The Big Scottish Independence Debate

[Yngwie]

The upgrading this week of the UK's terror alert status got me wondering what is envisaged for Scotland in that respect.  It's not something any of us will be losing sleep over, but the first role of government is to protect its people so it is worth understanding how we are going to do this.

 

Would we have our own MI5 and GCHQ, and if so, at what cost? Or do we just hope John Smeaton is in the right place at the right time?  I hope were not planning on relying on the UK for this, because nobody is going to be spying on us more than them (for commercial, economic and political advantage).

Edited August 30, 2014 by Yngwie

[Ayeseetee]

The upgrading this week of the UK's terror alert status got me wondering what is envisaged for Scotland in that respect.  It's not something any of us will be losing sleep over, but the first role of government is to protect its people so it is worth understanding how we are going to do this.

 

Would we have our own MI5 and GCHQ, and if so, at what cost? Or do we just hope John Smeaton is in the right place at the right time?  I hope were not planning on relying on the UK for this, because nobody is going to be spying on us more than them (for commercial, economic and political advantage).

 

A 75 man scottish sas is the best deterrent if you ask me

 

£5,000,000 a year as apposed to £4,000,000,000 a year for tridents replacement

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-18077312

 

3 weeks to go and the fear mongering is in overdrive funny how we get a terror alert after a rumour that america wants us to join in the bombing of iraq

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2736221/Help-bomb-jihadis-US-urge-Britain-America-poised-ask-Cameron-support-air-strikes-northern-Iraq.html

 

http://news.yahoo.com/uk-raises-alert-level-syria-refugees-top-3-202417984.html

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11065167/Britain-facing-greatest-terrorist-threat-in-history.html

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/isis-fighters-could-launch-deadly-4132208

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11064322/Isil-terrorists-highly-likely-to-attack-UK-warns-David-Cameron-as-threat-level-is-raised-to-severe.html

Edited August 30, 2014 by Ayeseetee

[Ayeseetee]

It's about the future. Our future.

 

I couldn't agree more my orginal post was just to point out a few reasons why it might have happened and I noticed I have not condemmed it yet so I will!

 

Anything that goes beyond a peaceful chat is not in the favour of democracy and both jim and some yes voters where full blown shouting at each other and splatting that egg on his back just makes it look like we are not open to a prodcutive debate and these are the storys the media love to sensationalize and it makes scotland as awhole look bad!

 

 

but no one was charged for jim's egging as of this time but look what happened yesterday that got a tiny news story that didn't go on the front page

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-28989953

 

He was found guilty of deaths threats but an egg gets the most coverage...

Edited August 30, 2014 by Ayeseetee

[dougiedanger]

Expect more of these "security alerts" as the referendum approaches, as predictable as it is typical from the British government, seeking to ramp up the fear, which is its only trump card.

[dougiedanger]

And don't rule out some royal "health scare" either.

[Ayeseetee]

And don't rule out some royal "health scare" either.

 

A terrorist planting a snuke in the queen would be the holy trinity of scare stories lol

[SMEE]

Expect more of these "security alerts" as the referendum approaches, as predictable as it is typical from the British government, seeking to ramp up the fear, which is its only trump card.

This is a common trick used by UK and USA govts. Its a phsychological fact that when we are kept in fear....we SPEND!!

 

Ebola

IS (where the fook did they suddenly spring from? Im guessing Al Quaeda is now been rebranded by Satchi and Satchi?)

Raised Terror Alerts

And not to mention all the misinformation eminating from the govt regarding Scottish Independence

[Ayeseetee]

It is also how they can get away with spending billions upon billions on nuclear weapons when some families cannot afford to eat 

 

http://www.trusselltrust.org/stats

Edited August 30, 2014 by Ayeseetee

[Ayeseetee]

Guess what we will be seeing on the 16th of sept when we play rangers....

 

 

 

Is there not a rule against trying to spread a political message during a match?

 

I am all for yes / no stuff outside the ground but this is a step too far....

Edited August 30, 2014 by Ayeseetee

[Ayeseetee]

Took me awhile to notice it is not one single flag but 3 put together 

 

my bad

[Oddquine]

The upgrading this week of the UK's terror alert status got me wondering what is envisaged for Scotland in that respect.  It's not something any of us will be losing sleep over, but the first role of government is to protect its people so it is worth understanding how we are going to do this.

 

Would we have our own MI5 and GCHQ, and if so, at what cost? Or do we just hope John Smeaton is in the right place at the right time?  I hope were not planning on relying on the UK for this, because nobody is going to be spying on us more than them (for commercial, economic and political advantage).

