Scottish Independence.

[Wilber]

If you give non citizens the vote, what is the point of having citizenship at all. Really there are only two important things a non citizen can't do, vote and hold a passport and you want to get rid of one of them. Might as well get rid of the other as well in that case.

You of all people should know that proporting to be working toward something is not the same thing as having done it.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Wilber

[Guest Derek L]

Difference between a landed immigrant and a migrant worker. My point is that those who are going to be affected but also have a stake in the results because they have roots in the community should have a say, I don't know about the UK but if their requirements as to length of time are similar to the US then you could have people who have homes and businesses and lives built in the region and thus should have a say. I'll repeat this just to be clear, there is a difference between the migrant worker who lives in Scotland and sends his money home and thus has no ties to the community and would move on to greener pastures if the referendum leads to negative change, I'm talking about those who are essentially stuck one way or another. Giving someone a vote when they have no stake in the outcome one way or the other is a bad idea, giving a vote to those who are directly affected and are working on becoming citizens is a whole other issue. Once again, the federal government sped up the citizenship process in order to allow immigrants who would be affected from a yes vote the chance to vote because risking everything to once again just end up in the country next to Canada leaves alot of people hanging who have a stake in the situation...

Sure there is..........But what benefit is it to Scotland (or anywhere else, including Canada) to allow landed immigrants to vote? I don’t give two shits if they have roots in the community up until they’ve obtained citizenship….Until that time they are not Canadian.

Also, your example of the Federal Liberal Government speeding up the process is purely an example of Federal interference.......It would be no different, and stink just the same, as if they paid people from other Provinces to move to Quebec before the vote.

[Signals.Cpl]

If you give non citizens the vote, what is the point of having citizenship at all. Really there are only two important things a non citizen can't do, vote and hold a passport and you want to get rid of one of them. Might as well get rid of the other as well in that case.

You of all people should know that proporting to be working toward something is not the same thing as having done it.

Again though, we are not talking about your everyday election, we are talking about something that can and will drastically affect your life... People move to Canada and build a life only to buy a house and start a business or get employment and take steps towards getting citizenship only to have the rug pulled from under them I would say they should have input. My parents moved to Canada with two kids, they moved here with the decision that there was no turning back, we will make a life in Canada only to end up in a country outside of Canada? Now Replace Canada with the United Kingdom and you get people who are productive get no say in their future, while letting people who have never done anything positive to earn their citizenship other than being born there have a say. I am talking about the people who have made a substantial commitment to building a life in Canada only to have the rug pulled from under them.

[Signals.Cpl]

Sure there is..........But what benefit is it to Scotland (or anywhere else, including Canada) to allow landed immigrants to vote? I don’t give two shits if they have roots in the community up until they’ve obtained citizenship….Until that time they are not Canadian.

The Americans seem to have the same attitude yet they have no problem letting those same immigrants die for the US in foreign wars just like Canada if the situation warrants it.

[Guest Derek L]

Again though, we are not talking about your everyday election, we are talking about something that can and will drastically affect your life... People move to Canada and build a life only to buy a house and start a business or get employment and take steps towards getting citizenship only to have the rug pulled from under them I would say they should have input. My parents moved to Canada with two kids, they moved here with the decision that there was no turning back, we will make a life in Canada only to end up in a country outside of Canada? Now Replace Canada with the United Kingdom and you get people who are productive get no say in their future, while letting people who have never done anything positive to earn their citizenship other than being born there have a say. I am talking about the people who have made a substantial commitment to building a life in Canada only to have the rug pulled from under them.

But that’s where you’re wrong……..Everyday elections do effect people, and in this case those landed immigrants choose to build a life in a new nation…….but until they’ve become citizens, what (moral) right do they have to come to a new country, and via the Democratic process, start saying how to run the place?

By all means, come to Scotland (or Canada), stay awhile, you be productive and pay taxes, we’ll afford you all the protections and benefits of actual Canadians….if you like it here, go through the process and become a citizen and then tell us what you feel come election time………

If you don’t like, don’t come here or leave.

[Guest Derek L]

The Americans seem to have the same attitude yet they have no problem letting those same immigrants die for the US in foreign wars just like Canada if the situation warrants it.

So? In the case of immigrants to America, military service speeds up the path to citizenship.

[Signals.Cpl]

But that’s where you’re wrong……..Everyday elections do effect people, and in this case those landed immigrants choose to build a life in a new nation…….

They do affect people, but ultimately the choice between Bush or Gore, Harper or Layton less affect on the country than the choice between living in Canada or living in Quebec, living in the United Kingdom or in Scotland.

but until they’ve become citizens, what (moral) right do they have to come to a new country, and via the Democratic process, start saying how to run the place?

What moral right does Canada have to invite immigrants to move to Canada/United Kingdom and leave their lives behind only to abandon them in the Republic of Quebec/Scotland? We are not talking about wether the government will be NDP, Liberal or Conservative, we are talking about wether the country you moved to is not the one you end up living in and you have no say.

By all means, come to Scotland (or Canada), stay awhile, you be productive and pay taxes, we’ll afford you all the protections and benefits of actual Canadians….if you like it here, go through the process and become a citizen and then tell us what you feel come election time………

If you don’t like, don’t come here or leave.

