Voices
in
Japan

have your say

Should Scotland be an independent country?

55 Comments

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

55 Comments
Login to comment

Yes.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

No. Haven't you seen Star Trek? We're supposed to be moving toward a global government.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

No. Divided we fall, and all that.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

No, should keep the UK as it is

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

Should Scotland become independent, a long process will begin to establish its government because of all the difficult decisions including the financial status, the oil and reserves and sustainable issue, and their membership in the European Union. United Kingdom will experience both the negative and positive consequences no matter what the outcome. However for Scotland I hope for new possibilities and new dream come true.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

As an Ulsterman, I hope Scotland stays. There are ups and downs in any relationship, but I do believe we are better together.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

If they want to be. Effect on global economy (or at least global markets) might be severe if they go and am sure that their own economy will suffer greatly. Scots rely so heavily on the state and not sure their economy can afford to pay.....

4 ( +5 / -1 )

No, because the UK has been together for so long, there are many Scots living in the rest of the UK (who can't vote) and vice versa, the union has been successful, a currency union (plan A) is only pseudo-independence, there's no plan B, its not really independence anyway for small countries like Scotland within the EU, what was a secure island will become fragmented with separate armed forces, and a long drawn-out and unpredictable independence process will probably lead to a lot of bitterness on both sides as well as within Scotland. Its daft, basically.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Yes. Smaller states are better than centralized power.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

up to the Scots. If they choose to be will open to flood gates for other regiona devoluution. and good luck to them going it alone - a lot of unknowns out there.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I think Scotland better realize that if they leave, they will be HIGHLY dependent on North Sea petroleum production and export revenue to keep that country financially afloat. What happens when the oil and natural gas starts to run out? Or there is relatively little export market for North Sea oil and natural gas, especially when the Europeans are more interested in oil and natural gas from Norway? There's a reason why the United Arab Emirates--oil-rich as it is (especially in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi)--invested a lot of money to be way less dependent on the petroleum business.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

They should ask themselves WWRCND? (What Would Rab C Nesbitt Do?)

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I guess the bright lining in all this is that China fears anyone declaring independence from anything apparently. We'll see if it can have a knock on effect, though.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Expats not welcome!

http://www.smh.com.au/world/scottish-expats-excluded-from-vote-on-independence-20140916-10hk38.html

... "Within Scotland, and certainly for Scottish nationalists, there will have been a fear that Scots living outside Scotland were less likely to vote for independence," he said.

The researcher added that many expats "feel extremely aggravated" that foreign nationals resident in Scotland - some for only a matter of weeks - would have more of a say than them on Scotland's future. ...

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Absolutely. We do not need a centralized world government, or centralized regional governments. There is too much disconnect between places like Brussels and Barcelona, or London and Glasgow. There is enough local bureaucracy, regulation, and taxation without adding yet another layer on top. We can have free trade, free travel, and a level field of regulation without adding another layer of government and it's associated cost.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@kaerimashita. "up to the Scots".

Well, yes and no. It's up to the Scots who are living in Scotland, many of the smarter and better educated Scots don't live and work in Scotland so are excluded. The majority of those remaining are far less likely to understand the issues and just vote against "the English". Also, 16 and 17 year olds can vote. Many of these are immature drunks and layabouts who profess to hate the English because it's cool to do so and are being given a part to play in the future od Scotland.

The people who are voting are not, in my opinion, representative of the Scottish people and the whole thing is a con, a sham. I wouldn't trust Salmond as far as I could throw him.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

I love the sound of bagpipes, and will continue to feel admiration and affection toward the Scots no matter what their decision. Do what you gotta do mates!

2 ( +4 / -2 )

No... I don't want to lose my British identity.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

If they so wish, yes.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

As someone who is not Scottish, none of my business.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

I have long supported independence, but have moved over to a "No" vote (although I actually do not have one), but that is probably more about how the Yes campaign has conducted itself.

Financially things will balance out in the long run, but I really do not feel Scotland to be a particularly foreign place. Go back 50 years and you would have been considered a crackpot for wanting independence, even within Scotland. Have Scots really discovered a sense of national identity that their parents and gransparents did not have?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Well, yes and no. It's up to the Scots who are living in Scotland, many of the smarter and better educated Scots don't live and work in Scotland so are excluded. The majority of those remaining are far less likely to understand the issues and just vote against "the English".

Harry_Gatto that it deeply insulting. You are basically calling me stupid because I still live in Scotland... By your reasoning I am too dense to understand the issues? Hmm... are you living here in Scotland? Do YOU understand the issues?

I'm voting NO. I have no animosity against the English (yes, I can use big words), and I know full well why I am voting the way I am. The YES voters may have been duped by Salmond but to basically call half the population of Scotland stupid is very, very insulting. Would you say that about the Japanese? Oh wait, some unthinking people do.

