Same applies to Scotland, in that it's worth paying to be free of the neverending drain on the economy.
Primitive tribes and their myths #244
Revenue raised per person in Scotland 2011-12 £11,079 Revenue raised per person in UK 2011-12 £9,342
Scots get £10,152 spent on them per person by Westminster, compared to £8,529 for the English, £9,709 for the Welsh and £10,876 for those living in Northern Ireland.
The Court Martial Appeal Court (Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd CJ, Tugendhat & Holroyde JJ) will tomorrow hear applications for leave to appeal by Marines "A" to "E" against rulings of the Judge-Advocate General to revoke anonymity orders.
Same applies to Scotland, in that it's worth paying to be free of the neverending drain on the economy.
Primitive tribes and their myths #244
Revenue raised per person in Scotland 2011-12 £11,079 Revenue raised per person in UK 2011-12 £9,342
Scots get £10,152 spent on them per person by Westminster, compared to £8,529 for the English, £9,709 for the Welsh and £10,876 for those living in Northern Ireland.
When the Plebgate saga first blew up, no-one could have imagined that there would be an Act 2 involving one policeman charged, 5 facing internal disciplinary proceedings and 3 hauled before a Parliamentary Committee because their evidence was viewed as generally worthless.
And we have Act 3 yet to come.
Whatever the details, the police have come out of this looking very bad, much worse than anyone could reasonably have supposed at the time when all the sympathy was with public servants being sworn at by a wicked Tory toff for doing their jobs.
Andrew Mitchell and his friends should simply shut up now.
The CCTV footage was obtained by Andrew Mitchell from Downing Street and provided to Dispatches and Channel 4 News. The footage as broadcast for the first time on 18th December 2012 was not edited by the production team to change or alter the sequence of events. Furthermore the three camera angles that we were provided with were image-matched frame by frame to confirm their veracity. We stand fully behind this investigation.”
The CCTV footage was obtained by Andrew Mitchell from Downing Street and provided to Dispatches and Channel 4 News. The footage as broadcast for the first time on 18th December 2012 was not edited by the production team to change or alter the sequence of events. Furthermore the three camera angles that we were provided with were image-matched frame by frame to confirm their veracity. We stand fully behind this investigation.”
When the Plebgate saga first blew up, no-one could have imagined that there would be an Act 2 involving one policeman charged, 5 facing internal disciplinary proceedings and 3 hauled before a Parliamentary Committee because their evidence was viewed as generally worthless.
And we have Act 3 yet to come.
Whatever the details, the police have come out of this looking very bad, much worse than anyone could reasonably have supposed at the time when all the sympathy was with public servants being sworn at by a wicked Tory toff for doing their jobs.
Andrew Mitchell and his friends should simply shut up now.
The CPS statement claims that:
There is information, but no admissible evidence, which suggests that an officer's partner contacted the media, introducing the word "morons" into the press. However, that person is not a public officer and therefore cannot be considered for an offence of misconduct in public office.
Sorry, but by rejoining the EU, Scotland, as a new entrant would have to join the Euro,replacing Westminster by Bruge. What independence?
Can you tell me when Sweden is going to 'have' to adopt the Euro?
The next time Sweden applies to join the EU, having left it.
Next question.
Scotland is not a member of the EU, any more than Yorkshire, Bavaria or Sicily. It is within the EU but not a member as only the 28 states are members. If Scotland becomes independent of the UK, it becomes a new state in international law. It would have to apply to join the EU the same as any other aspirant (though a shadow government could do so pre-independence); a process subject to agreement of the existing members.
The EU realised their mistake re Sweden and its practical opt-out and announced nearly a decade ago that all future EU members would have to sign up to join the Euro.
'Arnie Graf is a bigger threat to his opponents than Lynton Crosby, discuss:'
Apparently he gives invaluable advice about not treading in the dog poo when your out campaigning,but others are not so impressed.
'Why I'd sack Arnie Graf | Hopi Sen hopisen.com/2013/why-id-sack-arnie-graf/ 30 Jul 2013 - Arnie Graf sounds like a lovely, genuine, moral man. He's been involved in some truly inspiring campaigns and deserves heartfelt applause for ...
Ian McKie was selected as UKIP's candidate for the Isle of Wight in July.
The local association held a meeting a few days ago to decide whether to stand aside in favour of Tory MP Andrew Turner but voted overwhelmingly against:
When the Plebgate saga first blew up, no-one could have imagined that there would be an Act 2 involving one policeman charged, 5 facing internal disciplinary proceedings and 3 hauled before a Parliamentary Committee because their evidence was viewed as generally worthless.
And we have Act 3 yet to come.
Whatever the details, the police have come out of this looking very bad, much worse than anyone could reasonably have supposed at the time when all the sympathy was with public servants being sworn at by a wicked Tory toff for doing their jobs.
Andrew Mitchell and his friends should simply shut up now.
I concluded at the time that the police were lying and said so - in as far as was permissable within the libel laws given that at that point the only evidence was circumstantial - here:
If Scotland becomes independent of the UK, it becomes a new state in international law. It would have to apply to join the EU the same as any other aspirant (though a shadow government could do so pre-independence); a process subject to agreement of the existing members.
The EU realised their mistake re Sweden and its practical opt-out and announced nearly a decade ago that all future EU members would have to sign up to join the Euro.
What does 'international law' tell us about 5m EU citizens already living in Scotland? Would they be re-classified as aspirant citizens who would have to re-apply??
If Scotland becomes independent of the UK, it becomes a new state in international law. It would have to apply to join the EU the same as any other aspirant (though a shadow government could do so pre-independence); a process subject to agreement of the existing members.
The EU realised their mistake re Sweden and its practical opt-out and announced nearly a decade ago that all future EU members would have to sign up to join the Euro.
What does 'international law' tell us about 5m EU citizens already living in Scotland? Would they be re-classified as aspirant citizens who would have to re-apply??
Those 5m citizens will have just voted to separate from the UK, and cause significant political upheaval to themselves. They will have to accept all the effects from that; not just the bits they want.
If Scotland becomes independent of the UK, it becomes a new state in international law. It would have to apply to join the EU the same as any other aspirant (though a shadow government could do so pre-independence); a process subject to agreement of the existing members.
The EU realised their mistake re Sweden and its practical opt-out and announced nearly a decade ago that all future EU members would have to sign up to join the Euro.
What does 'international law' tell us about 5m EU citizens already living in Scotland? Would they be re-classified as aspirant citizens who would have to re-apply??
