Poll: Scottish Independence
Poll Options
View poll results: Scottish Independence
I'm from America and I say yes
22 14%
I'm from America and I say no
6 4%
I'm from America and I don't care/know
28 18%
I'm from Europe and I say yes
8 5%
I'm from Europe and I say no
8 5%
I'm from Europe and I don't care
9 6%
I'm from the UK specifically and I say yes
23 15%
I'm from the UK specifically and I say no
24 16%
I'm from the UK specifically and I don't care
24 16%
Voters: 152.
Page 5 of 6
#161
Quote by slapsymcdougal
Do you mean as a part of Ireland, or as an independent nation?
Because if you're a part of Ireland, then you'll be being governed mostly by southern Irish people elected by the numerically superior southern Irish.


Nothing to worry about, cos it's never going to happen
#162
Quote by SG_dave
Come to Yorkshire. You remember how the Election map had a giant red band across it? Yeah, that was us.
We should be allowed to form our own country as well.

Merseyside and Greater Manchester were pretty much fully red anyway.

The day a Tory MP is elected in Liverpool is the day I move to one of those old sea forts and set up a sovereign nation.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#163
Quote by slapsymcdougal
Do you mean as a part of Ireland, or as an independent nation?
Because if you're a part of Ireland, then you'll be being governed mostly by southern Irish people elected by the numerically superior southern Irish.


I mean as a part of a united Ireland. The 6 counties would not survive as an independent statelet. The island should never have been divided in the first place.
#164
Quote by Todd Hart
Why should she apologise? she has no knowledge of what many of the military's branches internal affairs are, and also would have no power to do anything about it even if she knew.

And I don't see how killing off extremists and fanatical suicide murderers is a war crime, in fact I'm fairly certain that if guns are a legitimate tool for murder then that's exactly what they're for, but that's for a different thread.


Considering her influence do you really think if she brought to public light the actions of her armed forces that people will would ignore her?

I'm not talking about extremists and fanatical suicide murders I'm talking about civilians.
#165
Quote by slapsymcdougal
So why wasn't Bush indicted for any of the war crimes committed by American troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, seeing as he was both head of state and CinC?



He should be, I honestly have no idea why he hasn't been yet.
#166
Quote by Kerbache
Considering her influence do you really think if she brought to public light the actions of her armed forces that people will would ignore her?

I'm not talking about extremists and fanatical suicide murders I'm talking about civilians.


The people are already fully aware of the atrocities that are committed in war, and Lizzie has no influence, not really. She might be able to draw something more to public attention, but when something is already in the public sphere she really doesn't have much s(w)ay.

And civilians die in war, that's how things work. It's a horrific tragedy, but not a war crime.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#167
Quote by Todd Hart
The people are already fully aware of the atrocities that are committed in war, and Lizzie has no influence, not really. She might be able to draw something more to public attention, but when something is already in the public sphere she really doesn't have much s(w)ay.

And civilians die in war, that's how things work. It's a horrific tragedy, but not a war crime.



I doubt the population knows what the army have been up to in those countries. Yes they become war crimes as the wars are illegal in Iraq. People are unaware that the UK has no business in Afghanistan as Bin Laden et. al was not even in that country so more unnecessary war crimes there with constant drone attacks on civilians. Not to mention the man unarmed people in the north of Ireland i.e bloody sunday and ballymurphy. The list can go on but it's to many to name.

The Queen has a massive amount of power to bring these actions into public light and campaign for individuals to be prosecuted.
#168
Quote by Kerbache
I doubt the population knows what the army have been up to in those countries. Yes they become war crimes as the wars are illegal in Iraq. People are unaware that the UK has no business in Afghanistan as Bin Laden et. al was not even in that country so more unnecessary war crimes there with constant drone attacks on civilians. Not to mention the man unarmed people in the north of Ireland i.e bloody sunday and ballymurphy. The list can go on but it's to many to name.

The Queen has a massive amount of power to bring these actions into public light and campaign for individuals to be prosecuted.