Well immigrants come to Canada but end up living in the Republic of Quebec while having little or no say in the process. People who have paid their taxes, followed the laws, build a life, bought a house, work etc... suddenly have no voice when it comes to their future. You may not see it because you probably never had to work hard to become Canadian but some have worked hard, some have taken substantial risks to move to and build a life in Canada only to get the rug pulled from under them may have a different opinion. If the Federal government says that should Quebec/Scotland separate you get a choice as to wether you continue on your path to becoming a Canadian/British citizen or a Quebec/Scottish citizen is one thing, having someone else decide that for you is a whole other thing.

[Signals.Cpl]

So? In the case of immigrants to America, military service speeds up the path to citizenship.

What about Canada? In the CF I believe you could join even if you are a landed immigrant as long as there is a shortage in a particular field in specific or in general...but more to the point it may speed up your citizenship process it does not change the fact that until you finish the process you are not a citizen.

[Guest Derek L]

They do affect people, but ultimately the choice between Bush or Gore, Harper or Layton less affect on the country than the choice between living in Canada or living in Quebec, living in the United Kingdom or in Scotland.

In your opinion……..but ultimately that is a question best answered by Canadians, Americans and Scots….not landed immigrants.

What moral right does Canada have to invite immigrants to move to Canada/United Kingdom and leave their lives behind only to abandon them in the Republic of Quebec/Scotland? We are not talking about wether the government will be NDP, Liberal or Conservative, we are talking about wether the country you moved to is not the one you end up living in and you have no say.

If someone invites you over for dinner, do you tell them how to run their household?

None the less, nothing is preventing those landed immigrants from.....well.......immigrating to Canada/United Kingdom.....

If they don’t like the inconvenience….tuff luck……They should have researched their new country prior to hopping on the boat.

Well immigrants come to Canada but end up living in the Republic of Quebec while having little or no say in the process. People who have paid their taxes, followed the laws, build a life, bought a house, work etc... suddenly have no voice when it comes to their future. You may not see it because you probably never had to work hard to become Canadian but some have worked hard, some have taken substantial risks to move to and build a life in Canada only to get the rug pulled from under them may have a different opinion. If the Federal government says that should Quebec/Scotland separate you get a choice as to wether you continue on your path to becoming a Canadian/British citizen or a Quebec/Scottish citizen is one thing, having someone else decide that for you is a whole other thing.

Boo-Hoo.........And what of the landed immigrants, in your sob story, voting to dissolve the country?

[Guest Derek L]

What about Canada? In the CF I believe you could join even if you are a landed immigrant as long as there is a shortage in a particular field in specific or in general...but more to the point it may speed up your citizenship process it does not change the fact that until you finish the process you are not a citizen.

My father went from the RN right into the RCN with a upgrade in rank and pay when he came here in the late 50s....wasn't a citizen until 1970.....I fail to see your point.

[Signals.Cpl]

If they don’t like the inconvenience….tuff luck……They should have researched their new country prior to hopping on the boat.

The Crystal ball does not always predict a referendum years before its called, if you do have psychic powers then maybe you could be of help otherwise immigrants make choices with the information at hand, fight tooth and nail to be Canadians only to be abandoned by Canada...

Boo-Hoo.........And what of the landed immigrants, in your sob story, voting to dissolve the country?

Thats the beauty of the choice, it affects them they have to live with the choice THEY made for THEIR future instead of living with the choice OTHERS made for THEIR future.

We can talk about citizenship from another light as well, you could have the province/state/territory exclude everyone without five generations of living in the province/state/territory... or restrict voting only to those who speak the language in the Area say french... so you end up with a large group of people who have no say in their future because they are not citizens of Quebec...

[Signals.Cpl]

My father went from the RN right into the RCN with a upgrade in rank and pay when he came here in the late 50s....wasn't a citizen until 1970.....I fail to see your point.

So you are saying your father took no risk when moving to a new country? My parents moved here with only their savings and no promise of work or a steady pay check so I fail to see your comparison... moving to a new country with your kids and starting from the bottom is slightly different from moving to a country with a decent, consistent and longterm employment already arranged.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Signals.Cpl

[Guest Derek L]

The Crystal ball does not always predict a referendum years before its called, if you do have psychic powers then maybe you could be of help otherwise immigrants make choices with the information at hand, fight tooth and nail to be Canadians only to be abandoned by Canada...

Then you can gladly go back to where you came from if you feel abandoned.....

Thats the beauty of the choice, it affects them they have to live with the choice THEY made for THEIR future instead of living with the choice OTHERS made for THEIR future.

There’s no beauty, non-Canadians don’t get a say on how we govern our country……….You want a say, go through the process like the overwhelming number of immigrants did before.

We can talk about citizenship from another light as well, you could have the province/state/territory exclude everyone without five generations of living in the province/state/territory... or restrict voting only to those who speak the language in the Area say french... so you end up with a large group of people who have no say in their future because they are not citizens of Quebec...