 

This response is a bit tongue in cheek, to be fair....but we have been expecting something on the terror/terrorist lines to be produced at some stage latish in the referendum campaign.....and we have, it appears, not been disappointed!   Never thought that if it hadn't been for the actions of the UK Government post WWI/WWII, we wouldn't have terrorists at all?  I can't say in my lifetime I have ever noticed any terrorism in the UK which was not a result of UK actions......and which, until the aftermath of 9/11, consisted only of Irish terrorism condoned by our bosom buddies, the USA, and funded mostly by US Citizens.

 

The terrorism we have is us reaping what we have sown to enrich our tax-paying (or at least bribe paying/post Westminster job-providing) companies. If we don't irritate the hell out of other countries, why would anyone want to terrorise us?

 

Given the numbers of people who live their lives on FB and twitter.all we need to do is rely on the easily offended to report any and every unacceptable remark!

[Alex MacLeod]

The upgrading this week of the UK's terror alert status got me wondering what is envisaged for Scotland in that respect.  It's not something any of us will be losing sleep over, but the first role of government is to protect its people so it is worth understanding how we are going to do this.

 

Would we have our own MI5 and GCHQ, and if so, at what cost? Or do we just hope John Smeaton is in the right place at the right time?  I hope were not planning on relying on the UK for this, because nobody is going to be spying on us more than them (for commercial, economic and political advantage).

Do Ireland?

 

Nuclear deterent will not deter terrorism but messing in other peoples war will attract it. I would hope that the new Scotland would be seen as a country promoting peace and harmony and, as such, a country that would not be targeted by terrorists.

[+DoofersDad]

I think the "YES" campaign is really scraping the barrel if it thinks the increase in terror status within the UK has some ulterior motive to win votes for the "NO" camp.  Quite the opposite is true; some voters will see an independent Scotland as being less of a target for terrorists and this might tempt folk to vote "YES".

 

The reason the UK is a target is because the UK takes actions to tackle these extremists who in turn see the UK as a threat.  The terrorists carry out their outrages to mobilise public opinion to stop the target countries governments' involvement in those parts of the world where the terror groups are trying to impose their evil ideologies.   It is highly significant here that Muslim leaders in the UK have issued a fatwa informing Muslims in this country that it is religiously prohibited to support or join ISIS.  They refer to ISIS as "an oppressive and tyrannical group".  This is therefore not the British Government playing political games, it is the British Government being engaged in supporting others in the fight against oppression and tyranny.

 

There is a famous saying that "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".  Some may want an independent Scotland to sit back and preach the moral high ground without raising a finger to stop the spread of these oppressive ideologies, but I am actually quite proud of the fact that the UK is prepared to put its money where its mouth is to stand up and fight oppressive regimes and ideologies.  Think about folk in the middle east who are being butchered because they oppose an oppressive and tyrannical heresy of the Muslim faith.  Those folk will tell you the real meaning of freedom.

 

 

[dougiedanger]

For large parts of the world, the wonderful British government is and has been the tyrannical oppressor, but these naive Brit unionists will no doubt think that the Empire was all about civilizing the savages.

 

The British do nothing unless it is to their own advantage.

[+DoofersDad]

Of course Britain has a colonial past and much of what happened then is considered outrageous by modern day standards, but to call the British Government a tyrannical oppressor today is totally absurd.  You refer to the Empire in the past tense and that is the clue here.  The Empire has morphed into the Commonwealth where former colonies, most of which are now independent democratic states, choose, of their own free will, to participate as part of the Commonwealth because they know that it is in their interests to maintain a partnership with the old colonial power.  As a result, most of these countries are relatively prosperous.

 

This post colonial policy of supporting democratic freedom within the world has continued through two world wars, a strong line against the spread of the undemocratic communist oppression of the Soviet empire and onto taking a stand against Muslim fundamentalists who, as you read this are butchering folk who refuse to sign up to a highly oppressive creed which removes any semblance of freedom.

 

Is it to Britain's own advantage to do these things?  You bet your life it is!  It is in our interests to have a world of democratic nations where people have the basic freedoms that we tend to take for granted and where those nations respect the rights of other countries, trade with them and co-operate on issues of mutual interest (e.g.environmental treaties). Of course Britain picks and chooses where it gets involved based on the nature of the oppression being inflicted and the more immediate impact the issue has on Britain's security and economic interests.  One may argue with some justification that it doesn't always get the balance right, but that does not take away from the principle that the UK is prepared to make a stand in promoting and protecting the democratic rights of folk throughout the world. 

 

 

 

[Yngwie]

 

The upgrading this week of the UK's terror alert status got me wondering what is envisaged for Scotland in that respect.  It's not something any of us will be losing sleep over, but the first role of government is to protect its people so it is worth understanding how we are going to do this.