Those 5m citizens will have just voted to separate from the UK, and cause significant political upheaval to themselves. They will have to accept all the effects from that; not just the bits they want.
It wasn't a rhetorical question. Do you have an answer to it, or just fearmongering guff (that probably is a rhetorical question tbf)?
What does 'international law' tell us about 5m EU citizens already living in Scotland? Would they be re-classified as aspirant citizens who would have to re-apply??
Well, Scotland would have to re-apply, but they'd cease to be 'citizens' of the EU because there's no such thing except in the loose sense of being a citizen of an EU country. Even if there were, it would be like people living in Algeria, who ceased to be citizens of France in 1962.
In practice what would happen is that Scotland would be given some special status as an interim EU member pending final negotiation of the details of become a fully-fledged member, on terms to be agreed. Scotland's bargaining position wouldn't be very strong in such a negotiation, of course.
Uniondivvie: "What does 'international law' tell us about 5m EU citizens already living in Scotland? Would they be re-classified as aspirant citizens who would have to re-apply??"
Yes.
Or more accurately, they'd lose their EU citizenship if the state they were citizens of ceased to be a member but would regain it (or retain it) if a newly independent country became an EU member state in its own right.
Am I right in thinking that, according to this, and other SNP pronouncements, that the EU cannot force an Independent Scotland to adopt the Euro, but an Independent Scotland can force the remainder of the UK into a currency union with an Independent Scotland and force the Bank of England to act as a lender of last resort for an Independent Scotland?
What does 'international law' tell us about 5m EU citizens already living in Scotland? Would they be re-classified as aspirant citizens who would have to re-apply??
Well, Scotland would have to re-apply, but they'd cease to be 'citizens' of the EU because there's no such thing except in the loose sense of being a citizen of an EU country. Even if there were, it would be like people living in Algeria, who ceased to be citizens of France in 1962.
In practice what would happen is that Scotland would be given some special status as an interim EU member pending final negotiation of the details of become a fully-fledged member, on terms to be agreed. Scotland's bargaining position wouldn't be very strong in such a negotiation, of course.
Am I right in thinking that, according to this, and other SNP pronouncements, that the EU cannot force an Independent Scotland to adopt the Euro, but an Independent Scotland can force the remainder of the UK into a currency union with an Independent Scotland and force the Bank of England to act as a lender of last resort for an Independent Scotland?
Yours
Genuinely perplexed.
Yes, and that's because Scotland would be leaving the UK, but joining the EU, so the circumstances are different.
Am I right in thinking that, according to this, and other SNP pronouncements, that the EU cannot force an Independent Scotland to adopt the Euro, but an Independent Scotland can force the remainder of the UK into a currency union with an Independent Scotland and force the Bank of England to act as a lender of last resort for an Independent Scotland?
Yours
Genuinely perplexed.
Yes, and that's because Scotland would be leaving the UK, but joining the EU, so the circumstances are different.
Is that clearer now?
I think it was Edmund who came up with the elegant solution to all of this.
An Independent Scotland is the successor state, and remains in the EU, whilst it is the rest of the UK that leaves the Union, and thus the EU.
The tabloids will be dominated tomorrow morning by a truly horrific story. The fact that it involves a minor celebrity will scarcely increase the level of coverage.
The tabloids will be dominated tomorrow morning by a truly horrific story. The fact that it involves a minor celebrity will scarcely increase the level of coverage.
It does seem I was wrong about one thing. Q 542 is: "If Scotland votes for independence, would Scots be eligible to vote in the 2015 UK General Elections?
Yes. Sovereignty will be fully exercised by the people of Scotland from the point Scotland becomes independent on 24 March 2016. Until that point, the people of Scotland must be represented politically at the UK level. Scotland will therefore elect MPs to Westminster to represent Scotland up until the date of independence."
Of course the white paper is also clear that all negotiations are to be conducted by the Scottish Government based in Holyrood. And what these elected MPs will be allowed to vote on will not be a question for the Scottish Government.
In theory, however, we might have a Labour majority in the Commons based on Scottish MPs. Would it really be thought to be acceptable for Ed to push through legislation in England using their votes? I presume that the Coalition would want to fix this before the election in the event of a yes vote. It really should have been fixed already of course.
You can tell there's a state of Emergency in Bangkok tonight.
The hookers have lowered their prices by 5%.
Tough times.
Have you stayed at the Sivatel? I'm getting a ridiculous cheap price for a 7 day stay there on LastMinute.com but I'm thinking there must be some sort of catch. Maybe they're doing renovations on it at the moment or something like that.
... In theory, however, we might have a Labour majority in the Commons based on Scottish MPs [after a Yes vote but before independence]. Would it really be thought to be acceptable for Ed to push through legislation in England using their votes? I presume that the Coalition would want to fix this before the election in the event of a yes vote. It really should have been fixed already of course.
It could already be stopped by the Lords, who could hold it up for a year - long enough to delay it until after independence at which point Miliband would lose his majority.
Surely if the Jocks go our national flag will be a white background with two red crosses on it - the vertical /horizontal English one and the diagonal saltire one of Wales. ie Union Jack minus the blue. We could of course have a competition to design a completely new one. I suspect Prime Minister Miliband would favour a bright red background with a yellow hammer and sickle or something like that.
Also the Scots would presumably join the Commonwealth, in which case they'd have a little Union Jack in the corner of theirs. They can't keep the Scottish flag in the Union Jack or it'll cause recursion issues.
Canada's flag doesn't have a little Union Jack in the corner. Neither does Jamaica's, India's, Kenya's, South Africa's, Cyprus's, Malta's, Malaysia's or Singapore's. So, why would the Scottish flag need one?
Surely if the Jocks go our national flag will be a white background with two red crosses on it - the vertical /horizontal English one and the diagonal saltire one of Wales. ie Union Jack minus the blue. We could of course have a competition to design a completely new one. I suspect Prime Minister Miliband would favour a bright red background with a yellow hammer and sickle or something like that.
Also the Scots would presumably join the Commonwealth, in which case they'd have a little Union Jack in the corner of theirs. They can't keep the Scottish flag in the Union Jack or it'll cause recursion issues.
Canada's flag doesn't have a little Union Jack in the corner. Neither does Jamaica's, India's, Kenya's, South Africa's, Cyprus's, Malta's, Malaysia's or Singapore's. So, why would the Scottish flag need one?