Well, that's a choice for Canadians or Scots to decide, not Johnny-come-latlies........And until Quebec or Scotland leave, Canadians and Britons will have the say.......If you don't like it, don't come here.

[Wilber]

Again though, we are not talking about your everyday election, we are talking about something that can and will drastically affect your life... People move to Canada and build a life only to buy a house and start a business or get employment and take steps towards getting citizenship only to have the rug pulled from under them I would say they should have input. My parents moved to Canada with two kids, they moved here with the decision that there was no turning back, we will make a life in Canada only to end up in a country outside of Canada? Now Replace Canada with the United Kingdom and you get people who are productive get no say in their future, while letting people who have never done anything positive to earn their citizenship other than being born there have a say. I am talking about the people who have made a substantial commitment to building a life in Canada only to have the rug pulled from under them.

And how do you measure whether they have made enough commitment? What would the criteria be? Right now it is citizenship. You have a better measure?

[Guest Derek L]

So you are saying your father took no risk when moving to a new country? My parents moved here with only their savings and no promise of work or a steady pay check so I fail to see your comparison... moving to a new country with your kids and starting from the bottom is slightly different from moving to a country with a decent, consistent and longterm employment already arranged.

So? I don’t know where your parents came from, it’s none of my business, but obviously the gamble that was Canada had a better upshot then where they originated……….Like my father and many other immigrants looking for something better. None the less, if a portion of said immigrants had a tougher road to hoe, it doesn’t garner them a medal or any extraordinary rights over other immigrants that went through the process………….

My wife (before we met), a certified dentist, immigrated from South Africa in the late 80s and her credentials weren’t recognised by the CDA until the late 90s…A process that cost us tens of thousands of dollars in exams and further (redundant) schooling……She worked all kinds of shitty jobs below her educational background, yet never once bitched & moaned and expected special treatment by Canadians……She’s been a Canadian citizen now for just over 15 years and earns more then the Prime Minister……

If landed immigrants don’t like the process…..leave.

[-TSS-]

The Scottish National Party is overwhelmigly the most popualr party in Scotland but the people of Scotland are very unlikely to support the main-agenda of the party- the independence.

If and when the referendum will end ina defeat for the independence it will bury the issue for decades to come and really destroy the reason for existence for the SNP:

[Guest Derek L]

The Scottish National Party is overwhelmigly the most popualr party in Scotland but the people of Scotland are very unlikely to support the main-agenda of the party- the independence.

If and when the referendum will end ina defeat for the independence it will bury the issue for decades to come and really destroy the reason for existence for the SNP:

They are the most popular party within the Scottish Parliament, which is akin to our Provincial legislatures......."Federally" the most popular is British Labour........But you're right to a degree, in that aside from Nationalism, Fabian Socialism is very popular amongst the downtrodden Scots.

[Rue]

What about the real issue.

Why do men wear skirts with change purses in Scotland and no underwear? Also why those funny berets with that wool ball on them. Kind of girly.

What kind of people are these Scots anyways?

Would it be safe to leave them un-supervised by the Queen?

These are people who invented scotch and golf. There is no saying what they might do if they become independent.

From what I gather they are fierce people even though they cross dress.

I also read an article they also don't eat enough vegetables and fruit.and so have a ahigh rate of

heart disease because of their love of pastry and meat dishes.

Also I heard horrible stories about haggis. Just the idea people would eat that is very very disturbing. I mean I can not even go into details on what it is on this forum.

Also I met a Scotsman once. He said he had nothing to do with MacDonald's and the hamburgers were crap.

[-TSS-]

The act of union of 1707 which was signed between England and Scotland to form the United Kingdom was a move against the growing influence of the French. The English wanted to make sure that the Scots don't scheme behind the scenes in favour of the French.

It can be said with a reasonable degree that the reasons for the signing of the act of union over 300 years ago have become outdated so the act should be dissolved and English and Scottish independence should be restored.

[Wilber]

Like Quebec independence, it ain't that simple. There are still strong economic reasons for union. Even in The Bruce's time there were Scots on both sides, just as there were at the Culloden. Bruce himself was of Norman decent (Robert de Bruce), not Celtic and Prince Charlie was more French than Scot.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Wilber

[-TSS-]

Of course there are. I was just pointing out that the pro-independence people could point out to a fact that the reason why the Scottish independence was terminated 300 years ago those reasons have long ago become obsolete.

Today, there are various reasons why Scotland will remain in the UK and the independence-referendum will most likely result in a defeat for the independence-movement.

[Wilber]

The reasons for doing something often change but that doesn't always make them unnecessary. I don't think emotion will be enough to carry the day

[-TSS-]

The only chance the independence could win the referendum is that if the government in London all of a sudden decided to cancel the Scottish devolution but they are not dumb enough to make such a mistake.

When the Labour-government introduced the devolution in 1997 the Tories said that as soon as they get back they would cancel it but later in the years they also changed their mind on that issue.

[Rocky Road]

Interesting points, thanks.

[-TSS-]

Too many Scots still live in the clan mentality. My people, low land scots were very good at going with the winning side,

Isn't that a bit of an outdated myth? Similar as to saying that all Hispanics are devout Catholics?