And now this post will disappear.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Greater Manchester is also making noises for greater independence from Central Government in London, who traditionally have little knowledge of anything North of the Watford Gap service station. The corrupt regime in London, politicians with snouts deep in the fiscal trough, inspire few, and Manchester presents a good case for more autonomy.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

I say yes, but those who vote as such need to realize an independent Scotlandwill start off heavily in debt and will have to struggle. They may end up Bigtrouble before long, andi doubt Britain will accept secession and volunteer to ease them into a healthy independent status. It's also going to have a big impact in the region in other ways non-positive, and possibly world economies. Still, it's something they've been dreaming of for centuries, so if it happens here's hoping they can do it well.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

The corrupt regime in London, politicians with snouts deep in the fiscal trough, inspire few, and Manchester presents a good case for more autonomy.

It really does not. The disparity between Manchester (the city) and areas in Greater Manchester such as Bolton (now an economy based on second-hand shops and takeaways) is greater than any contrast between London and Manchester.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Every country should have the right to choose their own government. The idea of a party with one MP in the entire country of Scotland making any decisions for that country is ridiculous.

@Wanderlust Many cities in the north have wanted greater independence from Westminster. The cities of the north should put their silly rivalries and bickering behind them and focus on the common enemy - a government which serves the needs of the south. The Tories wrote off Scotland, Wales and the north of England under Thatcher and Labour did next to sod all about it under Blair. More regional powers will come but the Westminster shower need a few more than gentle reminders. The sight of Cameron giving last minute gifts to Scotland and charging around like a headless chicken telling people not to kick the Tories although they despise them shows that they can act with a good hard shove.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Given how badly the English have abused Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland I think that they should at least have the right to vote to leave the UK.

This wouldn't even be an issue if the English had been more even-handed in their policies, but England has been very much "England for the English and forget everyone else!" for way too long now.

The English politicians need a wake-up call. If it truly is a "United Kingdom" then why not rotate the parliament, with parliament in Northern Ireland for the next 10 years?

... because the English don't really regard the Scots, Welsh or Irish as full citizens.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

One thing to keep in mind. England did not invade Scotland in 1707, when the Act of Union was signed... we needed their help. in the 1690s the Scots king wanted to expand our influence to other parts of the world, so we set up a colony in South America called Darian. It failed, and it took the Scots economy with it. Scotland was bankrupt... so we went to England, cap in hand to ask for help... and so the Act of Union was signed.

That's a rather simplistic description, but that's what happened. We weren't invaded and conquered.

Just saying.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Should stay with the rest of UK as they have for 300 years. Would have thought Northern Ireland would have wanted a referendum before Scotland!

1 ( +4 / -3 )

If they so truly wish, then they should. But, arrange it carefully..

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Wipeout... the whingers up here are the ones more likely to vote YES, the ones who take Gibson't Braveheart film as gospel... and don't realise that the Battle of Bannockburn was 700 years ago. Sounds familiar...

1 ( +4 / -3 )

What ever I think really doesn't matter because I'm not impacted outside of having to remember a new factoid. With the decision coming down to the wire, I think the power base of Britain (England) needs to reevaluate it's cultural and economic relationship with Scotland. There is a reason why independence is desired and not greater autonomy.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

... because the English don't really regard the Scots, Welsh or Irish as full citizens.

Utter bollocks! Any idea how much it costs the tax payers in the rest of the UK to keep BBC Alba on the air, a TV station in gaelic that is watched by just a few thousand native gaelic speakers in Scotland? Sound like the actions of an uncaring, self-centered government? That attitide is so 1970s...

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Frungy

Given how badly the English have abused Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland I think that they should at least have the right to vote to leave the UK.

Scotland, Wales and England's abuse of Northern Ireland was ignoring what was happening here, ostensibly because we had our own Home Rule Parliament. Actual abuse was served by us, for us.

And I, for one, find calling England an abuser - when it has taken in hosts of Irish, Scots and Welsh, and provided a system for sharing wealth across the UK (The Barnet Formula) - extremely foolish.

The biggest charge I can make against England, and it is big in my eyes, is that it sometimes uses 'England' to mean 'Britain/The UK'. Now that can make someone feel like a second-class citizen, or third-class - if you're from a certain Northern Irish background.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

From across the pond, all I can say is that leaving the union seems inadvisable; then again, if I were Scottish, maybe I would feel differently.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

'This wouldn't even be an issue if the English had been more even-handed in their policies, but England has been very much "England for the English and forget everyone else!"'for way too long now.'

Don't forget that Westminster from Thatcher onwards wrote off the north of England as well as the other countries in the union. Even the ex-Governor of the Bank of England Eddie George stated that mass unemployment in the north was an acceptable price to pay to curb inflation in the south. Many English people have suffered abuse from Westminster, mostly but not exclusively under Tory rule, not just Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I wonder why the caring, benevolent Tories didn't try out their poll tax on the Home Counties? So 1980s/90s I know but certainly not forgotten in Scotland. Don't give the effing Tories a kick, politely show them the door and ask them not to come back. There are plenty of English who would love to be able to do that on Thursday.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

As an American, my only question for this decision is ...

will the corporate tax rate be lower than elsewhere? and how easy can my company relocated legally to the new Scotland?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

If the people wish it to be so then.......

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It's up to the Scots, but I guess William Wallace will be dancing around up there if the Scots do decide to go it alone.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

If the people of Scotland wish it, yes, of course.