 

Would we have our own MI5 and GCHQ, and if so, at what cost? Or do we just hope John Smeaton is in the right place at the right time?  I hope were not planning on relying on the UK for this, because nobody is going to be spying on us more than them (for commercial, economic and political advantage).

Do Ireland?

 

Nuclear deterent will not deter terrorism but messing in other peoples war will attract it. I would hope that the new Scotland would be seen as a country promoting peace and harmony and, as such, a country that would not be targeted by terrorists.

 

 

I'm sure I don't need to remind you that Ireland was/is a place where terrorists could operate pretty much unchallenged and plan their attrocities, so perhaps that's not the role model to follow.

 

We also have a larger Muslim population than most comparable small nations and are known to have jihadists out in Syria/Iraq. Unless we are introducing Sharia law, we are a target. These aren't reasonable people.  If they can't attack the USA, and have their operations in England thwarted, they will just move on to a softer target.

 

I've actually just checked the White Paper and the plan is that we would have our own security service, albeit with just a tiny fraction of the infrastrucutre and resources we currently benefit from, and we would ask other countries to show us what to do. That's what it says.

[dougiedanger]

September is here, and on the 18th we will for the first time in 300 years have our destiny in our own hands. We will be free for that day, and potentially for all days that follow.

 

Would you want to hand over that freedom?

[Alex MacLeod]

Of course Britain has a colonial past and much of what happened then is considered outrageous by modern day standards, but to call the British Government a tyrannical oppressor today is totally absurd.  You refer to the Empire in the past tense and that is the clue here.  The Empire has morphed into the Commonwealth where former colonies, most of which are now independent democratic states, choose, of their own free will, to participate as part of the Commonwealth because they know that it is in their interests to maintain a partnership with the old colonial power.  As a result, most of these countries are relatively prosperous.

 

This post colonial policy of supporting democratic freedom within the world has continued through two world wars, a strong line against the spread of the undemocratic communist oppression of the Soviet empire and onto taking a stand against Muslim fundamentalists who, as you read this are butchering folk who refuse to sign up to a highly oppressive creed which removes any semblance of freedom.

 

Is it to Britain's own advantage to do these things?  You bet your life it is!  It is in our interests to have a world of democratic nations where people have the basic freedoms that we tend to take for granted and where those nations respect the rights of other countries, trade with them and co-operate on issues of mutual interest (e.g.environmental treaties). Of course Britain picks and chooses where it gets involved based on the nature of the oppression being inflicted and the more immediate impact the issue has on Britain's security and economic interests.  One may argue with some justification that it doesn't always get the balance right, but that does not take away from the principle that the UK is prepared to make a stand in promoting and protecting the democratic rights of folk throughout the world. 

That'll be why we leave the Israeli's to oppress. Lets just turn a blind eye to that one because Palestine has nothing to offer and the sons of Israel are the financial blood of the good old US of A. Britian has been involved in conflict in Afghanistan since Hannibal was a boy. Dont you think maybe the threats from the fundamentalists there may have something to do with that? Britian took near riots in the streets before becoming involved in Syria. Britian ignored many of the conflicts in central and southern Africa. We denounced the Angolan people in their fight for Independence from Portugal. Britian ignored many of the conflicts in South America. If the oil and mineral wealth of those nations was known about then as it is now I think our stand would have been a helluva lot different.

Sometimes I think that Britians involvement in much of what goes on in the Islamic world has more to do with continuing the christian crusades of the middle ages and imposing our ideals and beliefs on other people.

[+DoofersDad]

September is here, and on the 18th we will for the first time in 300 years have our destiny in our own hands. We will be free for that day, and potentially for all days that follow.

 

Would you want to hand over that freedom?

National destiny and freedom are two completely different things. The Scottish nation may have had control of its destiny 300 years ago but the people had no say in it and precious few freedoms.  Forget the Braveheart nonsense, the Scottish people certainly have far more freedom and say in their destiny through being partners in the Union than they ever did 300 years ago.  The Scottish people have freedoms that others would give their right arm for.  You, for instance, are not going to disappear in the middle of the night having called your Government tyrannical and oppressive.  Britain has freedoms that are the envy of the world.  And, given the length of the Union it really is quite extraordinary how the distinctive identity of Scotland has been preserved with our separate education and legal systems being evidence of that.

 

Of course independence would give the Scots people the Government they voted for every time, but that in itself does not make us any freer.  It gives us more self determination on one level but I would hardly call that having control over our own destiny. At a local level we will still complain about our health and social services, our schools and our roads only for local government to say that central government doesn't give them enough money.  And at national level our destiny will be still be hugely influenced by the financial markets, big business, international bodies and EU legislation (which incidentally, the hated Tories are complaining inhibits this country making its own decisions!).  Our freedoms in engaging in normal life and work activities within rUK will certainly be reduced. 

 

Independence will maybe give the Scots a little more self determination but to suggest it will give us more freedom has more to do with romantic notions of independence than the reality of Scotland's position as part of the UK.  The question about freedom in this referendum is whether or not we want a Government which is prepared to fight to preserve our freedom or do we want a Government that condemns from the sidelines but expects others to fight its battles for us.

[dougiedanger]

No offence, but your views on freedom and sovereignty do not necessarily coincide with that of the rest of the population, and as a Scot I won't be lectured to on how I am supposed to feel about any of this. Many of us have never felt in the slightest bit British, however hard you find that to believe.

 

This issue has to do with pride, honor and identity, not in a romantic, "Braveheart" way as you put it, but as a chance to be a properly modern, progressive nation, and to take responsibility for our own decisions, for better or worse.

 

The union is finished either way, we will be free on September 18th, and it would be sheer folly to hand that freedom straight back to Cameron, Johnson et al.

[KingBeastie]

The Scottish people have freedoms that others would give their right arm for.  You, for instance, are not going to disappear in the middle of the night having called your Government tyrannical and oppressive.

 

What is the point in this statement?

Are you suggesting that this is going to change with a Yes vote and Salmond's secret polis will huckle people off in the night?

Of course you are not - so it's a pointless thing to type.

 

The No campaign is founded on keeping people in fear.  A lot of the Scottish public are starting to realise this and now it's the No camp that is getting the fear.

[+DoofersDad]

 

Of course Britain has a colonial past and much of what happened then is considered outrageous by modern day standards, but to call the British Government a tyrannical oppressor today is totally absurd.  You refer to the Empire in the past tense and that is the clue here.  The Empire has morphed into the Commonwealth where former colonies, most of which are now independent democratic states, choose, of their own free will, to participate as part of the Commonwealth because they know that it is in their interests to maintain a partnership with the old colonial power.  As a result, most of these countries are relatively prosperous.

 

This post colonial policy of supporting democratic freedom within the world has continued through two world wars, a strong line against the spread of the undemocratic communist oppression of the Soviet empire and onto taking a stand against Muslim fundamentalists who, as you read this are butchering folk who refuse to sign up to a highly oppressive creed which removes any semblance of freedom.

 

Is it to Britain's own advantage to do these things?  You bet your life it is!  It is in our interests to have a world of democratic nations where people have the basic freedoms that we tend to take for granted and where those nations respect the rights of other countries, trade with them and co-operate on issues of mutual interest (e.g.environmental treaties). Of course Britain picks and chooses where it gets involved based on the nature of the oppression being inflicted and the more immediate impact the issue has on Britain's security and economic interests.  One may argue with some justification that it doesn't always get the balance right, but that does not take away from the principle that the UK is prepared to make a stand in promoting and protecting the democratic rights of folk throughout the world. 

That'll be why we leave the Israeli's to oppress. Lets just turn a blind eye to that one because Palestine has nothing to offer and the sons of Israel are the financial blood of the good old US of A. Britian has been involved in conflict in Afghanistan since Hannibal was a boy. Dont you think maybe the threats from the fundamentalists there may have something to do with that? Britian took near riots in the streets before becoming involved in Syria. Britian ignored many of the conflicts in central and southern Africa. We denounced the Angolan people in their fight for Independence from Portugal. Britian ignored many of the conflicts in South America. If the oil and mineral wealth of those nations was known about then as it is now I think our stand would have been a helluva lot different.

Sometimes I think that Britians involvement in much of what goes on in the Islamic world has more to do with continuing the christian crusades of the middle ages and imposing our ideals and beliefs on other people.

 

But Britain doesn't just leave the Israeli's to oppress.  Britain has been very strong in it's condemnation of Israel's latest actions.  Just what do you expect them to do?  This dispute is incredibly difficult and whilst one can be rightly critical of Israel's attitude to the Palestinians, it should not be forgotten that the Palestinian Government denies the right for a Jewish state to exist in the first place.  Despite this, Israel's oppression of the Palestinians is far less oppressive than the Taliban's oppression of its own poeple in  Afghanistan or Saddam's oppression of his own people in Iraq.

 

You say "Sometimes I think that Britians involvement in much of what goes on in the Islamic world has more to do with continuing the christian crusades of the middle ages and imposing our ideals and beliefs on other people." Really?  if that was the case, would the Government provide the freedoms and support given to the Muslim communities in Britain?  The picture I get is one of trying to encourage ethnic and racial respect and integration. 

[KingBeastie]

[Yngwie]

KingBeastie provides a very worthwhile reminder that Yes votes are only counted if they include a wee coloured in Saltire. Please share!

[KingBeastie]

Can we be trusted with our own crayons tho?