CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
closedPintail. There is still lots of it left. Would you squander the rest in the same way or try a different approach.
Understanding how the UK came about means you might have a more informed idea of how it might be dissolved. Scotland was not conquered and made part of England, whatever Westminster might claim, we are partners in a Union. If the Union is dissolved then both partners go back to the position they were in before.
Hey insto, what does IWRATS think of independence?
Anyone interested in multiple personalities (Alex salmond might be, certainly allows an individual to hold mutually contradictory views) might be interested in the modernist Portuguese poet Fernando Pessoa. He had 72 different poets inside him, two of whom were Scottish - Alexander Search and his brother. Three of these heteronyms as he called them were better poets than Pessoa. If this interests you Nobel laureate Jose Saramago wrote a book called A year in the death of Ricardo Reis. Reis was one of the heteronyms, who in accurately according to Saramago returns to Lisbon from Brazil after Pessoa dies.
Pessoa never left Lisbon from age 17. saramago exiled himself late in life on lanzarote. Good cycling there I understand?
Portugal is to Scotland as Spain is to England? Same colonial past as Scotland/England. Lisbon is to Edinburgh as Porto is to Glasgow. Lagos is to Gullane as Sagres is to Morar. you can fly direct from Edinburgh to Lisbon.
WFB The more relevant history is how Scotland and England together achieved so much in the Union, leading the World in the Industrial Revolution, establishing the Empire, captaining the winning side in two World Wars and helping to see off the threat from the Soviets. It's a 300 year old track record that has brought great benefit to Scotland, why destroy it for the sake of a few decades of declining oil revenue ?
Seeing the empire as a positive is not a view I've come across often.
Captaining the winning side in two world wars would be news to the USA and USSR. The Soviets were on our side at that time.
If the Union is working so well for us why has the population of Scotland barely changed in the last 100 years? Have you checked what the immediate effect of it was on our trade with the Hanseatic league? Do you look at Ravenscraig and see a Union dividend?
Oil will always decline eventually but do you think best use was made of the previous revenue or could there be another way?
@Pintail, you forgot the Welsh and the Irish. Indeed you only need to look at the bloody history of Ireland, especially the north, to see that the empire, Britishness and Unionism were and are not necessarily beneficial forces for people living in these islands.
If considering voting no on the basis of a nostalgic lie about Britain and the empire's role in the world then maybe a vote for UKIP is the next step? Might be your last chance as independence negotiations could be in full swing by the time of the next UK general election.
"
ENERGY Secretary Ed Davey received a report last week that offers a tantalising £200 billion boost for the UK economy - or the Scottish economy, predominantly, if this country votes yes in the referendum.
"
http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/news/home-news/over-a-barrel.23326195
Of course there is the whole issue of leaving it the ground for 'climate change' reasons.
Some people think it's just there to be exploited.
Others see it as 'a necessary interim to get us to a carbon free future'.
Governments just want the tax revenue to subsidise their wars/roads/'bribes' to the electorate.
Or have wars because of it.
Cw and wfb, don't worry, in the event of a yes vote I'll be out of here and back in my motherland, I don't expect to have any choice in that as I fully expect both mine and my wife's employers to pull out of an indepedent Scotland, taking with them tens of thousands of skilled jobs. Your loss.
Interesting article in the Financial Times today which is pretty bullish about the economic prospects of an independent Scotland. If you're a subscriber you can see it behind the paywall. If not, a précis here:
http://wingsoverscotland.com/unleashing-a-firestorm/
Copy of the full article here though things like graphics links still behind paywall:
I've enjoyed reading the arguments on here greatly. I can see that lots of us are grappling with the same questions.
I've come to the conclusion that I need to look at the question in the context of its being binding on those not yet born - Scotland would likely be independent for another 300 years if we vote 'yes'. This means that I've disregarded all of the personalities involved, as they'll all be dead in fifty or sixty years at most. My main motivation is democracy - which I'd like to see more of. I see the chance to allow our descendants to live in a country with an elected parliament and a written constitution as an absolute minimum. I'd love for that country to be a secular republic as well.
