Re 59

….”we are a totally different people …”

That’s a strange statement and one that doesn’t square with the facts. From the 2nd and 3rd century A.D, lowland Scotland was settled by ‘overspill’ Anglo Saxon Jutes. This process of invasion and occupation carried on for approximately 1200 years. Assimilation was complete and to-day is remembered principally in the Borders.

Pictish Gaels were left to the picturesque delights of the highlands which, with some percentage of adulteration is still the case.

These historical facts are probably the reason why the Scots will turn their backs on independence.

Two further points: It is obvious from your comments that you are what Private Eye used to call a foamin’ radical. More to the point you appear – judged by your more rabid outbursts – to be extremely right wing which, if true, renders most, if not all of your judgments somewhat suspect.

At times in the past, I have had an occasional brisk and sharp exchange of views with the moderator of this forum. Unlike you and one other – who I won’t bother to mention – I have the greatest value for his plain commonsense and patience and ability to demonstrate these qualities and to bite his tongue in the face of great provocation.

I can’t duck the point that you are perhaps the finest advocate for Scottish independence. Perhaps that is music to your ears.

“Pictish Gaels” – you just made that up, didn’t you? If you had any idea of Scottish history, you would know that the Picts were the offspring of the indigenous hunter-gathering tribes who migrated across the dry area we now call the North Sea to an uninhabited Scotland after the last Ice Age, mostly from Scandinavia, southern Russia, and northern Germany.

Modern DNA analysis shows that the Picts had a unique DNA signature, one only shared with people from the Basque region today. Most Scots with a history going back hundreds of years in eastern Scotland have Pictish DNA, while most folk in the west have Celtic DNA.

The Gaels were Celtic, unlike the Picts, migrating in pre-history from western Gaul, Spain and Portugal through Cornwall and Ireland, then to western Scotland.

In the last 1000 years, the Celtic Gaels dominated the west coast and Highlands of Scotland (which is why Gaelic is still alive there), while the offspring of the Picts remained in the east coast and lowlands.

“These historical facts” Don’t make me laugh – you obviously have no idea of the facts, and make them up to suit your argument – so why should anyone take you seriously?

Sorry, Beny – I’ll try to do better next time!!:dev2:

But seriously, why doesn’t it make sense? Every Commonwealth country has the Queen as Head of State and even THE ( not yours!) Great Leader would have little or no reason to renounce the monarchy especially as it is so deeply enshrined in its noble history. (no, I am not being ironic).

Deeply enshrined in whose history? What the hell have Liz Sax-Coburg und Gotha and Phil Schleswig Holstein Sonderburg Glücksburg got to do with Scotland? And don’t say the Queen Mother – she was about as Scottish as a chapati.

I am English and from London area, so we have no choice but to be “ruled” by Westminster and envy the Scottish who have the chance to have a different way. The worries I would have if I were Scottish or resident in Scotland would be the following.
1)Is there any chance of being part of the EU?, some talk already says no
2)Is there enough manufacturing and oil to sustain the country? Who will trade links be set up with?
3)Could Scotland launch a viable currency if not allowed to use pound or Euro?
4)How much of the UK debt will Scotland be saddled with?
5) What are the plans in terms of taxes, what will I be paying as an independent citizen?
6) What are the plans in terms of future Government? what sort of government structure will be put in place?

Good points, but like I said money isn’t everything. Did America cast off British rule because it was going to be financially better off? Or Australia and Canada? Have you ever heard of a nation who has become independent, then asked to be taken back? Even after the last banking crisis, do you hear impoverished countries like Eire asking to restart British rule? Independence, whatever the short or long term financial implications, will be the best thing Scotland ever did.
I’m sure the Scottish government will make lots of mistakes, but they will be OUR mistakes, not made at a distance by politicians who couldn’t care less about us.
When independence comes, just wait to see all these ‘Scottish’ No-voting politicians fight each other for a wee bit of power in the new nation!