Am out, has Mitchell been cleared, nailed or what? The prosecution seems the bare minimum the police were looking at? Tim, ask cammo to settle this once and for all as you've said all along he knew the true story? Thx
The tabloids will be dominated tomorrow morning by a truly horrific story. The fact that it involves a minor celebrity will scarcely increase the level of coverage.
My FB page is already full of comments about it. Watkins is the same age as me, born a couple of miles away.
Completely shocking story. And the mothers provided their babies for him to *%^&*&&** Bananas.
It will dominate the news. It is a spectacularly horrifying story. And the guy at the world at his feet too.
Would it really be thought to be acceptable for Ed to push through legislation in England using their votes?
Ed would have a tough time explaining to the English electorate in April 2015 why his party was campaigning to represent the voters of a foreign country at the westminster parliament of May 2015.
A very very tough time.
Indeed, If Scotland voted for independence he'd probably have to stop campaigning in Scotland, if he didn't want labour to be dubbed the party standing up for chippy foreigners.
18.9% is laughably low. Are the regular punters seeing something that I am not? I wish it was that clear cut, and even assuming I am unduly pessimistic about the Union's chances, it feels like more people should be backing the 'Yes' horse than this.
I really don't understand Salmond's document when it comes to currency issues. I know why he has said to keep the pound, changing everyone's savings into McPounds after independence would lead to a big capital flight to rUK, but to just blithely say that the BoE would remain lender of last resort to Scots banks is risible. Anyone who does even an ounce of critical thinking about the subject will put holes in it all. Also, it doesn't make sense for an independent Scotland to have the BoE involved in their affairs as they will insist on fiscal oversight and independence is less independent.
Also, the unionist side/Treasury/BoE can just produce a document which rules out a "Sterling zone" which will force Salmond to say they will use it unilaterally like all of the countries that use USD. An expensive prospect.
Only one person charged re Plebgate? Seems low given the sheer number investigated and the number of people surely involved in spreading the false information, although the bit about the 'unedited' CCTV was interesting.
There not being a 'conspiracy' does not seem shocking either, depending on how they define it - it seems more likely that several people lied about the incident (even the CPS concede one person clearly did, the guy who was not actually there but who claimed to be) and a bunch of others took advantage of the situation for their own reasons. Regardless of conpiracy or not, Mitchell lost his job because of police misconduct, and that is not even counting the absurd political behaviour of the police federation.
If Scotland votes for independence, why would they be taking part in the 2015 UK general election?
Well I presume the negotations for a formal end to the relationship might not be concluded by 2015, so they'd still need representatives to ensure Westminster does not pass anything untoward before the official breakup, and because they'd still need representation in London until that final end? Perhaps they could vote to extend the current list of Scottish MPs from 2015 to 2016 (or whenever the official handover will be? Makes more sense than voting in a new batch of MPs for what would end up being a single year.
18.9% is laughably low. Are the regular punters seeing something that I am not? I wish it was that clear cut, and even assuming I am unduly pessimistic about the Union's chances, it feels like more people should be backing the 'Yes' horse than this.
If you believe the Opinion Polls 18.9% is ridiculously high, which is perhaps why 96% of bets are apparently with regular bookies on No.
Surely if the Jocks go our national flag will be a white background with two red crosses on it - the vertical /horizontal English one and the diagonal saltire one of Wales. ie Union Jack minus the blue. We could of course have a competition to design a completely new one. I suspect Prime Minister Miliband would favour a bright red background with a yellow hammer and sickle or something like that.
Also the Scots would presumably join the Commonwealth, in which case they'd have a little Union Jack in the corner of theirs. They can't keep the Scottish flag in the Union Jack or it'll cause recursion issues.
Canada's flag doesn't have a little Union Jack in the corner. Neither does Jamaica's, India's, Kenya's, South Africa's, Cyprus's, Malta's, Malaysia's or Singapore's. So, why would the Scottish flag need one?
Fiji has one despite being a republic.
Some Commonwealth flags have a little Union Jack in the corner. The vast majority don't:
"Mitchell lost his job because of police misconduct"
Mitchell lost his job because his enemies in the Tory Party were determined that he would lose his job.
They only got the opportunity they did thanks to police misconduct. Would his enemies have seen him gone for some other reason eventually? It's possible, but we have to look at specifics, and he lost his job because of the circumstances that plebgate provided, and that happened because of police misconduct.
To argue otherwise would be like saying a Labour shadow minister forced to resign because of a smear that, down the line, turned out to be untrue, didn't lose his job because of the smear but because of no-one in his party backing him up. It would be a major factor, but it wouldn't have happened in the way it did without the smear.
If Scotland becomes independent of the UK, it becomes a new state in international law. It would have to apply to join the EU the same as any other aspirant (though a shadow government could do so pre-independence); a process subject to agreement of the existing members.
The EU realised their mistake re Sweden and its practical opt-out and announced nearly a decade ago that all future EU members would have to sign up to join the Euro.
What does 'international law' tell us about 5m EU citizens already living in Scotland? Would they be re-classified as aspirant citizens who would have to re-apply??
International Law is crystal clear and the answer is yes. Merely living in the EU doesn't give you EU citizenship (or illegal immigrants and other migrants would automatically be citizens). Furthermore EU citizenship does not exist independent of other nations citizenship.
If a British citizen was to recant his citizenship of this nation in order to become a citizen of the USA then he automatically loses his EU citizenship. That already happens.
If Scots decide to recant their British citizenship then they would automatically lose EU citizenship unless and until Scotland is a member nation in its own right.
The whiite paper also wants English students to continue to pay fees at Scottish Unis whilst Germans and French study free.
Justification ?
Doesn't matter what they want, that would be against EU law. It's the reason that British universities educate Europe's elite for free right now.
A lot of this just seems unrealistic and glosses over all of the downsides as if they don't exist and the financial side (ignoring the currency stuff) just seems to be "OIL" with little other real thought.
I believe an independent Scotland can work, but if this is the outline then it won't.
One problem with the Met is that it still seems to be dominated by white British men in a city where they only make up about 20% of the population. Maybe it needs to become a little more diverse.
"Met police will fast track gifted ethnic and female recruits":
Surely if the Jocks go our national flag will be a white background with two red crosses on it - the vertical /horizontal English one and the diagonal saltire one of Wales. ie Union Jack minus the blue. We could of course have a competition to design a completely new one. I suspect Prime Minister Miliband would favour a bright red background with a yellow hammer and sickle or something like that.
Also the Scots would presumably join the Commonwealth, in which case they'd have a little Union Jack in the corner of theirs. They can't keep the Scottish flag in the Union Jack or it'll cause recursion issues.
Canada's flag doesn't have a little Union Jack in the corner. Neither does Jamaica's, India's, Kenya's, South Africa's, Cyprus's, Malta's, Malaysia's or Singapore's. So, why would the Scottish flag need one?
Fiji has one despite being a republic.
Some Commonwealth flags have a little Union Jack in the corner. The vast majority don't:
"Mitchell lost his job because of police misconduct"
Mitchell lost his job because his enemies in the Tory Party were determined that he would lose his job.
You're such a troll sometimes and its not what you were saying at the time. Cameron could have asked Mitchell for his resignation on the day this story came out but he didn't. He was backed for weeks which you criticised at the time. In the end the common rule in politics of if you "become the story" meant he had to resign, despite as we now know the story being fabricated.
It was as we now know lies and fabrication and gross misconduct from the Police that led to Mitchell losing his job. Not his party which backed him for weeks through the storm.
Utterly OT although there's both politics and some potential betting involved:
The Lords & Commons XI cricket team will be playing in Gib next month. Their record since 1850 is here.
A Gibraltar Cricket President’s XI will take on a Lords & Commons XI at the Victoria Stadium on Saturday 7th December. This 40 overs per side match against the distinguished guests is scheduled to commence at 11am and it is to hoped that the weather will be obliging with the game just over 3 weeks before Christmas.
Surely if the Jocks go our national flag will be a white background with two red crosses on it - the vertical /horizontal English one and the diagonal saltire one of Wales. ie Union Jack minus the blue. We could of course have a competition to design a completely new one. I suspect Prime Minister Miliband would favour a bright red background with a yellow hammer and sickle or something like that.
Also the Scots would presumably join the Commonwealth, in which case they'd have a little Union Jack in the corner of theirs. They can't keep the Scottish flag in the Union Jack or it'll cause recursion issues.
Canada's flag doesn't have a little Union Jack in the corner. Neither does Jamaica's, India's, Kenya's, South Africa's, Cyprus's, Malta's, Malaysia's or Singapore's. So, why would the Scottish flag need one?
Fiji has one despite being a republic.
Some Commonwealth flags have a little Union Jack in the corner. The vast majority don't:
Surely if the Jocks go our national flag will be a white background with two red crosses on it - the vertical /horizontal English one and the diagonal saltire one of Wales. ie Union Jack minus the blue. We could of course have a competition to design a completely new one. I suspect Prime Minister Miliband would favour a bright red background with a yellow hammer and sickle or something like that.
Also the Scots would presumably join the Commonwealth, in which case they'd have a little Union Jack in the corner of theirs. They can't keep the Scottish flag in the Union Jack or it'll cause recursion issues.
Canada's flag doesn't have a little Union Jack in the corner. Neither does Jamaica's, India's, Kenya's, South Africa's, Cyprus's, Malta's, Malaysia's or Singapore's. So, why would the Scottish flag need one?
Fiji has one despite being a republic.
Some Commonwealth flags have a little Union Jack in the corner. The vast majority don't:
Surely if the Jocks go our national flag will be a white background with two red crosses on it - the vertical /horizontal English one and the diagonal saltire one of Wales. ie Union Jack minus the blue. We could of course have a competition to design a completely new one. I suspect Prime Minister Miliband would favour a bright red background with a yellow hammer and sickle or something like that.
Also the Scots would presumably join the Commonwealth, in which case they'd have a little Union Jack in the corner of theirs. They can't keep the Scottish flag in the Union Jack or it'll cause recursion issues.
Canada's flag doesn't have a little Union Jack in the corner. Neither does Jamaica's, India's, Kenya's, South Africa's, Cyprus's, Malta's, Malaysia's or Singapore's. So, why would the Scottish flag need one?
Fiji has one despite being a republic.
Some Commonwealth flags have a little Union Jack in the corner. The vast majority don't:
It was Edmund in Tokyo's inference that the Scottish flag would be required to have one which I was responding to. There is no such requirement.
I'm more concerned about what the rUK flag will look like to be honest. I'm a big fan of that shade of blue; not enough colour in it without that.
Given the original Union Flag was created nearly a century before the Act of Union and given that for nearly the last century the Irish component of the flag is still there despite the Free State/Republic being independent ... I see no reason to need to drop the blue.
Surely if the Jocks go our national flag will be a white background with two red crosses on it - the vertical /horizontal English one and the diagonal saltire one of Wales. ie Union Jack minus the blue. We could of course have a competition to design a completely new one. I suspect Prime Minister Miliband would favour a bright red background with a yellow hammer and sickle or something like that.
Also the Scots would presumably join the Commonwealth, in which case they'd have a little Union Jack in the corner of theirs. They can't keep the Scottish flag in the Union Jack or it'll cause recursion issues.
Canada's flag doesn't have a little Union Jack in the corner. Neither does Jamaica's, India's, Kenya's, South Africa's, Cyprus's, Malta's, Malaysia's or Singapore's. So, why would the Scottish flag need one?
Fiji has one despite being a republic.
Some Commonwealth flags have a little Union Jack in the corner. The vast majority don't:
It was Edmund in Tokyo's inference that the Scottish flag would be required to have one which I was responding to. There is no such requirement.
I'm more concerned about what the rUK flag will look like to be honest. I'm a big fan of that shade of blue; not enough colour in it without that.
The flag of England is the St George's Cross. Always has been, always will be.
It is a classic among the flags of the world, and you ought to be proud of it. It amazes me how many English people seem so eager to try to throw away the entire heritage of their nation.
Also, the unionist side/Treasury/BoE can just produce a document which rules out a "Sterling zone" which will force Salmond to say they will use it unilaterally like all of the countries that use USD.
If Scots decide to recant their British citizenship then they would automatically lose EU citizenship unless and until Scotland is a member nation in its own right.
If Scots decide to recant their British citizenship then they would automatically lose EU citizenship unless and until Scotland is a member nation in its own right.
Utterly OT although there's both politics and some potential betting involved:
The Lords & Commons XI cricket team will be playing in Gib next month. Their record since 1850 is here.
A Gibraltar Cricket President’s XI will take on a Lords & Commons XI at the Victoria Stadium on Saturday 7th December. This 40 overs per side match against the distinguished guests is scheduled to commence at 11am and it is to hoped that the weather will be obliging with the game just over 3 weeks before Christmas.
Surely if the Jocks go our national flag will be a white background with two red crosses on it - the vertical /horizontal English one and the diagonal saltire one of Wales. ie Union Jack minus the blue. We could of course have a competition to design a completely new one. I suspect Prime Minister Miliband would favour a bright red background with a yellow hammer and sickle or something like that.