Most of the people in the UK are aware of that. However, we didn't go into Afghanistan due to attacks on the west, we went there to stop the vicious dictatorship going on there. We didn't have any business not intervening.

(Me defending the war effort, who'd have thought it?)

And constant drone attacks on civilians? Evidence?

The Queen could, indeed, but she has no need to. You know, you could bring these things to light, obviously in a smaller way, but still, do you? Do you actively campaign against the war in the middle East? Do you deliver leaflets? Posters? Stand on Belfast high street exclaiming the hideous crimes that are being committed across the world? The Queen is a person, just as any other, she's simply born into monarchy. Would she have a lot wider audience if she decried the ongoing Gulf war? Of course, but that doesn't mean she is required to any more than you are. Soldiers don't just declare an oath to the sovereign, they do so to the people of their country too, which according to your logic makes you just as required to act as her.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#169
Quote by Kerbache
I'm well aware of what the situation is.

so you'll agree that they're somewhat different then
#170
Quote by Todd Hart
Most of the people in the UK are aware of that. However, we didn't go into Afghanistan due to attacks on the west, we went there to stop the vicious dictatorship going on there. We didn't have any business not intervening.

(Me defending the war effort, who'd have thought it?)

And constant drone attacks on civilians? Evidence?

The Queen could, indeed, but she has no need to. You know, you could bring these things to light, obviously in a smaller way, but still, do you? Do you actively campaign against the war in the middle East? Do you deliver leaflets? Posters? Stand on Belfast high street exclaiming the hideous crimes that are being committed across the world? The Queen is a person, just as any other, she's simply born into monarchy. Would she have a lot wider audience if she decried the ongoing Gulf war? Of course, but that doesn't mean she is required to any more than you are. Soldiers don't just declare an oath to the sovereign, they do so to the people of their country too, which according to your logic makes you just as required to act as her.


Why Afghanistan? There are much worse dictatorships in the world which require action i.e North Korea, Saudi Arabia to name a few. What is so special about Afghanistan? Why not save that money and protect UK nationals at home from attack instead of provoking more attacks by conducting stupid wars.

This isn't about what I personally do and it's a pretty weak argument to try pick out what I do or don't do in my personal life. The Queen isn't just a normal person she is the head of state of the UK and she isn't queen by accident, she has to power to forfeit the thrown at any time. Also her government occupies 6 counties of my country so her soldiers actions are in no way shape or form connected to me as I am an Irish citizen not a British one.

Proof? A simple google search will turn up plenty, there is no need for me to post numerous links because if you are interested in seeing the proof you can find it with no difficulty
#171
Quote by Kerbache
The Queen has a massive amount of power to bring these actions into public light and campaign for individuals to be prosecuted.

That's not the role of the Queen. There are other British figures who could do that kind of thing, but the Queen shouldn't.

Also, there's now a criminal investigation going on about Bloody Sunday, which is against the general will of survivors and victim's families.
#172
Quote by Kerbache


This isn't about what I personally do and it's a pretty weak argument to try pick out what I do or don't do in my personal life. The Queen isn't just a normal person she is the head of state of the UK and she isn't queen by accident, she has to power to forfeit the thrown at any time. Also her government occupies 6 counties of my country so her soldiers actions are in no way shape or form connected to me as I am an Irish citizen not a British one.


The majority of people here want to stay part of the union. Sorry.

#173
Quote by Craigo
That's not the role of the Queen. There are other British figures who could do that kind of thing, but the Queen shouldn't.

Also, there's now a criminal investigation going on about Bloody Sunday, which is against the general will of survivors and victim's families.


What is her role then? What is our tax money paying for? For fancy ****ing weddings whilst everyone bears the grunt of the recession? Maybe if she did something worth while like speak out against these crimes then she could justify her overly generous pay cheque every year.