All in all independence is an exciting option, but without money to sustain a stable economy and country I would fear a Greece or god forbid a Ukraine style problem in the future. At the moment it feels like more questions than answers and I feel Alex Salmond is making a mistake if he does not clarify things before the vote.

So many people cast doubt on Scotland’s ability to ‘make it’ after independence – that’s really quite insulting, considering how many of the world’s most important advances were accomplished by Scottish brains, like penicillin, radar, tv, radio etc. How do other nations manage with so much less going for them?

Exactly – as you say the Scots are voting yes or no without having the faintest idea of the answers to most of those crucial questions. And there is little chance of them having any of the answers either, except they have been told they cannot keep Sterling and are unlikely to be able to join the EU.

Why would the EU deny Scotland membership, if we want it, when they allow in countries like Turkey? In the emergence of any new nation, there will always be a settling-in time of turmoil and uncertainty – it’s to be expected.

And re Shetland – it is Orkney as well and as pointed out already here if they sought any arrangement outside an independent Scotland the Salmond plan would be scuppered below the waterline. I have good friends on both groups of Islands and they would fight the Salmond plan tooth and nail.

There are international rules determining sovereignty when it comes to small islands versus acknowledged historical nations. It’s funny that so many people who are against Scottish independence would back any long shot to try to throw a spanner in the works. It’s just sheer petty spite…

English people (we don’t hear too much from NI and Wales on the subject), and a lot of Scots, seem preoccupied by the personality and appearance of Alex Salmond, which is a great shame. So many times I’ve heard “I’d vote for the SNP if he wasn’t in charge!”.
To me, Alex Salmond is just the right man to get us independence – I can’t think of anyone else in politics (north or south of the border) with the same amount of expertise in elements which will be vital in the rebirth of Scotland, like finance, the oil business, and even fishing. Think what you like of him, he knows his stuff, which is why, apart from his wicked sense of humour, every other politician shies away from a direct debate with him.
But once independence comes, his job (and the SNP for that matter) will be over, and politics will settle down to left, centre, and right parties as normal, but I sincerely doubt the right will be called ‘Tories’.
Me, I can’t wait to see all the ‘No’ politicians in the Scottish government, who many Scots will deem traitors and Quislings after independence, try to ingratiate themselves back into power again!
And if the people of Scotland vote ‘No’, I think that they will deeply regret it in time, when things return to the same old same old from distant Westminster, and the main arterial A9 road north of Perth is still the ordinary two lane anachronism in 2075…

Al – I agree it has little to do with individuals although you have painted the traditional and hackneyed picture of English “toffs” as the media happily describe them. A breed I hasten to add which exists a-plenty north of the border.

That’s part of the trouble, Charlie. I’ve spent most of my life living on big ‘sporting’ estates, mainly because it’s very difficult to buy any sort of rural property up here which isn’t on one. Believe me, feudalism is alive and well on these estates still, from the landowner down through the estate managers, to their low-paid, cap-doffing (but almost entirely lacking in any rights) employees.
After Culloden, only friendly Clan chiefs were taken into the English fold, and given the same respect as southern gentry. Today, they still own large parts of Scotland, but are totally indistinguishable from their English counterparts in speech and dress (wearing red trousers seems to be part of their uniform), which doesn’t go down too well with local people. Their time has long passed, and after independence I hope they will cease to exist.
I’ve had quite a few run-ins with local lairds and their obsequious shooting/fishing employees, mainly due to their high-handed approach to local people, who they just see as a nuisance to be kept out, despite the ‘right to roam’ legislation. The higher they are in their own class-ridden circles, the more Anglicised their speech and manners seems to become. Thankfully the Law isn’t so prepared to protect them unconditionally today.
“Yes, but think of the money it brings to the local economy!” I hear people say. To my mind, in this day and age, money made from killing living creatures for fun or ‘sport’ simply can’t be justified under any circumstances.