Also the Scots would presumably join the Commonwealth, in which case they'd have a little Union Jack in the corner of theirs. They can't keep the Scottish flag in the Union Jack or it'll cause recursion issues.
Canada's flag doesn't have a little Union Jack in the corner. Neither does Jamaica's, India's, Kenya's, South Africa's, Cyprus's, Malta's, Malaysia's or Singapore's. So, why would the Scottish flag need one?
Fiji has one despite being a republic.
Some Commonwealth flags have a little Union Jack in the corner. The vast majority don't:
It was Edmund in Tokyo's inference that the Scottish flag would be required to have one which I was responding to. There is no such requirement.
I'm more concerned about what the rUK flag will look like to be honest. I'm a big fan of that shade of blue; not enough colour in it without that.
The flag of England is the St George's Cross. Always has been, always will be.
It is a classic among the flags of the world, and you ought to be proud of it. It amazes me how many English people seem so eager to try to throw away the entire heritage of their nation.
rUK != England
Unless Wales and Northern Ireland leave too then the Union Flag would still be relevant. And could stick with the blue even if Scotland leaves, just like it had it before the Act of Union.
Also, the unionist side/Treasury/BoE can just produce a document which rules out a "Sterling zone" which will force Salmond to say they will use it unilaterally like all of the countries that use USD.
I'll take a bet that they won't.
They will in the event of a yes vote. The rUk voters will demand it.
Surely if the Jocks go our national flag will be a white background with two red crosses on it - the vertical /horizontal English one and the diagonal saltire one of Wales. ie Union Jack minus the blue. We could of course have a competition to design a completely new one. I suspect Prime Minister Miliband would favour a bright red background with a yellow hammer and sickle or something like that.
Also the Scots would presumably join the Commonwealth, in which case they'd have a little Union Jack in the corner of theirs. They can't keep the Scottish flag in the Union Jack or it'll cause recursion issues.
Canada's flag doesn't have a little Union Jack in the corner. Neither does Jamaica's, India's, Kenya's, South Africa's, Cyprus's, Malta's, Malaysia's or Singapore's. So, why would the Scottish flag need one?
Fiji has one despite being a republic.
Some Commonwealth flags have a little Union Jack in the corner. The vast majority don't:
It was Edmund in Tokyo's inference that the Scottish flag would be required to have one which I was responding to. There is no such requirement.
I'm more concerned about what the rUK flag will look like to be honest. I'm a big fan of that shade of blue; not enough colour in it without that.
Would Scotland object to the current UK flag continuing to be used?
After Scottish independence the English will, after a period of trauma, need to move on. Hard to do that while still flying their neighbour's colours. It would be like Denmark still flying the cross of the Kalmar Union and pretending that they still ruled Norway, Iceland, Sweden and Finland.
Eventually, the kings of England stopped pretending that they were also kings of France, and the fleur de lys disappeared from their arms.
If Scots decide to recant their British citizenship then they would automatically lose EU citizenship unless and until Scotland is a member nation in its own right.
Stuart Dickson The flag of England is the St George's Cross. Always has been, always will be.
It is a classic among the flags of the world, and you ought to be proud of it. It amazes me how many English people seem so eager to try to throw away the entire heritage of their nation.
That's not it at all. I'm immensely proud of the English flag and English nation; I just happen to think it is improved even further with the merger with Scotland, Wales and NI. Enhanced by association if you will.
That I love the Union does not mean I am ashamed of or wish to throw away my separate English heritage, it just makes me sad that the Union is not regarded as fit for purpose or appealing by so many Scots (and many in England too, probably even more than in Wales).
I'm a little amazed that you would assume I wanted to throw away my English heritage because I have love for the Union. I know it is not the done thing thesedays to see oneself as English and British, just as I respect that (unfortunately from my perspective) many Scots do not feel Scottish and British (except in a strictly geographical sense), but there are some of us left.
Also, the unionist side/Treasury/BoE can just produce a document which rules out a "Sterling zone" which will force Salmond to say they will use it unilaterally like all of the countries that use USD.
I'll take a bet that they won't.
Betting on David Cameron doing good politics? No thanks. I just said they can, not that they would.
Surely if the Jocks go our national flag will be a white background with two red crosses on it - the vertical /horizontal English one and the diagonal saltire one of Wales. ie Union Jack minus the blue. We could of course have a competition to design a completely new one. I suspect Prime Minister Miliband would favour a bright red background with a yellow hammer and sickle or something like that.
Also the Scots would presumably join the Commonwealth, in which case they'd have a little Union Jack in the corner of theirs. They can't keep the Scottish flag in the Union Jack or it'll cause recursion issues.
Canada's flag doesn't have a little Union Jack in the corner. Neither does Jamaica's, India's, Kenya's, South Africa's, Cyprus's, Malta's, Malaysia's or Singapore's. So, why would the Scottish flag need one?
Fiji has one despite being a republic.
Some Commonwealth flags have a little Union Jack in the corner. The vast majority don't:
It was Edmund in Tokyo's inference that the Scottish flag would be required to have one which I was responding to. There is no such requirement.
I'm more concerned about what the rUK flag will look like to be honest. I'm a big fan of that shade of blue; not enough colour in it without that.
Would Scotland object to the current UK flag continuing to be used?
After Scottish independence the English will, after a period of trauma, need to move on. Hard to do that while still flying their neighbour's colours. It would be like Denmark still flying the cross of the Kalmar Union and pretending that they still ruled Norway, Iceland, Sweden and Finland.
Eventually, the kings of England stopped pretending that they were also kings of France, and the fleur de lys disappeared from their arms.
The UK flag is a key brand, mostly (internationally) associated with London.
After Scottish independence the English will, after a period of trauma, need to move on. Hard to do that while still flying their neighbour's colours. It would be like Denmark still flying the cross of the Kalmar Union and pretending that they still ruled Norway, Iceland, Sweden and Finland.
Eventually, the kings of England stopped pretending that they were also kings of France, and the fleur de lys disappeared from their arms.
Also hard to move on whilst still using the former country's currency isn't it?
After Scottish independence the English will, after a period of trauma, need to move on. Hard to do that while still flying their neighbour's colours. It would be like Denmark still flying the cross of the Kalmar Union and pretending that they still ruled Norway, Iceland, Sweden and Finland.
Eventually, the kings of England stopped pretending that they were also kings of France, and the fleur de lys disappeared from their arms.
The Union Flag has had the diagonal cross for Ireland for nearly a century since the Republic became independent. Furthermore it is in the top-left corner of many independent nations like Australia and New Zealand.
Flags represent history as much as present facts and that will not change with the departure of a nation that joined with England in the Act of Union nearly a century after the creation of the Union Flag.
If Scots decide to recant their British citizenship then they would automatically lose EU citizenship unless and until Scotland is a member nation in its own right.
The whiite paper also wants English students to continue to pay fees at Scottish Unis whilst Germans and French study free.
Justification ?
If Scotland becomes independent then English students would, as a matter of EU law, be in exactly the same position as French students and therefore would need to be treated equally. So either all would pay fees or none would.
It is only the fact that Scotland is part of the UK which permits the Scots to charge English students but not other EU students.
I'm generally agnostic about the Scottish question. On balance I tend to favour countries being in charge of their own destinies and if the Scots want to do this good luck to them. I'm sure they can do well.
But when I read some of the nonsense - such as this and the BoE stuff - I find the somewhat childish anti-English aspect of it tiresome - as, in its own way, is the "you'll be poor and friendless" No campaign - and begin to feel that the rest of the UK would be better off without Scotland, not for financial reasons, but just because when two countries are drifting apart, better to get on with it rather than have this nah-nah style of politics.
Also hard to move on whilst still using the former country's currency isn't it?
Ouch
Re the flag changing, it probably should to reflect the change, but as people have said it is a historical brand as well. I doubt anyone will clamour to do it - as people have pointed out, nations and states and have kept using the union flag despite no longer being ruled by Britain, even as part of non-commonwealth realms, so it will proabably just require a historical footnote in the future to note the oddity.
If Scots decide to recant their British citizenship then they would automatically lose EU citizenship unless and until Scotland is a member nation in its own right.
Yes there is. "... the treaties no longer apply to that state" [Scotland]. It is the Maastricht Treaty that grants EU Citizenship and as such with it no longer applying it is gone.
Do you claim that British citizens who give up British citizenship to become American citizens retain their EU citizenship.
The whiite paper also wants English students to continue to pay fees at Scottish Unis whilst Germans and French study free.
Justification ?
If Scotland becomes independent then English students would, as a matter of EU law, be in exactly the same position as French students and therefore would need to be treated equally. So either all would pay fees or none would.
It is only the fact that Scotland is part of the UK which permits the Scots to charge English students but not other EU students.
I'm generally agnostic about the Scottish question. On balance I tend to favour countries being in charge of their own destinies and if the Scots want to do this good luck to them. I'm sure they can do well.
But when I read some of the nonsense - such as this and the BoE stuff - I find the somewhat childish anti-English aspect of it tiresome - as, in its own way, is the "you'll be poor and friendless" No campaign - and begin to feel that the rest of the UK would be better off without Scotland, not for financial reasons, but just because when two countries are drifting apart, better to get on with it rather than have this nah-nah style of politics.
There have been a rump of Scottish voters who have been banging on about Independence for the last 30 years. I don't know that there are any more of them or that the UK is drifting apart, its just that you're more exposed to them through the internet.
Have the referendum vote. If it's a yes, then sort the details out. It'll do no good bickering about flags for the next 9 months. The Better Together movement needs to come up with better arguments than "Computer says no" all the time. There's no way that in the short time left until the vote, the currency, EU membership, Oil and all the other details can be squared away, but that shouldn't mean that Scotland can't break the union. So what if Scots might be a little poorer after Independence, or might have to renegotiate NATO or EU membership? New nations might have it difficult for a little while, but that shouldn't be a bar to it.
The whiite paper also wants English students to continue to pay fees at Scottish Unis whilst Germans and French study free.
Justification ?
If Scotland becomes independent then English students would, as a matter of EU law, be in exactly the same position as French students and therefore would need to be treated equally. So either all would pay fees or none would.
It is only the fact that Scotland is part of the UK which permits the Scots to charge English students but not other EU students.
I'm generally agnostic about the Scottish question. On balance I tend to favour countries being in charge of their own destinies and if the Scots want to do this good luck to them. I'm sure they can do well.
But when I read some of the nonsense - such as this and the BoE stuff - I find the somewhat childish anti-English aspect of it tiresome - as, in its own way, is the "you'll be poor and friendless" No campaign - and begin to feel that the rest of the UK would be better off without Scotland, not for financial reasons, but just because when two countries are drifting apart, better to get on with it rather than have this nah-nah style of politics.
Scotland wouldn't be in the EU until it negotiated entry, so EU law may not apply.
The College of Arms has already addressed the flag question:
However, the College of Arms has told ITV News that there are no plans to change the Union Flag if Scotland becomes an independent state.
The authority for official flags for the UK and the Commonwealth said the Queen would remain the head of state in an independent Scotland, and therefore the Union Flag would not be affected.
Have the referendum vote. If it's a yes, then sort the details out. It'll do no good bickering about flags for the next 9 months. The Better Together movement needs to come up with better arguments than "Computer says no" all the time. There's no way that in the short time left until the vote, the currency, EU membership, Oil and all the other details can be squared away, but that shouldn't mean that Scotland can't break the union. So what if Scots might be a little poorer after Independence, or might have to renegotiate NATO or EU membership? New nations might have it difficult for a little while, but that shouldn't be a bar to it.
Indeed. I know there've been polls on how people would vote differently if £500 worse off and the like, but I don't think it's a winner strategy, or how there might be hard negotiations afterwards - that's just another challenge that a vibrant new nation which is highly developed can handle just fine. I wish Better Together seemed more positive; I know negativity has to play a part in it, just as portraying the union in negative terms is necessary for the Yes campaign, but it seems to be Better Together's whole campaign
If Scots decide to recant their British citizenship then they would automatically lose EU citizenship unless and until Scotland is a member nation in its own right.
Yes there is. "... the treaties no longer apply to that state" [Scotland]. It is the Maastricht Treaty that grants EU Citizenship and as such with it no longer applying it is gone.
Do you claim that British citizens who give up British citizenship to become American citizens retain their EU citizenship.
So just to clarify, Barroso mentioning 'the treaties' equates to an absolute statement of fact that Scottish citizens after a Yes vote would have EU citizenship instantly withdrawn from 19/09/14?
The whiite paper also wants English students to continue to pay fees at Scottish Unis whilst Germans and French study free.
Justification ?
If Scotland becomes independent then English students would, as a matter of EU law, be in exactly the same position as French students and therefore would need to be treated equally. So either all would pay fees or none would.
It is only the fact that Scotland is part of the UK which permits the Scots to charge English students but not other EU students.
I'm generally agnostic about the Scottish question. On balance I tend to favour countries being in charge of their own destinies and if the Scots want to do this good luck to them. I'm sure they can do well.
But when I read some of the nonsense - such as this and the BoE stuff - I find the somewhat childish anti-English aspect of it tiresome - as, in its own way, is the "you'll be poor and friendless" No campaign - and begin to feel that the rest of the UK would be better off without Scotland, not for financial reasons, but just because when two countries are drifting apart, better to get on with it rather than have this nah-nah style of politics.
There have been a rump of Scottish voters who have been banging on about Independence for the last 30 years. I don't know that there are any more of them or that the UK is drifting apart, its just that you're more exposed to them through the internet.
30 years ago the SNP won 11.8% of the vote. In the July Panelbase/Sunday Times Holyrood poll the SNP were on 48%.
I think that the rise in awareness regarding Scottish independence has got to do with rather more than simply the invention of the internet.
If Scots decide to recant their British citizenship then they would automatically lose EU citizenship unless and until Scotland is a member nation in its own right.
Yes there is. "... the treaties no longer apply to that state" [Scotland]. It is the Maastricht Treaty that grants EU Citizenship and as such with it no longer applying it is gone.
Do you claim that British citizens who give up British citizenship to become American citizens retain their EU citizenship.
So just to clarify, Barroso mentioning 'the treaties' equates to an absolute statement of fact that Scottish citizens after a Yes vote would have EU citizenship instantly withdrawn from 19/09/14?
You are conflating 'Scottish Citizens' with 'The Scottish State' - it is entirely possible for the former to retain their status (as 'British citizens' ) while the latter (a new state) loses it.
After Scottish independence the English will, after a period of trauma, need to move on. Hard to do that while still flying their neighbour's colours. It would be like Denmark still flying the cross of the Kalmar Union and pretending that they still ruled Norway, Iceland, Sweden and Finland.
Eventually, the kings of England stopped pretending that they were also kings of France, and the fleur de lys disappeared from their arms.
The Union Flag has had the diagonal cross for Ireland for nearly a century since the Republic became independent. Furthermore it is in the top-left corner of many independent nations like Australia and New Zealand.
Flags represent history as much as present facts and that will not change with the departure of a nation that joined with England in the Act of Union nearly a century after the creation of the Union Flag.
You mean the creation of the Union Flags, plural. There were originally two designs: a Scottish version and an English version. Only the English one is still in use.
Comments
Revenue raised per person in Scotland 2011-12
£11,079
Revenue raised per person in UK 2011-12
£9,342
Scots get £10,152 spent on them per person by Westminster, compared to £8,529 for the English, £9,709 for the Welsh and £10,876 for those living in Northern Ireland.
Who's draining who?
And we have Act 3 yet to come.
Whatever the details, the police have come out of this looking very bad, much worse than anyone could reasonably have supposed at the time when all the sympathy was with public servants being sworn at by a wicked Tory toff for doing their jobs.
Andrew Mitchell and his friends should simply shut up now.
"We are building a party that has the strength of a machine with the soul of a movement"
Good line. Bravo Mr Graf.
The CCTV footage was obtained by Andrew Mitchell from Downing Street and provided to Dispatches and Channel 4 News. The footage as broadcast for the first time on 18th December 2012 was not edited by the production team to change or alter the sequence of events. Furthermore the three camera angles that we were provided with were image-matched frame by frame to confirm their veracity. We stand fully behind this investigation.”
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rsblno
The EU realised their mistake re Sweden and its practical opt-out and announced nearly a decade ago that all future EU members would have to sign up to join the Euro.
'Scottish Power. Your Future Is Our Future'.
Lets hope it wasn't. They were taken over by Iberdrola!
'Arnie Graf is a bigger threat to his opponents than Lynton Crosby, discuss:'
Apparently he gives invaluable advice about not treading in the dog poo when your out campaigning,but others are not so impressed.
'Why I'd sack Arnie Graf | Hopi Sen
hopisen.com/2013/why-id-sack-arnie-graf/
30 Jul 2013 - Arnie Graf sounds like a lovely, genuine, moral man. He's been involved in some truly inspiring campaigns and deserves heartfelt applause for ...
The local association held a meeting a few days ago to decide whether to stand aside in favour of Tory MP Andrew Turner but voted overwhelmingly against:
http://www.ukipdaily.com/near-unanimous-vote-ukip-isle-wight-run-candidate-2015/#.UpRx0isMMRo.twitter
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2012/10/20/after-the-mitchell-resignation-david-herdson-asks-who-lied/
http://www.nigella.com/recipes/view/ham-in-coca-cola-171
EDIT beaten to it by tim.
Do you have an answer to it, or just fearmongering guff (that probably is a rhetorical question tbf)?
In practice what would happen is that Scotland would be given some special status as an interim EU member pending final negotiation of the details of become a fully-fledged member, on terms to be agreed. Scotland's bargaining position wouldn't be very strong in such a negotiation, of course.
Yes.
Or more accurately, they'd lose their EU citizenship if the state they were citizens of ceased to be a member but would regain it (or retain it) if a newly independent country became an EU member state in its own right.
Yours
Genuinely perplexed.
Ok you were talking about.... *innocent face*
Of course!
3:13 PM UTC MAJOR
Some sites on cluster 1 are unavailable while we perform emergency database maintenance.
http://status.vanillaforums.com/
Is that clearer now?
An Independent Scotland is the successor state, and remains in the EU, whilst it is the rest of the UK that leaves the Union, and thus the EU.
http://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/black_and_white_council_staff_won_t_be_able_to_work_together_says_rainham_councillor_as_havering_and_newham_councils_to_merge_services_1_3028478
Yes. Sovereignty will be fully exercised by the people of Scotland from the point Scotland becomes independent on 24 March 2016. Until that point, the people of Scotland must be represented politically at the UK level. Scotland will therefore elect MPs to Westminster to represent Scotland up until the date of independence."
Of course the white paper is also clear that all negotiations are to be conducted by the Scottish Government based in Holyrood. And what these elected MPs will be allowed to vote on will not be a question for the Scottish Government.
In theory, however, we might have a Labour majority in the Commons based on Scottish MPs. Would it really be thought to be acceptable for Ed to push through legislation in England using their votes? I presume that the Coalition would want to fix this before the election in the event of a yes vote. It really should have been fixed already of course.
time period too short.
no members of public around to see or hear incident.