How about independence for Ryukyu (Okinawa)?

I know a lot of Okinawans who want this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If they so choose, yes.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

should scotland be an independent country?

No.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@Geoff Gillespie

Utter bollocks! Any idea how much it costs the tax payers in the rest of the UK to keep BBC Alba on the air, a TV station in gaelic that is watched by just a few thousand native gaelic speakers in Scotland?

Gillespie, originally Mac Giolla Easpaig, (son of the bishop's gillie), is a great example of how culture has been denied, diminished and demonised as illogical and even foreign. The term for this (linguistic) process? Anglicisation.

By the way, Geoff, BBC Alba's weekly viewership is 637,000, not "just a few thousand."

http://www.mgalba.com/downloads/reports/annual-report-12-13.pdf

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Freedom of choice, good or bad. The golden eagle still lives in the tower of Albany high 'oer Norton Green.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Much more important than the fate of Scotland is the fact that their independence will increase the likelihood of the rUK leaving the EU and of Catalonia leaving Spain.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

SenseNotSoCommon,

Gillespie, originally Mac Giolla Easpaig, (son of the bishop's gillie), is a great example of how culture has been denied, diminished and demonised as illogical and even foreign. The term for this (linguistic) process? Anglicisation.

Denied? Diminished? Anyone who wishes to can learn Gaelic.

Demonised? How?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Denied? Diminished? Anyone who wishes to can learn Gaelic.

Yes, they can now, although Geoff prefers to deny there's any demand for Gaelic content.

One of the primary aims of the (18th C.) Scottish Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge was the de-Gaelicisation of the Highlands and initially its schools taught exclusively through the medium of the English language with the equivalent use of Gaelic prohibited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaelic_medium_education_in_Scotland

0 ( +0 / -0 )

At least the Scots don't need to have Igirisu as nationality on their gaijin card anymore , as a Dutchman I would really dislike the fact if my nationality is stated as Doitsu.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Dutchduck,

My gaijin card has Eikoku as my nationality, so your point is moot.

SenseNotSoCommon,

But for Gaelic to prosper, things have to be focussed on the now - look to Northern Ireland, where by nature or intention, Gaelic is politicised and divisive.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Dutchduck

It's a common misperception that "イギリス” means "England", but is mistakenly used to mean "United Kingdom".

"イギリス” refers to the UK as a whole. "England" is "イングランド”, "Scotland" is "スコットランド." No problem.

And I know there are plenty of Dutch people who get tired of their country being referred to as "Holland", as if that were the whole country; sometimes by the Dutch themselves when speaking English....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ooops my mistake, actually I'm just repeating the sentiments of an Irish (northern Ireland) friend. No sarcasm or bad intentions here...so the kanji on your green card doesn't say 英吉利 but 英国? well good on you, and I learned something new again today.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Star-viking,

But for Gaelic to prosper, things have to be focussed on the now

And they very much are in terms of modern, relevant content.

look to Northern Ireland, where by nature or intention, Gaelic is politicised and divisive.

How can an indigenous language by nature or intention be politicised and divisive? Demonizing, are we?

And if it's divisive, why are so many people who identify as Protestant, Unionist and Loyalist so keen to learn it?

"There is every reason why Protestants should be learning Irish," she said. "Ninety-five percent of our place names come from Gaelic… We are using words in our language every day that come from the Gaelic language. We are steeped in it." (Linda Ervine, wife of former Progressive Unionist Party leader, David).

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/04/protestants-go-gaelic-northern-ireland-2014423132641709630.html

Of course there are those stuck in the past - the 17th Century to be precise - who would very much wish to see Gaelic politicised and divisive:

A senior Orangeman has warned Protestants against learning the Irish language.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-26000146

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SenseNotSoCommon,

"look to Northern Ireland, where by nature or intention, Gaelic is politicised and divisive."

How can an indigenous language by nature or intention be politicised and divisive? Demonizing, are we?

By nature I mean the was if one side takes something up, the other side is likely to oppose it. By intention I mean those who use the language as a political tool.

And if it's divisive, why are so many people who identify as Protestant, Unionist and Loyalist so keen to learn it?

"There is every reason why Protestants should be learning Irish," she said. "Ninety-five percent of our place names come from Gaelic… We are using words in our language every day that come from the Gaelic language. We are steeped in it." (Linda Ervine, wife of former Progressive Unionist Party leader, David).

Note that Linda Ervine said "should be". I agree with her, but there is political baggage with the language ("Tiocfaid ar la" etc.) that has left a lot of hostility to it in Loyalist areas. Case in point, the arson attacks on the Dunanny Community Centre in Rathcoole:

"During Monday's rally, Frank Mckeown of Rathcoole Presbyterian Church denied local rumours that the facility was offering Irish language lessons."

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-28837989

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Star-viking,

Tiocfaidh ár lá isn't strictly Irish. The correct Gaelic for what Bobby Sands wanted to say (our day will come) would be beidh ár lá linn.

Perhaps UVF legend - and Gaeilgeor - Gusty Spence could have corrected him.

a lot of hostility to it in Loyalist areas

What's there not hostility to in Loyalist areas?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites