for the future of scotland soory to say. scotland have to stay under british control

The poll you're talking about (from YouGov) didn't show 51% in favour of independence. It showed;
47% yes
45% no
8% undecided

Yes it is far from over, especially now that Westminster is throwing in more devolution for Scotland if they stay.

Even with more powers in the Scottish parliament, it doesn't change the fact that Scotland sends more money in taxes to the English treasury than they get back for their budget. Nor does it change the fact that Scotland is much more liberal and would like to not privatize their health insurance, keep their universities free, etc. etc. unlike England who is heading more in the direction of the states (i.e. tax cuts for the rich, rest of that nonsense).

If Westminster had provided an adequate solution to the West Lothian question, the independence movement would have a much harder time right now.

Scottish people want independence because they really don't want their MPs voting on exclusively English affairs? Don't quite get that.

Yea I wasn't making sense there. Let me try again.

If Westminster had come up with some solution of Scottish parliament having much more powers (so they could act on their own more or less), remove Scottish MP's from English affairs and create another chamber for UK wide affairs...or something such as this.

If Westminster came up with something like this to both address giving Scottish more power and answering the Lothian question, both sides would be happier. Not to mention Scottish independence would have a harder time.

In the next week Osborne is going to come up with something addressing giving Scottish parliament more power (won't address the Lothian question of course). Yet I'm for independence personally, despite not being Scottish, so this lack of Westminster to come up with a solution until this late in the game is fine by me.

I have no side on the subject, but I think Slskotlnd no problem independence, only England.
There is plenty of oil in the north Scottish, it hit them in the economy.

Self determination for the Scots ... but not for the A-Rabs lmfao!

Anyway, here's a more international question tied to this subject:

"If the Scots vote for and are granted independence does that affect in anyway the British territories claimed by other nations who have consistently voted to stay British" (self determination) i.e The Falkland Islands (Malvinas) or Gibraltar?

Edited 9/8/2014 13:12:11

There is a difference, Scots no country and for me they are an ancient people, and they do not, fake modern nation

You're an idiot though ... forgive me for using insults warlight but when you talk to this guy it's hopeless. Pointing out that there were Arabian civilizations in Gaza before Scotland was a nation state would make no difference to him he'll just bulldoze on on his train tracks of pre-determined ignorance.

N.B I have no desire to get into the Israel - Palestine debate - but sheer hypocrisy is sheer hypocrisy and this guy drools it from every orifice.

i.e The Falkland Islands (Malvinas)

What are the Malvinas??? :P

---

I don't think any overseas territories will be affected. They never identified as Scottish and have always demonstrated they consider themselves British. There will be no effect until they identify themselves as Argentinian or Spanish; but we knew already that if the people there wanted to leave us there wouldn't be a lot we could do.

Yes I know they never identified as Scottish lol (well apart from maybe those citizens descended from Scots)

You're looking at my question from the wrong perspective though. Britain regularly holds referendums to ask if those people wish to remain British, which they consistently answer yes. However the Argentinians and the Spanish to use my examples reply that these polls hold no strength in law and are do not prevent in any way their claims to the territories.

But if Argentina and Spain recognize Scotland as an independent state does that weaken their claims that the referendums which took place in Gibraltar and the Falklands (Malvinas) are not legally binding?

Edited 9/8/2014 14:00:15

The current position of the British government is not to negotiate on future of any British overseas territory without permission of that specific territory's government. Therefore those territories will remain British. If they want to become Scottish (or Spanish or Argentine), then the government there would first have to request it.

Yes! But again you are looking, like Arun from the British perspective. I'm interested in the international. :)

Britain regularly holds referendums

If you're referring to the Falkland referendum in 2013, that was not held by the British government. It was held by the Falklands government.

I forgot I was talking a smart ass who knows nothing of his life, but what is most funny to him he knows everything.
So send me the details of something that proves the long history of Palestinian Arabs have changed their brethren +20 countries (details)

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/19/crimea-referendum-falklands-argentina-cristina-fernandez

@the idiot (elroi)

Did you think Arabs moved to Gaza after Israel was formed? Of course there have always been Arabian people living there and they were a part of Arab states as well. Gaza has a longer history than either England, Scotland or Israel.

Edited 9/8/2014 14:16:51

Crimea is a very different case. We all know about Putin's history of fixing votes and also there was no option on the Crimean referendum to remain part of Ukraine.

^^ Ya ya

And you're right about the islanders organizing it. (the poll)

My interest is in the international re-action.

When the islanders voted for self determination the Argentinian government attempted to equate it with forcible colonialism aka Russia in Crimea.

But Argentina will have to either A. Recognize Scotland or B. Refuse to recognize Scotland.

If they recognize them - does that compromise their position regarding British people's self determination?