Al,
I don’t think Salmond has got the idea wrong, but I do think he is too much of an idealist; he hasn’t properly worked out how he will do it. This is exemplified by the current spats over Europe and the pound, neither of which, it would seem, he envisaged.
Bruce

I don’t believe it’s an oversight on Alex Salmond’s part for one second, Bruce. As you and Salmond both know, nothing is surer to anger a Scot more than a sense of injustice, or being told we can’t do something.
Watch this space…

Never heard of the ‘Butterfly Effect’? The Met Office computers run on known physical laws – an initial set of numbers (temperature, wind, pressure etc) is carried forward by computer ‘runs’ for a given amount of time using Newton’s formulas. Unfortunately, that’s where the effect comes in – if you change, say, the initial temperature by just the tiniest percentage, repeating the formulas over and over again amplifies that small change, and results in a totally different outcome from the first. That’s why short-range forecasts are usually very accurate.

A publicised long-range forecast is simply the ‘best fit’ from hundreds of different possible outcomes – and is often completely wrong, and I suspect there will always these uncertainties. Even with today’s most powerful computers, the atmosphere can only be modelled with a resolution measured in kilometres, while the real atmosphere works on a molecular, if not quantum level.

Don’t fool yourselves though – the UK Met Office is the best in the world at what it does. Just ask the Americans, who have asked for British military forecasters to provide their forecasts from D-Day through the Gulf War to Afghanistan.

It might be a national pastime to ridicule the Met Office, but it’s really just a sign of pure ignorance. Only one entity knows exactly what’s going to happen, and even he doesn’t exist…

It’s not guesswork, but the most likely outcome of numerous computer runs using the most current initial data, just like any forecast models – whether it’s the weather, stocks and shares, earthquakes, war games, or ice cream sales.

For example, most computer runs may track a particular depression to run through the English Channel, but instead it actually tracks along the southern counties. So what? That’s only, say, 50 miles out, but it may mean the difference between those counties getting high winds or none, heavy prolonged rain or just a few spots, overcast or clear.

Even when humans advanced enough to travel to the moon, it was always that thin little layer of the Earth’s atmosphere which gave the biggest problems…

Granted – but at least there is science behind it!

http://bettertogether.net/
It interests me that none of leadership nor membership of the “no” group shares the nationalistic aspirations shown by Al here and others elsewhere. Certainly none of my friends do and most have always regarded the nationalists as extreme and unrepresentative.
As far as the ‘No’ leadership goes, I suspect that like most politicians they would rather be a small fish in a big pond, than a big fish in a small pond. The main difference between the nationalists and the ‘NOs’ is that we nationalists consider ourselves Scottish, not British.

However they may well prove to be representative of the majority view. Whichever way the vote goes it will be close and that is not going to be good for Scotland as nearly half will be unhappy with the result.

Ordinary Scottish people have already seen huge benefits from having the SNP in power, from no tuition fees for Scottish students, no prescription fees, and bridge tolls abolished to name just a few, done within the confines of the purse being controlled by Westminster. Real benefits which simply wouldn’t have happened otherwise.
I’m convinced that once things have settled down after independence, even the ‘No’ voters will come round.
Think of Eire, who separated from the UK relatively recently, so are quite a good comparison. I’m sure they were better off under Westminster rule, but even after decades of poverty, worsened by the recent financial crash, do you thing anyone thought “I wish we were still governed by London!”?.

I believe the majority of nationalists are fighting for an idea without giving any thought to or knowledge of the implications. Westminster is anathema and Holyrood is salvation. They know nothing more than that. They can’t do because it’s never been done before.

As I say I don’t care what they so but I equally doubt we will see an independent Scotland in the next 5 years assuming a yes vote.

“Westminster is anathema and Holyrood is salvation. They know nothing more than that. They can’t do because it’s never been done before.”

That’s a very blinkered and frankly insulting stance. It has been done before – there have been many nations who have separated from their more dominant neighbours. None have ever asked to be taken back.
Of course any change of this magnitude brings up lots of unknown factors, which nobody can forecast, and the process may take some time – but what is, say, even 20 years in the lifetime of a nation?
I dare say the same uncertainties and fears were voiced when the Union was set up over 300 years ago – but it was a fait accompli, as ordinary Scots had no say in the idea or outcome.