.

We’ve done increasingly well with devolved power since 1998 and would rather continue going down that route steadily than haphazardly jump into independence with questionable North Sea oil supplies and a lazy populous. [/quote]

totally agree. i would vote for devo-max, if it was on the ballot paper.

but it was taken off during the discussions on what the question(s) should be.

i suspect that devo-max would be the winner if there were 3 options.


learn to use the computer

.

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]ChongLordUno wrote:

I was over in Finland a few years ago seeing family and was having a bit of banter with my Finnish stepmother, mocking her dour, cold country when she turned to me and said “At least we have our own country”

[/quote]

Canadians don’t seem to mind living under U.S. rule. [/quote]
Technically, the great white north is presided over by the Queen. Not that that really means anything.

[quote]TheJonty wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]ChongLordUno wrote:

I was over in Finland a few years ago seeing family and was having a bit of banter with my Finnish stepmother, mocking her dour, cold country when she turned to me and said “At least we have our own country”

[/quote]

Canadians don’t seem to mind living under U.S. rule. [/quote]
Technically, the great white north is presided over by the Queen. Not that that really means anything.[/quote]

Yep. It means nada. The Queen is head of state in name only. In Australia the head of state is the Governor General - the Queen’s representative. However, the GG does not actually represent the Crown in any sense. It’s merely a formality. I’m actually a republican but I’m very much against Australian republicanism. For one thing, we already are a republic for all intents and purposes. For another, why fix something that’s not broken? And who the hell knows what would result from a republican referendum? We might end up with some kind of socialist Constitutional amendment.

I dread to think the immediate economic ramifications if the Yes campaign succeeds.

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
I dread to think the immediate economic ramifications if the Yes campaign succeeds.

[/quote]

I think that’s just investors reacting to uncertainty, and some will be more risk-averse than others.

Personally (in my pseudo-informed opinion), I think the numbers look promising for an independent Scotland, and can’t see business wanting to pass up on a market of 5 million modern consumers. I would love to be proven either right or wrong by facts, other than the finger-pointing and scaremongering that comes from both sides.

And to counter that article, business is far from confident in the prospects of the UK outside of Europe, and is already formulating plans to move to Dublin should the UK vote to leave Europe in 2017.

[quote]Diddy Ryder wrote:

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
I dread to think the immediate economic ramifications if the Yes campaign succeeds.

[/quote]

I think that’s just investors reacting to uncertainty, and some will be more risk-averse than others.

Personally (in my pseudo-informed opinion), I think the numbers look promising for an independent Scotland, and can’t see business wanting to pass up on a market of 5 million modern consumers. I would love to be proven either right or wrong by facts, other than the finger-pointing and scaremongering that comes from both sides.

And to counter that article, business is far from confident in the prospects of the UK outside of Europe, and is already formulating plans to move to Dublin should the UK vote to leave Europe in 2017.

[/quote]

With that in mind, how do you feel about being part of Europe as an independent state?

I feel more confident of being a “European” as a citizen of an independent Scotland than as a citizen of the UK.

If you mean what do I think of the United States of Europe then I’m all for it. There’s an idea within Europe of a “Europe of the regions” or “Europe of the peoples”, what this involves is decision-making devolved to individual regions (e.g. Basque country, Catalonia, the Central Belt, Tyneside) with an overarching federal government imposing directives as they do now. This seems to me to be an ideal “strength in numbers” strategy that would give Europe international clout while taking regional sensibilities into account.

Voting yes in this referendum is paradoxical for me, because I believe that closer integration rather than further separation is the key to the future, but the UK, and especially the Shires, seem determined to rule out this possibility.

[quote]Diddy Ryder wrote:
I feel more confident of being a “European” as a citizen of an independent Scotland than as a citizen of the UK.

If you mean what do I think of the United States of Europe then I’m all for it. There’s an idea within Europe of a “Europe of the regions” or “Europe of the peoples”.[/quote]

It’s a modern incarnation of Coudenhove-Kalergi’s Paneuropean Union. I can scarcely think of an ideology more frightening - too many reasons to go into but the obvious one is ceding national sovereignty to a transnational federation is a basically a major step towards a one world government.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Diddy Ryder wrote:
I feel more confident of being a “European” as a citizen of an independent Scotland than as a citizen of the UK.

If you mean what do I think of the United States of Europe then I’m all for it. There’s an idea within Europe of a “Europe of the regions” or “Europe of the peoples”.[/quote]

It’s a modern incarnation of Coudenhove-Kalergi’s Paneuropean Union. I can scarcely think of an ideology more frightening - too many reasons to go into but the obvious one is ceding national sovereignty to a transnational federation is a basically a major step towards a one world government.[/quote]

Well, it’s only once we have a single world government and achieve warp speed that we will be welcomed into the galactic community…

I had never heard of Coudenhove-Kalergi, so looked him up on Wikipedia.

[quote]Coudenhove-Kalergi said:
Pan-Europe would encompass and extend a more flexible and more competitive Austria-Hungary, with English serving as world language, spoken by everyone in addition to his native tongue. Individualism and socialism would learn to cooperate instead of compete, and capitalism and communism must cross-fertilize
[/quote]

Replace Austria-Hungary with Europe in the above quote and it could almost describe Europe today. Doesn’t sound at all frightening to me… in fact it sounds almost perfect.