Happy to give evidence on oath.
Completely shocking story. And the mothers provided their babies for him to *%^&*&&** Bananas.
It will dominate the news. It is a spectacularly horrifying story. And the guy at the world at his feet too.
Ed would have a tough time explaining to the English electorate in April 2015 why his party was campaigning to represent the voters of a foreign country at the westminster parliament of May 2015.
A very very tough time.
Indeed, If Scotland voted for independence he'd probably have to stop campaigning in Scotland, if he didn't want labour to be dubbed the party standing up for chippy foreigners.
Also, the unionist side/Treasury/BoE can just produce a document which rules out a "Sterling zone" which will force Salmond to say they will use it unilaterally like all of the countries that use USD. An expensive prospect.
There not being a 'conspiracy' does not seem shocking either, depending on how they define it - it seems more likely that several people lied about the incident (even the CPS concede one person clearly did, the guy who was not actually there but who claimed to be) and a bunch of others took advantage of the situation for their own reasons. Regardless of conpiracy or not, Mitchell lost his job because of police misconduct, and that is not even counting the absurd political behaviour of the police federation.
Justification ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-time_Commonwealth_Games_medal_table
It was Edmund in Tokyo's inference that the Scottish flag would be required to have one which I was responding to. There is no such requirement.
To argue otherwise would be like saying a Labour shadow minister forced to resign because of a smear that, down the line, turned out to be untrue, didn't lose his job because of the smear but because of no-one in his party backing him up. It would be a major factor, but it wouldn't have happened in the way it did without the smear.
If a British citizen was to recant his citizenship of this nation in order to become a citizen of the USA then he automatically loses his EU citizenship. That already happens.
If Scots decide to recant their British citizenship then they would automatically lose EU citizenship unless and until Scotland is a member nation in its own right.
A lot of this just seems unrealistic and glosses over all of the downsides as if they don't exist and the financial side (ignoring the currency stuff) just seems to be "OIL" with little other real thought.
I believe an independent Scotland can work, but if this is the outline then it won't.
"Met police will fast track gifted ethnic and female recruits":
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/met-police-will-fast-track-gifted-ethnic-and-female-recruits-8879049.html
It was as we now know lies and fabrication and gross misconduct from the Police that led to Mitchell losing his job. Not his party which backed him for weeks through the storm.
To pretend otherwise is not credible.
The Lords & Commons XI cricket team will be playing in Gib next month. Their record since 1850 is here.
A Gibraltar Cricket President’s XI will take on a Lords & Commons XI at the Victoria Stadium on Saturday 7th December. This 40 overs per side match against the distinguished guests is scheduled to commence at 11am and it is to hoped that the weather will be obliging with the game just over 3 weeks before Christmas.
Troll.
It is a classic among the flags of the world, and you ought to be proud of it. It amazes me how many English people seem so eager to try to throw away the entire heritage of their nation.
Unless Wales and Northern Ireland leave too then the Union Flag would still be relevant. And could stick with the blue even if Scotland leaves, just like it had it before the Act of Union.
Eventually, the kings of England stopped pretending that they were also kings of France, and the fleur de lys disappeared from their arms.
It is a classic among the flags of the world, and you ought to be proud of it. It amazes me how many English people seem so eager to try to throw away the entire heritage of their nation.
That's not it at all. I'm immensely proud of the English flag and English nation; I just happen to think it is improved even further with the merger with Scotland, Wales and NI. Enhanced by association if you will.
That I love the Union does not mean I am ashamed of or wish to throw away my separate English heritage, it just makes me sad that the Union is not regarded as fit for purpose or appealing by so many Scots (and many in England too, probably even more than in Wales).
I'm a little amazed that you would assume I wanted to throw away my English heritage because I have love for the Union. I know it is not the done thing thesedays to see oneself as English and British, just as I respect that (unfortunately from my perspective) many Scots do not feel Scottish and British (except in a strictly geographical sense), but there are some of us left.
I doubt that brand will be dropped any time soon.
Eventually, the kings of England stopped pretending that they were also kings of France, and the fleur de lys disappeared from their arms.
Also hard to move on whilst still using the former country's currency isn't it?
Flags represent history as much as present facts and that will not change with the departure of a nation that joined with England in the Act of Union nearly a century after the creation of the Union Flag.
It is only the fact that Scotland is part of the UK which permits the Scots to charge English students but not other EU students.
I'm generally agnostic about the Scottish question. On balance I tend to favour countries being in charge of their own destinies and if the Scots want to do this good luck to them. I'm sure they can do well.
But when I read some of the nonsense - such as this and the BoE stuff - I find the somewhat childish anti-English aspect of it tiresome - as, in its own way, is the "you'll be poor and friendless" No campaign - and begin to feel that the rest of the UK would be better off without Scotland, not for financial reasons, but just because when two countries are drifting apart, better to get on with it rather than have this nah-nah style of politics.
Re the flag changing, it probably should to reflect the change, but as people have said it is a historical brand as well. I doubt anyone will clamour to do it - as people have pointed out, nations and states and have kept using the union flag despite no longer being ruled by Britain, even as part of non-commonwealth realms, so it will proabably just require a historical footnote in the future to note the oddity.
Absolute nightmare scenario for all concerned?
Do you claim that British citizens who give up British citizenship to become American citizens retain their EU citizenship.
If you want another link there are many more: http://www.euractiv.com/uk-europe/scots-may-lose-eu-citizenship-news-514720
There have been a rump of Scottish voters who have been banging on about Independence for the last 30 years. I don't know that there are any more of them or that the UK is drifting apart, its just that you're more exposed to them through the internet.
The Better Together movement needs to come up with better arguments than "Computer says no" all the time. There's no way that in the short time left until the vote, the currency, EU membership, Oil and all the other details can be squared away, but that shouldn't mean that Scotland can't break the union.
So what if Scots might be a little poorer after Independence, or might have to renegotiate NATO or EU membership? New nations might have it difficult for a little while, but that shouldn't be a bar to it.
However, the College of Arms has told ITV News that there are no plans to change the Union Flag if Scotland becomes an independent state.
The authority for official flags for the UK and the Commonwealth said the Queen would remain the head of state in an independent Scotland, and therefore the Union Flag would not be affected.
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-11-26/no-plans-to-change-union-flag/
Thinner than Twiggy on a diet.
I think that the rise in awareness regarding Scottish independence has got to do with rather more than simply the invention of the internet.