There's no prospect of any movement away from the current medieval political settlement (clerics' seats in parliament - just us and the Islamic Republic of Iran, folks) in the UK, so my vote will be 'yes'. There are uncertainties associated with independence, just as there are with remaining in the UK, but what really worries me are those certainties of remaining in the UK - sclerotic, barely democratic politics that now openly favours London and the rich.
The one set of posts I found a bit worrying are Pintail's. If there are employers that would find even the SNP's 'pro-business' proposals so scary they'd spend miliions relocating to the rUK, I'd be interested to know who they are.
Michelle Mone will be leaving if it's yes.
@wfb, I believe she also threatened to leave Britain if the top rate of income tax was increased. I seem to recall she was leaving Scotland if the SNP got in too, but she's still here. She grew up a Labour voter in Glasgow's East End, but having found success she's now apparently a Conservative and supporter of Cameron. So long then Michelle!
There were scare stories about defence contractors leaving Scotland after a yes vote but these have proved unfounded.
Admittedly some navy personnel will leave with the Trident submarines but I don't see that as a negative.
Andrew Lloyd Webber promised to leave the UK if Labour won in Westminster but he's still here and Ian Dury is dead. There is no justice.
If any one of Standard Life, RBS, or Lloyds-owned Bank of Scotland/Scottish Widows pulled out of Scotland it would it have a severe impact on the Edinburgh/Scottish economy, if all three pulled out it would be devastating. What all three have in common is that 95% of their income comes from customers outside of Scotland. If they considered the political climate of Scotland to be to their disadvantage they'd be off like a shot.
As far as I can see an independent Scotland will have the same type of pro capitalist, pro monarchist, controlled by the Bank of England politicians as there are in Westminster already
This does not thrill me.
I will be voting No
Why would anyone 'pull out' of Scotland? Businesses come to where they can get a well educated, highly skilled, hard working, & relatively inexpensive workforce. All of which we have here, in varying combinations/degrees.
No gembo I don't understand.
You're against the monarchy so you vote to keep us run by a parliament which includes the House of Lords rather than a parliament which does not include lords or bishops.
I can see how Labour might have felt they needed to have members in the Lords in the past, the SNP had the luxury of not accepting elevation, but I really find it difficult to accept the erstwhile peoples party having so many vermin in ermine. They have had the chance to abolish it and didn't. Mr Blair did reform it but by removing some of the hereditary peers he left more space for time served party members.
I know the Queen's speech isn't written by Brenda but there is a strong message in having her open parliament.
"If any one of Standard Life, RBS, or Lloyds-owned Bank of Scotland/Scottish Widows....”
Why would they?
Servicing can be done from different continents, Registered offices can be a PO box in The City so none of this scaremongering is relevant.
Lots of the "informed" debate is by reasonably well educated central belt city dwellers. But many more voters don't fulfil either of those criteria - personally I think it will be a landslide Yes, not telling which way I swing in the debate!
I think the difference between us is that I see the referendum as a vote for the current state of play in Scotland ie the Alexocracy but other more fair and open minded people see it as A sort of romantic (or optimistic) everything will be better because we will be independent type of turkey shoot.
We don't see a yes vote as the same thing. I see it as changing nothing, others see it as more progressive. I see it as a misrepresentation of the truth (Scotland will remain owned by a tiny number of people). Others think it is going to change things.
Offerr me something different and I will vote for it. Nothing Alex salmond has said has suggested to me that anything will be different. Icing on the cake being the monetary union via the Bank of England. Same old same old?
It's not a vote for Mr Salmond.
As far as I'm aware the plan is to assemble a group from all sides of the parliament, and none, to work on what shape government would take after a Yes. This could include people like Dennis Canavan, Henry McLeish and Murdo Fraser.
Now I might not agree with much of what Mr Fraser says but a percentage of people do and I think he had a better plan for the Scottish Tories than Ruth Davidson.