[quote]Curtis Mayfield said:
I’ve met many people over the years
And in my opinion I have found that
People are the same everywhere
They have the same fears
Shed similar tears
Die in so many years
The oppressed seem to have suffered the most
In every continent - coast to coast
Now our lives are in the hands of The Pusherman
[/quote]

Replace “Pusherman” with “Nation State” in the above quote and you have my view on the people of the world and their relation to national sovereignty. I don’t see why I should defend the right to exert power of a group of people who aren’t interested in my welfare beyond the extent to which it can generate them profit.

^^

The International Paneuropean Union, also referred to as the Paneuropean Movement and the Pan-Europa Movement, is the oldest European unification movement. It began with the publishing of Count Richard Nikolaus von Coudenhove-Kalergi’s manifesto Paneuropa (1923), which presented the idea of a unified European State.


People are not the same everywhere. To attempt to unite disparate people and cultures will never work. That’s why multiculturalism has been such a disaster. Nearly every conflict in human history has been about identity - national identity, ethnic, religious, political etc - and the struggle for dominion over land by competing identities.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
People are not the same everywhere. To attempt to unite disparate people and cultures will never work. That’s why multiculturalism has been such a disaster. Nearly every conflict in human history has been about identity - national identity, ethnic, religious, political etc - and the struggle for dominion over land by competing identities. [/quote]

I disagree. Based on my own personal experience, admittedly. Cultures and customs may be different, and certain practices abhorrent to others (rightly so, in some cases), but people everywhere have pretty much the same basic interests and can find common ground.

As for identities: they are fluid, transient, plural within a single person (for example I am a Geordie, Englishman, Brit, and European, all at the same time), and often manufactured from above (see rise of 20th century ideologies). I would argue that identities, rather than being the source of nearly every conflict, are often exploited and harnessed by competing “elites” to drive the struggle for dominion over land, for influence, and for wealth.

Can’t argue that multiculturalism hasn’t been a failure, and we could probably argue about why all day.

Within Europe, I don’t believe there are enough cultural disparities to warrant a war, and whatever people think of the EU, it has succeeded in its goal of making conflict between Europeans unimaginable.

Here’s a question.

Assuming the Yes vote gets up and Scotland becomes an independent nation … at what point do Scots living in rUK become illegal immigrants? I suspect there has to be a cutoff point, but does anyone know what it is?

Seriously. I am interested as I work with several Scots and as I (an Australian) had to get a work permit and then a visa with ‘Indefinite leave to remain’ to live here in Oxford I assume the same rules will apply to the Scots.

[quote]MartyMonster wrote:
Here’s a question.

Assuming the Yes vote gets up and Scotland becomes an independent nation … at what point do Scots living in rUK become illegal immigrants? I suspect there has to be a cutoff point, but does anyone know what it is?

Seriously. I am interested as I work with several Scots and as I (an Australian) had to get a work permit and then a visa with ‘Indefinite leave to remain’ to live here in Oxford I assume the same rules will apply to the Scots.

[/quote]

Scotland would still be part of the EU…

Is Scotland currently part of the EU in its own right or is it included with the UK? Even if it is part of the EU that probably doesn’t mean you can choose to live wherever you like. If it did, why the hell would anyone choose to live in Poland when the beaches of Spain are calling?

My understanding is Scotland at least on paper would need to apply to become an EU member in the event of a Yes vote. Also, IIRC, the right to travel doesn’t mean a right to work and that work restrictions might present an issue.

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
My understanding is Scotland at least on paper would need to apply to become an EU member in the event of a Yes vote. Also, IIRC, the right to travel doesn’t mean a right to work and that work restrictions might present an issue. [/quote]

You are correct. Scotland would not automatically become an EU Member State. I would hope that we would have accelerated accession.

I would also hope that we would have much easier “rights to work” within what is currently the UK than a whole host of Commonwealth nations.

That said, I am drunk, dressed only in boxers and socks, and eating a pizza.

[quote]MartyMonster wrote:
Is Scotland currently part of the EU in its own right or is it included with the UK? Even if it is part of the EU that probably doesn’t mean you can choose to live wherever you like. If it did, why the hell would anyone choose to live in Poland when the beaches of Spain are calling?[/quote]

Although this is obviously over simplified it’s too early for me to really go link hunting lol + this link is only dated to 2008 meaning some info may be shite!.

“This [being an EU member national] means that you can apply for any job vacancy advertised in any EU country.”

“If you are unemployed, you have the right to live in another EU country for a ‘reasonable period’ of time.”

http://ec.europa.eu/immigration/tab1.do?subSec=36&language=7$en

"Common measures to date include:

  1. EU-wide rules that allow citizens of countries outside the EU to work or study in an EU country.
  2. EU-wide rules that allow citizens of countries outside the EU who are staying legally in an EU country to bring their families to live with them and/or to become long-term residents.
  3. Shared visa policies that enable non-EU citizens to travel freely for up to 3 months within Europe’s single travel zone, the Schengen area."

However, the European Commission link goes onto say the UK & Ireland look at immigration on a case by case basis to decide wether to adopt the EU rules or not. This link explains how to become a long term (i.e. permanent) resident: http://ec.europa.eu/immigration/tab1.do?subSec=30&language=7$en#anchor2.

Obviously it’s not as cut and dry as you can move and work anywhere with ease but it is very laissez faire. However, in my simple mind I don’t think Scotland - as an EU member state - would ever really have illegal immigrants within England if they were at least working and if they aren’t working, they can just claim asylum from a country with possible future links to North Korea ;).