scot47

One of the reasons to vote YES is that we will then not have the cop-out of blaming London for all our problems !

Or will it be like in the Balkans where any criticism, is met with "You must understand that for 500 years we were enslaved by the Turks."

robin1234

Have the Yes folks come out with a policy about the established church in Scotland? Are they planning disestablishment? Mention of the Turks brought to mind religious arcania....

Lothianlad

As the day of the big vote draws ever closer and closer and closer the harsh realities of what full independence would REALLY mean for Scotland and its people is now having an effect among the voters to be on 18/09/14..added to which is the sheer uncertainty of it all....like one big step into the unknown.

There would be no "coming back" to the UK fold should there be a vote in favour of independence....no chance of a cap in hand Caledonian skulking back to London pleading for re-admittance. What was done was done - as simple as that.

Why is exactly why all the recent polls back home in Scotland are showing a steady increase in the number of committed voters intending to vote NO to independence. By and large Scots are too canny to take a chance against Fate.

No £ sterling, no Bank of England support, no reliance on Westminster, no automatic continuance of EU membership, no guaranteed continuance of Commonwealth status.........nae, far too risky says Jock.

scrubbedexpat099

I would have assumed Scotland would stay in the Commonwealth, no biggie.

Pulaski

And the big one: no one else to blame for your shortcomings.

scrubbedexpat099

Does not work like that, Democrats still blame Bush and I would imagine Obama must be up for 100 years of blame.

smithy76

i am tempted to vote Yes. why can't scotland run itself? maybe it's the Yank in me that thinks that why, but I don't see why it couldn't be successful long term. (besides, success waxes and wanes over time anyway)

i think what bothers me about the debate is that absolutely no one can guarantee anything, whether it be positive or negative. so the vote must be based on your fundamental political beliefs. do you want a gov in edinburgh, or london? are you willing to put the final nail in the coffin of the british empire?

also, voting for independence is NOT a vote for SNP policy. it is very difficult to see the forest through the trees on this since the two often get intertwined.

on a side note, texas wanting to break free is nothing at all like scotland wanting independence. texas is a state in a federalist system. it is not a country. however, scotland is a country which has been tied to others via treaty. totally different. i think of it would be more like western NY wanting to annex NYC, or more like a divorce.......one side is not feeling its needs are being met so it wants to leave. the other half is suddenly realising they actually mean it this time and are begging them to 'please, think of the children' and stay. too little too late perhaps?

neilcumming

I wouldnt bet on it Lad and there as never been a country in the world who has gained independence and "gone back" why the hell would they want to.

AZ_Alba

The established church in Scotland is the Church of Scotland already which is totally different from the Church of England so no change.

Pulaski

It might be a "church" that is "established", and "in Scotland", but that does not make it an "established church".

AZ_Alba

If you check you will find that:

"In the United Kingdom, The Queen's title includes the words 'Defender of the Faith'.

This means Her Majesty has a specific role in both the Church of England and the Church of Scotland.

As established Churches, they are recognised by law as the official Churches of England and Scotland, respectively. In both England and Scotland, the established Churches are subject to the regulation of law. The principle of religious toleration is fully recognised both for those of other creeds and for those without any religious beliefs.

There are no established Churches in Northern Ireland nor in Wales. They were disestablished in 1869 in Northern Ireland and 1920 in Wales. There is no established Church in any Commonwealth country of which The Queen is monarch (i.e. a realm)."

http://www.royal.gov.uk/monarchuk/qu...andchurch.aspx

Pulaski

Well plenty have gone to held in a hand basket post independence, either politically, militarily, or economically, or some combination there of, including most of Latin America from Mexico to Chile and Argentina, most of Africa from Egypt to South Africa, much of which is still engaged in some sort of civil war or one or more terrorist insurgencies. The Middle East from Libya and Egypt to Turkey, Iran, and the Arabian peninsula comprises mostly countries in a state of civil war, endemic terrorist attacks, or religious/ sectarian repression. Asia has fared a little better in its post colonial era, but India has suffered a long-running Maoist insurgency, Burma is emerging from a military regime, and Thailand has had multiple military coups or other interference in domestic politics by the military. Indonesia and the Philippines have both had a history of domestic terrorism, and in the case of Indonesia, a civil war in East Timor. Sri Lanka had a civil war that turned into genocide while the world turned its back. At the human level, for vast numbers of people around the world, the post colonial era has been full of wars, death, and destruction, such that a benign colonial power may have been preferable.

Pulaski

I know what an established church is, so very little of your post is news to me, however I was not aware, nor did my brief Google search reveal, that the Queen is head of the Church of Scotland.

AZ_Alba

you stated:-
this implied that it was the Established Church in Scotland

Also the Queen is not the Head of the Church of Scotland
"In Scotland, there is a division of powers by which Church and State are each supreme in their own sphere. The Church is self-governing in all that concerns its own activities.

Its supreme authority is the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, presided over by a Moderator chosen each year by the Assembly itself.

The monarch takes an oath to preserve the Church of Scotland at the meeting of the Privy Council immediately following his or her accession.

The Crown is represented at the Assembly, sometimes by the monarch in person, but more often by a Lord High Commissioner appointed each year by The Queen. "

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Qu...fScotland.aspx

I suggest you Google or Bing a bit more

Pulaski

No, it does not, I had mistakenly thought that you did not understand what "established" meant in the context of an "established religion". I was referring (mistakenly) to the Church of Scotland being "established" in the common usage of the word, in the same way that McDonalds is established in Scotland (has a substantial and enduring presence), in other words I was thinking that you thought that just because it exists, in Scotland that it is "established".

FWIW, I am slightly confused that the Queen is not the head of the Church of Scotland despite it being "established", so that seems significantly different from the Queen vis a vis the Church of England, but quite frankly I have no further interest in discussing the constitutional minutiae of religion in Scotland.