I don't know where you got than information from, did you honestly just make that up on the spot there now? The families of Bloody Sunday victims have been campaigning for the past 40 years for the culprits of that massacre to be brought before the court and it still hasn't happened yet. Also Bloody Sunday is just one of many.
#174
Quote by Ninja Vampirate
The majority of people here want to stay part of the union. Sorry.




You forget that the people of Ireland don't get to vote, only a gerrymandered unionist majority of the north do. If you put that question to the Irish people as a whole and not just a tiny sample of it, you will get a different result.
#175
Quote by Kerbache
You forget that the people of Ireland don't get to vote, only a gerrymandered unionist majority of the north do. If you put that question to the Irish people as a whole and not just a tiny sample of it, you will get a different result.

You can't gerrymander an opinion pole like that dude.


Furthermore, why is it anymore just to force a million odd unionists into a country that they don't want to be part of, anymore than it was just for the British Government to force the Irish people under their rule?
De Valera understood this, that's why he refused Churchill's offer to reunite North and South.
Finally, if you put it to the Irish people, then you must also put it to the British people; either it is (as it should be) simply the decision of the population of Northern Ireland, or you give all the states who will be effected a say; you can't arbitrarily decide that Ireland gets to decide whether it wants the north to join, but the UK doesn't get to decide whether it wants the North to leave.


The Boundary commission ****ed up a number of things, unfortunately the time to fix that passed long ago. If there comes a time when a majority in the North wants to become part of the South then fair enough; that time however is not now.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
Last edited by Ur all $h1t at Aug 11, 2012,
#176
Quote by Kerbache
You forget that the people of Ireland don't get to vote, only a gerrymandered unionist majority of the north do. If you put that question to the Irish people as a whole and not just a tiny sample of it, you will get a different result.

If we're asking the people of Ireland, are we also asking people of the rest of the UK?

The people of Ireland should have as little say over the fate of NI as the people of England, Scotland and Wales.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#177
maybe I have had too much to drink but I am having a hard time following that coloured in graph
#178
Quote by Kerbache
What is her role then? What is our tax money paying for? For fancy ****ing weddings whilst everyone bears the grunt of the recession? Maybe if she did something worth while like speak out against these crimes then she could justify her overly generous pay cheque every year.

Eh, it's obviously a bit more complicated than that. Put phrase it differently: Would you want a monarch publicly arguing for their political beliefs? I mean, would you want a monarch arguing publicly for NHS reform in any way? Really, for the UK, if we're gonna have a monarch, let's not have a monarch like that.
I don't know where you got than information from, did you honestly just make that up on the spot there now? The families of Bloody Sunday victims have been campaigning for the past 40 years for the culprits of that massacre to be brought before the court and it still hasn't happened yet. Also Bloody Sunday is just one of many.

Heard it from the BBC News. And obviously opinions will differ - the victims' families and survivors are not a homogeneous group. It's why I said 'general will' instead of saying something like 'absolutely every last one of them wants this'.

Googled quickly. Here's a news article stating in the second paragraph that there is, in fact, a criminal investigation: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-18738838 . Can't be arsed to back up my other claim really, going to bed soon, so you'll just have to look it up yourself I'm afraid or take my word for it.

But the short of it is: as shitty as Bloody Mary was, the British government has acknowledged their obvious wrong doing and is acting in accordance with that knowledge.
Last edited by Craigo at Aug 11, 2012,
#179
Quote by Craigo
Eh, it's obviously a bit more complicated than that. Put phrase it differently: Would you want a monarch publicly arguing for their political beliefs? I mean, would you want a monarch arguing publicly for NHS reform in any way? Really, for the UK, if we're gonna have a monarch, let's not have a monarch like that.

My understanding is that the Queen's function is pretty much the same as that of the Irish president; given that after independence we just copied the British system and replaced the queen with a republican head of state.
That's the thing about heads of state in parliamentary democracies, they've got to be there, but they've also got to do essentially nothing; unless shit kicks off in a big way and you need them.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#180
Quote by Kerbache
You forget that the people of Ireland don't get to vote, only a gerrymandered unionist majority of the north do. If you put that question to the Irish people as a whole and not just a tiny sample of it, you will get a different result.


