Seil Chat

Thanks Batwing for your contribution! Yes, I might be a bit mad but not so mad that I am sane enough to know taht unfortunately wars are one of life's certainties. If I knew I was going to hang around long enough to see it, I would put big money on it. Just as I believe there will be war in Europe again, I'm confident one day I'll be proven right. It's an awful thought, but sadly, just reality.

At least Hitler had a plan for a 1000 year Reich before he tilted the world into turmoil. The 'Yes' campaign and the SNP government has no plan beyond Day one. It could all be so wonderful for Hitler but he got it all badly wrong like most short dictators seem to do.

Well Pento you're talking up Hitler again i see, are you sure your surname isn't Mosley
War in Europe well its one of these arguments you excel at if you wait long enough you will be proven right ...................yawn
The sad thing about British wars is its ordinary people like both my grandfathers who end up fighting them, way too many young Scottish men have gone off to fertilize foreign fields with their blood i hope with independence this will not happen again without forethought.

I find your arguments are becoming more and more right wing,anti Scottish and a bit unhinged i mean what was wonderfull about Hitler i mean how far are you willing to go with such sentiment whats even more worrying is that there are people on this forum who seem to agree with you.

I think you'll find that should Scotland become independent many Scottish men and women will still WANT TO go and serve in foreign armies, largely because a Scottish defence force won't give them the adventure they desire.

You can't dispute war will come in Europe sooner or later. You just have to hope it isn't sooner. And Britain in WWI and WWII went to defend its weaker neighbours. The only recent war that has had debateable legitimacy was the one in Iraq.....and there we were led by a left wing socialist government.

I have NEVER been anti-Scottish. I am part Scottish. I don't hate myself (although some may wonder why I don't ).

And my reference to Hitler was in regard to him at least having a plan for Germany's future compared to the lack of any sort of plan or vision for an independent Scotland by the Yes campaigners beyond Day One. It's this lack of vision and a plan which is the single most worrying factor to those being asked to vote for independence. Hitler was able to sweep people along because he had a vision, a plan for 1000 years. The Yes campaigners have offered nothing and as a result popularity for an independent Scotland is falling.

I fear an independent Scotland will be too socialist for its own good. It will need to become more capitalistic to become a prosperous nation and throw off some of the baggage that has held it back in some sectors. Being 'right wing' appears for some to be a dirty word in Scotland, but the reality is that some of these are the people who create jobs and wealth, not just for themselves but also for those that they employ. You can't have a society based on everyone being in public employment unless you want to be some Communist state, and we know what a success communism has been over the years.

If I thought Scotland was going to have such a great future as an independent country I would upsticks and go join the rest of my family there. As it is, every one of them is aiming to vote a big, "NO!" (naturally they are all white, Christian, straight, right wing, non-civil servant, ex-Army, nuclear power loving types who don't live on benefits)

What sectors?

The two biggest: Government.........public services........to start with.

Well I hope you tell the population of Finland that they were wrong to even think about being independemt from both Sweden and Russia next time you ar over in Hanko PP. . . . . . . . . . .

It's a fair point. Modern day Finland has many good things going for it. But it's road to independence was very different. What is now Finland used to be part of Sweden, until Russia took it over by force making that area which we now call Finland a Grand Duchy of Russia. And that was at a time when Russia was a particularly nasty place to be part of. The stresses and strains caused by part of the population being Swedish leaning and the others looking East led to a civil war (no referendum) between the 'reds' and the 'whites'. The bitterness and hatred of opposing sides left no place for democratic discussion on whether or not they should seek independence. Only war would determine the outcome. The 'whites' won and declared independence from Russia (their links with Sweden having been severed by Russia many years before).

Finland has not even been an independent country for 100 years yet, and still Russia threatens it. Russia will not permit Finland to join NATO for instance. For all that you hear which is good about Finland, such as education and healthy lifestyle, you discover they have high rates of alcoholism and one of the highest suicide rates. And they have a heavy reliance on companys like Nokia. They've seen that a small country dependent on a small number of industries can be great when times are good, but the minute people around the world start buying iphones they've ended up with whole towns being devastated by job losses affecting large proportion of the population. The economy can be look very vulnerable.

Finland became independent nearly 100 years ago in a very different world to that being considered by the Scots now. Perhaps if they were still a part of Sweden now, independence might never cross their minds today. And I don't know any Finn's old enough to have lived in the country when it was part of Sweden so I asked: "So, imagining Sweden didn't lose 'Finland' to Russia, and there had never been a White/red civil war, and today you lived and worked in Hanko, part of Sweden, do you think people would feel strongly enough to want to separate from Sweden?"

The frank answer, "That is one tricky question..... I really don’t know!"

Ok, Norway?, should they have remained in union with Sweden, no nastys there......

Well, actually there were. Independence for Norway came as a result of war with Sweden. I must admit I didn't know this previously but the more you dig the more you become aware of how many separate wars there were in Europe in the last 200 years. And I find that somewhat unsettling. It's one reason why many Norwegians look across at Britain and think, "Why do they want to split?" They are at peace, they are a strong nation together....indeed Norway specifically looks to Britain as a close ally, perhaps more so than any other nation. Norway wants to stick close to Britain with its nuclear deterrent and large contribution to NATO. It means Norwegians (so I read) are reluctant to support the case for an independent Scotland. This might explain why Alex Salmond got the cold shoulder there. Indeed I read how there was a move to form a United Kingdom of Scandinavia, Norway, Sweden and Denmark together. There's even a Scandinavian 'national' airline, SAS, created specifically to serve the countries of that union.

What is the point in Scotland separating only to be weaker and more vulnerable? It has peace. It has protection and it has relative freedom. You look at Norway, Sweden, Finland, France, Germany, Spain, the Balkans, Russia: their histories are littered with wars, so many of them lived through by those still alive today. Conflict is inevitable. Is it really worth Scotland fighting for independence now against the reality that it may only be a generation or two before it is taken away again? Who's to say Scotland will not end up with a part of the population bitter at the separation causing so much stress it leads to civil war? And who's to say Scotland might not be taken back by the Auld Enemy by force? Is that really such a proposterous thing to suggest?

What''s so wrong with living the way we do together? Who doesn't appreciate what we already have? Who's glass is half full, and who's is always half empty? The world remains baffled as to why some in Scotland would want to break up the UK. There's no support from Norway.

Ok, Iceland?

Yes, Iceland is different in so many ways. With only cod wars in its recent history it's main toil since independence has been its financial crisis. You only have to read this to see the pain the country is going through, and wonder what pain an independent Scotland would have suffered with the Royal Bank of Scotland and HBOS disasters. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20936685 If it wasn't for the rest of the UK Scotland would be in desperate trouble.

So where next? How about Germany? Oh no, they wanted to re-unify again and are now richer and stronger for it!

.
Oh yes, Iceland is really toiling . . . 2.5% growth and unemployment at 5%

Yes, but that's only one side of the coin and 2.5% growth from what starting point?. You don't acknowledge the price they are paying for the calamity of the past

Pentlandpirate wrote:Yes, but that's only one side of the coin and 2.5% growth from what starting point?. You don't acknowledge the price they are paying for the calamity of the past

Same calamity as us, better outcome. What's to acknowledge?

If their economy shrank to half what it was before the crisis, how long is it going to take at 2.5% growth year on year to get back to where they were before the crisis? And if you read the article you would find that ordinary Icelanders are having to pay twice as much back on loans and mortgages as they were so that someone who owed, say, £ 20,000 now owes £ 40,000 as well as also having to pay vastly more in taxes. An independent Scotland would have been devastated by the RBS and HBOS fiasco in the banking crisis.

They let the failed banks go to the wall and now have come out the other side without their citizens paying off bailout debts

Iceland’s bin subsidising it’s economy by overexploiting our shared Mackerel resource…it’ll be interesting to see how their growth is affected when this is gone…

Aye your right but iceland doesnt have a history of over exploiting their fish stocks and they would argue that their marine research are telling them they can do this they have the choice to make decisions that suit them.

Dont tell me after all your posts about our ssottish culture and about being local your getting cold feet its young people like you who have the most to gain out of independence

I would like to take exception to one of Pentland Pirate's assertion that war within Europe in the future is inevitable.
Ware are caused primarily by dictators, presidents, and to a lesser extent by prime ministers.
Currently it is inconceiveable that there might be armed conflict between any of the 26 members of the European Union.
They may not agree on a lot, but their differences are sorted out by diplomacy and negotiation.
Admittedly these regular junkets to try and sort out their problems, by dignitaries and their retinue are a burden on the taxpayer, but this is but a small price to pay compared to armed conflict.
There are those who decry all that the EU has achieved since it's inception, but there are retirees living in our midst who have never experienced a European war between member states, or civil war within, and this is probably the first time in history that this has been possible.

It is true that the EU and NATO have helped to keep the EU at peace. So it is worth bearing in mind that an independent Scotland is not guaranteed membership of either. At the moment Scotland is part of a nation strong enough to protect itself.