Elizabeth, So you don't like that definition, use Webster's."2 a : a native or inhabitant of Scotlandb : a person of Scottish descent" That said, I don't see how you can object to nationalism creeping into a debate about nationalism. The entire point of the conversation is whether or not Scotland just be a Nation. Nationalism is inherent, and part and parcel to the discussion. You fail to explain why, exactly, the people of a country should not be allowed to decide their fate, in this respect. Shall all citizens of all countries be penalized because Hitler used a certain appeal to German national pride? That's nonsensical.
i remember the quebec votes... unlike those, which featured thinly veiled anti-Semitism and xenophobia (see Parizeau's concession speech), i am happy that scots embraced their decision in mutual respect.
Do enlighten us with your wisdom, how exactly are they not free? as a mere Englishman tell me please how my Country is not free, after all did not they have a real choice? Why do you comment when you clearly have no knowledge?
When will Texas have their referendum for secession? It will be a day worth celebrating for the rest if us Americans. Maybe Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, and several other Teapublicans can move down there and be a part of it.
Westminster will deliver alright. One large dose of Thatcherism coming right up.The amount of disinformation and fear-mongering that went on in all of the UK should make the British ashamed.
Thanks to sct.tv, it proved to be interesting to watch another nation conduct a national election. In the US, we are not granted the capability of holding a national election. Even for president, which elects electors, which elect the president.As the early results started coming in, about 8:00 PM Mountain time, it was quite apparent that a 55% - 45% defeat was apparent. For this election, one district has a 91% turnout; the average was about 85%. By 10:00 PM Mountain, the election was called, as the only area having large support to form a new nation, was around Glasgow.But, while NO won, it does not mean things will stay the same. As a result, of this vote, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and parts of England will get more say and more powers, than the current London centric model. Scots today should be proud that, by not even firing a shot, they enacted change, for the better, in the UK. And it hoped that those who did vote YES will work for a better Scotland and a better UK.
Less than 2% of the population of the UK? decisive?
Decisive? Is that how it worked in the Ukraine and Iraq politics lately? Also, I don't think that logic would have fit the states' rights issues that led to the USA civil war. BTW, slavery was the northern rallying cry but it wasn't the issue for many USA citizens, perhaps the power of the republic over the states was the issue?
The conservative wing in the UK Parliament should not be unhappy with the further concessions promised to the Scots just prior to the vote for or against separation. Now the UK Parliament should have a voting mechanism in which its Scottish members will not have a vote on matters that are exclusive to England. After all, New Yorker Legislators do not have a vote in the Pennsylvania Legislature. The UK is really becoming a federal system and almost a republic if it were not for the Royals.
Well.. with rifle, cannons and bloodshed
Scottish by birth, British by choice.
Great Britain needs a written constitution for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and England.
As a student and recent young voter, it's encouraging to see the amount of younger people getting involved and impassioned by both campaigns. But, what is more encouraging yet, is the amount of coverage this story got. Independent or not, for a moment this relatively quiet nation had taken center stage to deliver a story of family, nationality and democracy that allowed some of us a refreshing escape from all the disorder around the world. If even only for a moment.
I was wondering "what were the separatist thinking'? I cannot imagine such a blundering mistake. "Spitting in the Queens face', I would call it? I have notice that the Royal Bank of Scotland was going to move to London in the even it passed.After speaking my opinion, I would love to find out "for real" who came up with this hideous idea and for what reason.
In the end this might be the best possible outcome for all Scots.I liked the 'Yes' campaign's boldness but I think with its rather shaky foundation their Scotland might just as well have turned into another economic disaster.Although the 'Yes' campaign did not get what they wanted they've shown London and the world that Scots won't tolerate being messed with any longer.British leaders all promised considerable improvements if the Scots would stay in. With so many people disappointed with the result of the vote the British better start delivering because if they don't London will soon have to face all Scots' fury.
As I recalled the discussions were not all that civil and there was plenty of intimidation.
See Mr. Davidson's comments, above, for the viewpoint of the out-of-touch elitist policies and attitude.
You mean like the small romantic minds at Lexington and Concord Mass,?
The BBC website shows the results by district, http://www.bbc.com/news/events/scotland-decides/results. Several items jumped out. The very high turnout during a work week. The issue that was at hand no doubt lead to the high turnout. Using paper ballots, I was very surprised how quick the results started to come in. The Scottish Parliament and people need to hold the UK Parliament and the Prime Minister's office feet to the fire and have them present a timetable for those powers that will devolved to the Scottish people. With 45% of the electorate voting yes, their concerns need to be addressed. Likewise the 55% that voted no, should not gloat.
The ratio of voters to overall population is something we should strive to match.