Why is what the people in the Republic think relevant? The majority of people in Northern Ireland want to stay part of the union, and that is all that matters. Including the views of the people in the Republic is about as relevant as including the views of people from Tunisia.

You say 'Irish people' when the majority of people in the north don't even see themselves as Irish - the majority see themselves as Northern Irish/British.

I'm not even a Unionist, I believe in the people's right to choose whether they want to stay part of the UK or join the Republic. And they want to stay part of the UK. That's how democracy works.

Quote by a cobweb
maybe I have had too much to drink but I am having a hard time following that coloured in graph


Red (just over 70%) want to remain part of the UK
Green (just over 20%) want to join a unified Irish state
#181
Quote by Ur all $h1t
You can't gerrymander an opinion pole like that dude.


Furthermore, why is it anymore just to force a million odd unionists into a country that they don't want to be part of, anymore than it was just for the British Government to force the Irish people under their rule?
De Valera understood this, that's why he refused Churchill's offer to reunite North and South.
Finally, if you put it to the Irish people, then you must also put it to the British people; either it is (as it should be) simply the decision of the population of Northern Ireland, or you give all the states who will be effected a say; you can't arbitrarily decide that Ireland gets to decide whether it wants the north to join, but the UK doesn't get to decide whether it wants the North to leave.


The Boundary commission ****ed up a number of things, unfortunately the time to fix that passed long ago. If there comes a time when a majority in the North wants to become part of the South then fair enough; that time however is not now.


Why are 600,000 odd Irish nationalists forced into a country that they do not wish to be a part of? The island was divided to ensure that a unionist majority would always vote to maintain the union, how is that not gerrymandering? Look at the way the border was drawn up, if the other 3 counties of Ulster where included in the new Northern Ireland state then the results would be different, it was done that way on purpose. Also De Valera refused Churchill's offer because previous British governments could not be trusted so what made him the exception?

Why on earth should it be put to the rest of the UK? That's like saying when India wanted independence then it should have been put to a vote of the British people, its nonsensical because Irish affairs should be decided on by the Irish people alone without outside interference.
#182
Quote by Ur all $h1t
My understanding is that the Queen's function is pretty much the same as that of the Irish president; given that after independence we just copied the British system and replaced the queen with a republican head of state.

I was more getting at 'ah, what a monarch ought to do is tricky' as it also includes the republican question, constitutional questions, and the lot.

I don't know Irish politics very well, but I imagine it's not really like the Irish president. I mean, roles like that change over the time. For example, the USA was around for about one hundred years before any Presidential candidate actually campaigned for themselves. (I believe the first was Andrew Johnson, who pioneered that route and fucked up a treat.) It was deemed, well, action unfit for a President, who was viewed in the early 19th century to be the guy who, quite literally, executed the will of congress. But perceptions of what a President ought to be, and ought to do, and what powers they ought to use and have, have changed drastically over American history. I mean, compare 'the national, respected leader who signs bills and shit with limited veto power' to recent Presidents like Bush, Clinton and Obama. (Or Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower...)

The same thing has happened with English history with the monarch, and most likely with the Irish Presidency to some extent: things have probably just changed quite naturally over time.
Last edited by Craigo at Aug 11, 2012,
#183
Quote by Lemoninfluence
If we're asking the people of Ireland, are we also asking people of the rest of the UK?

The people of Ireland should have as little say over the fate of NI as the people of England, Scotland and Wales.



They should not have any say in what happens in Ireland same way Ireland should/doesn't have any say in what happens in those countries.
#184
Quote by Kerbache
They should not have any say in what happens in Ireland same way Ireland should/doesn't have any say in what happens in those countries.


...in the same way the people in Ireland shouldn't have a say in what happens in Northern Ireland

Only the people in Northern Ireland should
#185
Quote by Kerbache
Why on earth should it be put to the rest of the UK?

For the same reason I presume you want it to be put to the rest of Ireland, the outcome affects the status of their country.

That's like saying when India wanted independence then it should have been put to a vote of the British people, its nonsensical because Irish affairs should be decided on by the Irish people alone without outside interference.

But this issue is about the fate of Northern Ireland.

Not the rest of the island. It's about whether the people who live within the area known as Northern Ireland want to be part of Ireland or the UK.

The issue is about self determination and not having a state forced upon people. If those people want to be part of the UK what right do you have to force them to be part of the republic?

How is that any different to forcing people to be part of the UK?

Quote by Kerbache
They should not have any say in what happens in Ireland same way Ireland should/doesn't have any say in what happens in those countries.

but at this point in time we're talking about the fate of NI not the fate of Ireland.

You're getting ahead of yourself.

It should be down to the people in NI and nobody else.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
Last edited by Lemoninfluence at Aug 11, 2012,
#186
Quote by Kerbache
Why are 600,000 odd Irish nationalists forced into a country that they do not wish to be a part of?.

For the same reason that a percentage of unionists were made join the republic, geography.

The island was divided to ensure that a unionist majority would always vote to maintain the union, how is that not gerrymandering?

That was categorically not the reason, if it were then Tyrone and Fermanagh, along with South Armagh and possibly Derry City would not have been included. It was drawn up along those lines in order to allow it to remain economically viable.
Catholic birthrates at the time were so high, with no foreseeable prospect of change, that it was assumed such a thing would not be possible long term anyway.

Look at the way the border was drawn up, if the other 3 counties of Ulster where included in the new Northern Ireland state then the results would be different, it was done that way on purpose.

Yes, but not for the purpose you think. The task of the boundry commission was to ensure that the border left as many nationalists out as possible; it failed not because it didn't include enough nationalists by including Cavan and Donegal, it failed because it allowed to many nationalists to remain in the North.

I think that the way the border was drawn was a profound injustice, but those are replete throughout history, were we to hold on to them then the native americans would kick the yanks out and Ireland would be flooded with crazy rednecks.


Also De Valera refused Churchill's offer because previous British governments could not be trusted so what made him the exception?

The fact that he had something of value.


Why on earth should it be put to the rest of the UK? That's like saying when India wanted independence then it should have been put to a vote of the British people, its nonsensical because Irish affairs should be decided on by the Irish people alone without outside interference

It is no more an Irish affair than a British one; it is a Northern Irish affair.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#187
Quote by Craigo
I was more getting at 'ah, what a monarch ought to do is tricky' as it also includes the republican question, constitutional questions, and the lot.

I don't know Irish politics very well, but I imagine it's not really like the Irish president. I mean, roles like that change over the time. For example, the USA was around for about one hundred years before any Presidential candidate actually campaigned for themselves. (I believe the first was Andrew Johnson, who pioneered that route and fucked up a treat.) It was deemed, well, action unfit for a President, who was viewed in the early 19th century to be the guy who, quite literally, executed the will of congress. But perceptions of what a President ought to be, and ought to do, and what powers they ought to use and have, have changed drastically over American history. I mean, compare 'the national, respected leader who signs bills and shit with limited veto power' to recent Presidents like Bush, Clinton and Obama. (Or Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower...)

The same thing has happened with English history with the monarch, and most likely with the Irish Presidency to some extent: things have probably just changed quite naturally over time.

Not constitutionally, which is what I was getting at. The social roles have changed, but the powers haven't, at least not here.

The powers in Britain and the USA obviously have; but it takes far longer. What I was getting at is that the Irish president's role is similar to that of the Queen in the 1930s; any divergence in relative roles since then (legislatively) has been minuscule.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#188
Quote by Ur all $h1t
Not constitutionally, which is what I was getting at. The social roles have changed, but the powers haven't, at least not here.

The powers in Britain and the USA obviously have; but it takes far longer. What I was getting at is that the Irish president's role is similar to that of the Queen in the 1930s; any divergence in relative roles since then (legislatively) has been minuscule.

The roles have changed constitutionally in the USA (IIRC) and in the UK, but ahrah.

Ahh, so it remains to be something like, say, the German President? That's pretty damn nifty. I want a President like that if it's that kind of President.
Last edited by Craigo at Aug 11, 2012,
#189
Quote by Craigo
The roles have changed constitutionally in the USA (IIRC) and in the UK, but ahrah.

Ahh, so it remains to be something like, say, the German President? That's pretty damn nifty. I want a President like that if it's that kind of President.

USA's a bad example, the head of state there has real power, his role changes from year to year even; this year he got the power to extra-judicially murder his own citizens. Yay.

Ya, pretty much; some differences obviously. It always results in people going "ah ya, but what does he do? Waste of money" though, because they don't understand that he's there to curbstomp future Hitler.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#190
Quote by LRCGUITAR
Scotland has oil, they want to keep the oil for themselves while retaining the benefits that being part of the UK gave them.

That's what a lot of us have been told, and I don't think the Scottish government is denying it.

If they want to leave then let them: they'll need us before we need them


Ashley
#191
Quote by BlackLuster
That's what a lot of us have been told, and I don't think the Scottish government is denying it.

If they want to leave then let them: they'll need us before we need them


Ashley

I doubt it.

An election will happen before their oil runs out and we need them to stop the tories getting a stranglehold on the country.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#192
Quote by Lemoninfluence
An election will happen before their oil runs out and we need them to stop the tories getting a stranglehold on the country.

I still don't understand how they get so many votes
#193
Quote by BlackLuster
I still don't understand how they get so many votes


Middle England brah.

Well, really it's more of an issue with our voting system. The actual percentage voting isn't hugely in favour of the Tories, but winning a constituency by a small percentage has a disproportionate effect on the overall outcome.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#194
I'm as common as muck so I'll never vote for the tories.

I'm sure I sound frightfully ignorant coming out with something like that
#196
I'm from the UK of Mixed Celtic Heritage (Irish Family, Born in Wales, Spent lots of time in Scotland) and my own personal belief is that the Celtic Nations should be states unto themselves, not just to preserve the inherent culture, but because to not seize the chance for independence would be a slap in the face to every Celt who fought and died for the same cause.
What is this that stands before me?

Figure in black that points at me...


FUCKETH THINE SELF
#197
Quote by Argonaut
I'm from the UK of Mixed Celtic Heritage (Irish Family, Born in Wales, Spent lots of time in Scotland) and my own personal belief is that the Celtic Nations should be states unto themselves, not just to preserve the inherent culture, but because to not seize the chance for independence would be a slap in the face to every Celt who fought and died for the same cause.


Nonsense. By that rationale i should want a gaelic state because my family originate from the west coast.

If we lived in a indigenous society like 500 years ago fine, but now independence would just be for bs pseudo nationalism.

We would be screwed on our own. We are inheritantly incompetent, and rely heavily on England. Our oils gone, and water and wind sold off.

Plus we couldnt leave Wales and N Ireland to put up with the English twats.
#198
Quote by magnus_maximus
Are you.. are you being serious?

If so you are dangerously ignorant.


Well you wont see Independence i guarantee you.
#199
Before the current government came into power i was very pro union. But when i see what they are doing to the country and their continuing of thatcherism and its selfish values i can't help feel so different from the voters down south. The labour party is just the same policies with a different coloured tie and the finances are in the shitter , so it's time for something different.

I would gladly vote for independence now.
#200
It's late so I can't be bothered typing out all my opinions on this.

You can assume I'll agree with about 99% of what maximus says though.

Here's some chill to lighten all you tight-arses up too http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lcm3MmD7uyc

,--.-'-,--.
\ /-~-\ /
/ )' a a `( \
( ( ,---. ) )
THIS WAS MEANT TO BE A PIG
\ `(_o_o_)' /
\ `-' /
| |---| |
[_] [_]