Henry McLeish was brought down by his own but is usually worth listening to.
Dennis Canavan needs no comment from me.
I see possibilities for a better way with Yes. With No then the current settlement is the best we can look for and I don't expect it to be even that good. We will have thrown away our one bargaining chip.
“I know that you cannot live on hope alone, but without it, life is not worth living. And you...And you...And you...Gotta give em hope.”
― Harvey Milk,
@G - I can understand you being pessimistic, but actually voting No is hardly positive if you really want "something different and I will vote for it"!
The White Paper may be Alex's vision and is either 'great', 'uninspiring' or 'doesn't answer the questions' depending on people's points of view.
On the face of it a Yes vote won't change much (with or without being 'allowed' to use the Pound, be in EU, NATO etc.) but it might energise the Greens, Labs and Tories - and perhaps revive the first Holyrood Parliament's mix of other parties/interest groups/independents.
One thing is certain - there is NO guarantee that the SNP will have an overall majority after the next Scottish election.
Also next year's Westminster election will be entertaining. We will live in interesting times - and the Chinese curse needn't apply.
I'm with Harvey Milk.
@Nelly 'scaremongering' as you put it or highlighting risks as I put it is everything in this referendum, there are no hard facts about how an independent Scotland will function, only on the one hand a set of huge risks and on the other a much smaller set of possible benefits, all of them marginal.
I think the idea of aYes suddenly creating conditions for change is erroneous. None of the figures listed are putting forward any vision that is different, as I may have said,the best predictor of future behaviour is current or previous behaviour. Why do the greens need independence? They had a a good start under devolution then faded.
I admire people's hope and optimism I just don't share it.
If you think nothing will change with Yes what have you got to lose?
I saw Patrick Harvie give a speech on this a few months ago. He's pretty much on the hope side of it too. The Greens over played their hand a few budgets ago. They would have more power if there wasn't a majority but they have still played a bigger role here than in Westminster. They might do so again here but in Westminster's FPTP set up their influence will be much more limited.
Does anyone know if there's a handy list anywhere that says which parts of this White Paper are actually intended to be implemented, which are only there not to spook the horses and which are transitional arrangements that might be changed later?
Insto - the White Paper is an unusual document. It is part initial negotiating position for the Scottish Government and part SNP manifesto. Nothing in the White Paper is a cast iron guarantee, as the results will depend on two things (assuming a yes vote):
1. The outcome of negotiations with the UK Government and international institutions.
2. The policies of the first Government of an independent Scotland.
Personally, I think everyone in Scotland is being done a grave disservice by both the yes and no campaigns. The yes campaign is making claims of certainty when the results are unclear, usually because the results will only be clear after negotiations. The no campaign are claiming uncertainty on issues where the way forward is pretty clear (although there may be a modicum of uncertainty).
Mark Carney's speech was interesting - it appeared the yes and no camps heard entirely different speeches. Yes claimed - see currency union is a goer, we told you so. No claimed - currency union, its worse than what you have now. If you read the speech, you can see it effectively steers a middle way through these views.
I know why the campaigns are doing this, but without decent, unbiased information how are people meant to make an informed decision.
Following on, I thought this made interesting reading http://www.holyrood.com/2014/02/bang-on-the-money/
I like Mandy Rhodes - very perceptive. The horses were so calmed by the proposals that when the stable door was opened and the green fields of independence were set before them, they stood in their stalls eating hay.
Tell you what Insto I'll try list the horses the day after Better Together bring our their white paper or the Pope's wedding, whichever comes first.
Of course we live in interesting times with pope related developments so that might be a bit rash.
"
SCOTLAND would find itself “under the Tories forever” if it voted for independence, outspoken MP George Galloway told a rally in Edinburgh.
"
Catman speaks.
"
Away from the rally, Mr Galloway said he would like to be prime minister of an independent Scotland if his bid to convince Scots to vote No failed
"
Mmm
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts