Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 19 Sep 2014 09:07

Hmmmmm
Dramatic instant death vs slow painful withering that rips the soul ,will and ego.
Your choice .
It cannae b same nomoar

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Sep 2014 10:09

Officially NO after the Fife vote,but the mould has been broken for all time to come.The NO vote was made possible only by the frantic rush to Scotland of the leaders of the 3 main UK parties campaigning together to save the UK! Now they will go back to Westminister and disagree amongst themselves as to the extent of devolution to Scotland,etc. The amazing fact is that over 1.5 million Scots voted YES for Independence,just a couple of lakhs less than those who voted NO.

The UK will end up as the FUK (Federal UK),if the comments from the politicos and analysts are indicating.A NO vote for independence does not mean business as usual.Not every Scot who voted NO voted for "status quo".2 years down the line when elections arrive,if sufficient devolution hasn't arrived in Scotland ,Wales and N.Ireland,and some are even demanding an English parliament,then one might see a mighty backlash with the SNP winning a huge victory and the debate will resurface. Tonight has been truly historic,we have witnessed the the beginning of the end,the death rattle,the "Last days of the British Empire".

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 19 Sep 2014 10:16

The UK is cooked, either way. The choices were:
* Flash fry, i.e. Yes
* Slow boil, i.e. No

They chose slow boil.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 19 Sep 2014 10:18

Philip wrote:Officially NO after the Fife vote,but the mould has been broken for all time to come.The NO vote was made possible only by the frantic rush to Scotland of the leaders of the 3 main UK parties campaigning together to save the UK! Now they will go back to Westminister and disagree amongst themselves as to the extent of devolution to Scotland,etc. The amazing fact is that over 1.5 million Scots voted YES for Independence,just a couple of lakhs less than those who voted NO.

The UK will end up as the FUK (Federal UK),if the comments from the politicos and analysts are indicating.A NO vote for independence does not mean business as usual.Not every Scot who voted NO voted for "status quo".2 years down the line when elections arrive,if sufficient devolution hasn't arrived in Scotland ,Wales and N.Ireland,and some are even demanding an English parliament,then one might see a mighty backlash with the SNP winning a huge victory and the debate will resurface. Tonight has been truly historic,we have witnessed the the beginning of the end,the death rattle,the "Last days of the British Empire".

Phillip,

You are forever an optimist.

Life is not all 2+2=4. In fact, it is always 2+2=5.

There never was a UK, that is why scots wanted the formal recognition. Alas, by hook or crook a part (older, richer, ...) this population will always be impressionable.

The consequences of the NO vote will also change the political landscape for YES campaigners. Two years is an eternity, and nothing other than a minor westminster scuffle will resuilt when devolution is not upto par.

UK will now hold up the scottish vote as how it benovelently permitted separation vote and so should everyone else when relevant matters come up. And so on. The glass is mostly empty, and leaking.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Sep 2014 12:41

Scottish referendum: Alex Salmond concedes defeat - but now wants devolution promised by Westminster
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/sc ... 42750.html

Alex Salmond was cheered by supporters of the Yes campaign in Edinburgh, moments after Better Together stormed to victory to ensure Scotland remains part of the UK.

In an emotional address, the Scottish National Party leader said that he accepted "the democratic verdict of the people" and called on everyone else to "do the same" as he conceded defeat in his fight for Scottish independence.

Scots voted by a margin of around 55 per cent to 45 per cent to stay part of the United Kingdom, a move Mr Salmond described as evidence that the country did not want independence "at this stage".

But he thanked 1.6 million voters for pledging their support for his campaign and called on the leaders of the three main pro-Union parties to "live up" to promises of further devolution.

He said: "It is important to say that our referendum was an agreed and consented process and Scotland has by a majority decided not at this stage to become an independent country.

"I accept that verdict of the people and I call on all of Scotland to follow suit in accepting the democratic verdict of the people of Scotland."

Mr Salmond added: "I think the process by which we have made our decision as a nation reflects enormous credit upon Scotland. A turnout of 86 per cent is one of the highest of the democratic world, in any election or any referendum in history.

"We have touched sections of the community who have never been touched before by politics. These communities have touched us... I don't think that will ever be allowed to go back to business as usual in politics again."

He claimed the "mass movement" of the Yes campaign struck "terror" into the Westminster Government and again made accusations of "scaremongering" - and said he expects devolution promises to be "honoured in rapid course".

"We now face the consequences of Scotland's decision," Mr Salmond said. "I pledge to work constructively in the interests of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom."

Mr Salmond then ended his speech, saying: "Today of all days as we bring Scotland together, let us not dwell on the distance we have fallen short, let us focus on the distance we have travelled...we will go forward as one nation."

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Sep 2014 12:48

2 years from now one will know whether the devolution package is acceptable to the Scots.If the expectations are belied,then the SNP willcome in with a landslide and the debate/demand will explode again.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 19 Sep 2014 14:00

Disappointed with Scots. They will regret this day when they decided to stay with Ukstan. AoA.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 19 Sep 2014 15:37

A happy day for ISIB: Islamic State in Iraq and Brishitstan. Otherwise they would have add another letter in recognition of all the Scottish wimmens that they trade.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 19 Sep 2014 15:49

RajeshA wrote:johneeG ji,

when big decisions happen in the world, BRF is the water pond where I come and quench my thirst!

I feel it in my bones that Scottish Independence would go a long way in both reinstating India as a power, as well as curing Indians of Macaulayism!

True.

----
Division or freedom or secession by peaceful or democratic means is a mirage. Bhaarath's freedom was delayed from 1920 to 1947 due to this wrong approach. In 1947 also, brits left due to the threat of largescale armed revolution. They feared that the mutiny of brit india navy will spread to brit india army.
सिन्धु देह धर त्राहि-त्राहि करता आ गिरा शरण में
चरण पूज दासता ग्रहण की बंधा मूढ़ बंधन में
सच पूछो तो शर में ही बस्ती है दीप्ति विनय की
संधिवचन संपूज्य उसीका जिसमे शक्ति विजय की
All this voting, boating, seating, cheating,....etc is maya onlee. Just my humble opinion.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 19 Sep 2014 16:36

Ah Sri Ramdhari Singh Dinkar , A Bihari and Vice Chancellor of my Alma Mater.
you missed the cause

क्षमा शोभती उस भुजंग को जिसके पास गरल हो
उसको क्या जो दंतहीन , विषरहित, विनीत, सरल हो ।

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 19 Sep 2014 17:53

Dilbu wrote:Disappointed with Scots. They will regret this day when they decided to stay with Ukstan. AoA.

Were people of English descent who now live in Scotland allowed to vote in this referendum?

saip · Post by **saip** » 19 Sep 2014 18:11

I think anyone legally living in Scotland (including commonwealth citizens) and registered to vote were allowed to vote. OTH Scots not living in Scotland could not vote.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 19 Sep 2014 22:09

The referendum did go along expected lines as per the most recent opinion polls. For something so hastily organized, with voting requirements that were so arbitrary, the result is still very telling. There's just a 10% gap between the Nays and Yays. It was assumed historically that Scotland would only vote ~25-30% Yay, buy they were able to achieve 45% in a hastily organized referendum.

Does that mean Westminster will be conciliatory ? No, I think London is stupid enough to take the hard line, and will just pretend they didn't offer any devolution concessions and will focus on mocking Salmond and the SNP. It's also in everyone else's interest - including our own - to see that they do so, to keep the pot nicely boiling. Supporting one side or the other isn't the point - keeping the matter festering is.

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 19 Sep 2014 22:36

saip wrote:I think anyone legally living in Scotland (including commonwealth citizens) and registered to vote were allowed to vote. OTH Scots not living in Scotland could not vote.

Here's the reason why I asked this simple-sounding question. If that's the case (as above) then the brits cannot equate the Scottish affair with that on Kashmir. Allow Indians from other parts of Kashmir to settle there first for 300 years, and then lets talk.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 19 Sep 2014 22:56

Suraj wrote:The referendum did go along expected lines as per the most recent opinion polls. For something so hastily organized, with voting requirements that were so arbitrary, the result is still very telling. There's just a 10% gap between the Nays and Yays. It was assumed historically that Scotland would only vote ~25-30% Yay, buy they were able to achieve 45% in a hastily organized referendum.

Does that mean Westminster will be conciliatory ? No, I think London is stupid enough to take the hard line, and will just pretend they didn't offer any devolution concessions and will focus on mocking Salmond and the SNP. It's also in everyone else's interest - including our own - to see that they do so, to keep the pot nicely boiling. Supporting one side or the other isn't the point - keeping the matter festering is.

Suraj:

The referendum was once in a generation thing -- three years in coming. It was NOT hastily organized. The voting requirements were NOT arbitrary. They had to follow rules of such votes applied by UK and EU. Ideally, the scots would have liked all scots to vote. This was never a choice.

Salmond has surprised me. Politicians of this ilk should have been long extinct. And now he is. I am not glorifying salmond, just applauding his conduct during the campaign.

As for the future, upheavals like this are not new. Westminster will make sure to destroy the scottish polity in a slow process of corruption. There will be some token devolution, "the scottish empowerment act of 201?" like the "USA Patriot Act" will take away as much or more than it gives.

Scots have been had again. Groundskeeper Willie is not amused.

IndraD · Post by **IndraD** » 19 Sep 2014 23:51

AlexSalmond asks telegraph reporters to leave his PC this afternoon, Brit media at its best, YES has no representation, read any paper tabloid, Alx is being blasted right & left, media is completely Anti Scot

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 20 Sep 2014 00:05

Wait! Are we sure this referendum was free and fair? UK has a long history of subjugating freedom of individuals and nations using overt and covert force.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 20 Sep 2014 00:20

Shreeman wrote:As for the future, upheavals like this are not new. Westminster will make sure to destroy the scottish polity in a slow process of corruption. There will be some token devolution, "the scottish empowerment act of 201?" like the "USA Patriot Act" will take away as much or more than it gives.

Scots have been had again. Groundskeeper Willie is not amused.

That's all perfectly acceptable because latent fissures and power struggles are very much in our interest. The most negative thing would have been an amicable mutual agreement on the lines of "oh yes this just confirmed what we all knew - it's a bad idea. Let's not do it again". As I said, both sides can be trusted not to be so amicable.

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 20 Sep 2014 00:28

Suraj wrote:
Shreeman wrote:As for the future, upheavals like this are not new. Westminster will make sure to destroy the scottish polity in a slow process of corruption. There will be some token devolution, "the scottish empowerment act of 201?" like the "USA Patriot Act" will take away as much or more than it gives.

Scots have been had again. Groundskeeper Willie is not amused.
That's all perfectly acceptable because latent fissures and power struggles are very much in our interest. The most negative thing would have been an amicable mutual agreement on the lines of "oh yes this just confirmed what we all knew - it's a bad idea. Let's not do it again". As I said, both sides can be trusted not to be so amicable.

Why exactly is it in our interest, other than schadenfreude ?

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 20 Sep 2014 01:12

We need multiple reasons ? Why ?

member_19686 · Post by **member_19686** » 20 Sep 2014 01:48

Stuart Breadner
‏@shootbacknews
No Voters Surrounding Young Girls

https://mtc.cdn.vine.co/r/videos_h264hi ... eJ2aNRtRx4

https://twitter.com/shootbacknews/statu ... 1404197889

IndraD · Post by **IndraD** » 20 Sep 2014 01:55

Raja Bose wrote:Wait! Are we sure this referendum was free and fair? UK has a long history of subjugating freedom of individuals and nations using overt and covert force.

there was one report deleted from CNN where both yes & no voters were 55% each, that article has been removed from daily mail it seems

member_19686 · Post by **member_19686** » 20 Sep 2014 01:58

Politics and That
‏@politicsandthat
BBC said there's no sign of violence in #GeorgeSquare tonight. Here's what's really going on: http://politicsandthat.com/2014/09/19/v ... -votes-no/

Politics and That @politicsandthat · 2m
Hearing reports that train stations and subways may be closed off due to violence in #GeorgeSquare. Please RT for awareness. Stay safe!

https://twitter.com/politicsandthat/sta ... 4674117632

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 20 Sep 2014 02:01

KrishnaK wrote:Why exactly is it in our interest, other than schadenfreude ?

A truncated United Kingdom should be a trigger to re-do the UN Security Council permanent membership.

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 20 Sep 2014 02:29

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 20 Sep 2014 03:03

The union lives on – but in its present design it may well be dead

The UK may have survived but the outcome is confusing

The UK has survived, comfortably; the UK in its present design is dead, possibly. The outcome of the referendum on Scottish independence is as cloudy as that, even if its arithmetical result was decisive.

Scots affirmed the union by a margin of 55 per cent to 45 per cent. The rush of nationalism that showed in the polls at the turn of September was not enough; wavering voters cleaved to the status quo. A unionist campaign that was traduced by armchair strategists for subjugating romance to cold scepticism turned out to be effective enough. Pollsters say that unanswered questions about an independent Scotland’s economy – its pensions, its lure to business and above all its currency – were what ultimately told.

Yet the result is the start of a constitutional wrangle, not the end of it. That more than two in five Scots – and their biggest city Glasgow – have voted to leave the UK is no small matter. The separatist movement will have to be assuaged with new powers for the Edinburgh parliament. The most sanguine unionists used to expect barely 30 per cent to plump for secession. Had Alex Salmond managed expectations more deftly of late, the nationalist first minister of Scotland would now be written up as a man of pluck and derring-do who pushed a 307-year union to the edge of oblivion. Instead, he has resigned, a visibly dejected man.

He wants his eventual successor to press Westminster to honour its big but unspecific promise of another round of devolution to Scotland. Fleshing this promise out, getting it through the UK parliament and then balancing it with new powers of self-rule for England could be the work of years, not months. There is no clean answer to the governance of the UK, no rationalist blueprint that pleases every part of a multinational kingdom in which one nation, England, is so preponderant. Imagine if Bavaria accounted for 85 per cent of Germany’s population.

Still, the first few steps along this tortuous path can now be discerned. In a statement on Friday morning, David Cameron, radiant with relief, said he wanted English votes for English laws. This seems to mean that only MPs with constituencies in England can vote on legislation that affects only England: healthcare, education, aspects of welfare and possibly some fiscal policy. Because the Tories are the biggest party in England, the implications are heavy. It is possible that Ed Miliband will win next year’s general election for Labour but have no majority on some basic matters of government.

A referendum that could have done for the prime minister has ended up putting his opponents in an invidious position. There is no answer to the English question that does not compromise Labour. True, the party would have won in 1997, 2001 and 2005 without Scottish seats but that was under the leadership of Tony Blair, who had freakish political talent and a laser eye for the centre ground. How many Blairs do Labour have?

Yet to oppose constitutional redress for the English would be incendiary. Labour could lose England, especially the south east, for a generation, as voters there come to see it as a high-handed Celtic lobby. Labour MPs such as John Denham and Frank Field are counselling their party against an outright rejection of Mr Cameron’s proposal.

Of course, a proposal is just that. The prime minister must get it through parliament. But his hand is strong. Further devolution to Edinburgh has to happen because anything else would constitute a heinous breach of promises by all parties. And Tories will only approve this divestment of power in return for concomitant arrangements for England. The internal logic of the process is inescapable.

And if Labour scupper devolution to Scotland to avoid English self-rule, the political cost will not be borne by Mr Cameron. His party have little esteem to lose among Scots. Labour, by contrast, would risk evisceration at the hands of the Nationalists for failing to honour promises made by one of their own – Gordon Brown, the former prime minister – just last week. South of the border, meanwhile, the Tories would cast Labour as anti-democrats.

Those close to the prime minister say he is serious about English votes for English laws. Question his ability to deliver it and the reply is crisp: “He will. Don’t worry about that.” He has vigilant backbenchers to please and, in the UK Independence Party, a rival for the emerging English demos.

Mr Cameron is a conventional man who does unconventional things when he is cornered. His failure to win the last election outright led to the formation of Britain’s first coalition government since the second world war. This referendum was another brush with political mortality and it has summoned another intrepid gesture from him. At stake is his grip on his party, and his place in history.

LakshO · Post by **LakshO** » 20 Sep 2014 05:07

Raja Bose wrote:Wait! Are we sure this referendum was free and fair? UK has a long history of subjugating freedom of individuals and nations using overt and covert force.

My suspicion is that the English were upto their ditry tricks and stole the referendum, just like they steal everything else.

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 20 Sep 2014 05:39

Suraj wrote:We need multiple reasons ? Why ?

We don't. The one I pointed out has nothing to do with our interest though.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 20 Sep 2014 05:51

A weak or fractured UK is in our interest. It enables us to negotiate terms with a fractured polity, which puts us in a stronger relative position. It undermines the UNSC structure and forces a power realignment, which again, is in our interest. Schadenfreude is just for our amusement.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 20 Sep 2014 06:26

Suraj wrote:A weak or fractured UK is in our interest. It enables us to negotiate terms with a fractured polity, which puts us in a stronger relative position. It undermines the UNSC structure and forces a power realignment, which again, is in our interest. Schadenfreude is just for our amusement.

What do we want from this moth eaten country(?) that we have to even consider them at all.??

member_19686 · Post by **member_19686** » 20 Sep 2014 07:13

Glasgow's George Square turns ugly tonight as pro-union skinheads taunt defeated Scottish independence campaigners

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gl ... ly-4290576

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 20 Sep 2014 08:09

Russia identifies 'North Korean'-style irregularities in Scottish independence vote

There may be hope yet for supporters of Scottish independence

Thursday's referendum, which showed a strong majority voting to stay in Great Britain, did "not meet international standards," according to election observers. Indeed, members of the media expressed skepticism at the "North Korean"-style turnout level — a dubiously high 90 percent.

all these skeptics were Russians with ties to the Kremlin

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 20 Sep 2014 09:59

It has already begun... Citing the Scot vote as an example certain other countries in the world have no excuse not to follow...

The Case for a Unified Kurdistan

I foresee a referendum in Turkey analogous to the imminent one in Scotland, in which those living in the majority-Kurdish regions vote whether to remain part of the Republic of Turkey or to secede. Such a vote would undoubtedly endorse secession.

One of the happy side-effects of Kurdish secession would be to impede the ambitions of Turkey's rogue autocratic president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. This is no small matter, inasmuch as Turkey under his leadership represents the greatest long-term threat to Western interests in the Middle East.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 20 Sep 2014 16:20

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -fate.html

The numbers are interesting:

Only 27% of the Scots want to be in UK for emotion, history, which are the definers of a nation. 47% said No because of money (pension, pound). Wow. So it is the money that is keeping them together. This is how the Scots got into the union 300 years ago. I thought Scots were better than that.

The masterstroke of the British is evident. The PM waited for the Yes campaign to exhaust itself. Then announced promise of devolution just day or two before the vote. According to the poll, he 25% of the people to consider that--this is just enough to tilt the balance.

Someone mentioned Karma. I too have to wonder the same exact question. There good Karma has not exhausted itself still. Looks like god with is with them. They escaped a major catastrophe on the world front.

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 20 Sep 2014 19:30

Agnimitra wrote:It has already begun... Citing the Scot vote as an example certain other countries in the world have no excuse not to follow...

The Case for a Unified Kurdistan
I foresee a referendum in Turkey analogous to the imminent one in Scotland, in which those living in the majority-Kurdish regions vote whether to remain part of the Republic of Turkey or to secede. Such a vote would undoubtedly endorse secession.

One of the happy side-effects of Kurdish secession would be to impede the ambitions of Turkey's rogue autocratic president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. This is no small matter, inasmuch as Turkey under his leadership represents the greatest long-term threat to Western interests in the Middle East.

Precisely why this scot referendum business was not in our interest. We're the world's largest multi-ethnic state with diversity like no 10 other. We'll always have malcontents within the union. Gives them just that bit more.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 20 Sep 2014 20:13

KrishnaK wrote:Precisely why this scot referendum business was not in our interest. We're the world's largest multi-ethnic state with diversity like no 10 other. We'll always have malcontents within the union. Gives them just that bit more.

Don't think the tendency to breakup is dependent solely on the number of ethnicities. The critical factor seems to be the composition of these ethnicities in terms of race and faith. At least, that's my takeaway from my back-of-the-envelope classification of the 200 odd countries around the world by race / faith:

Euro (White Christian) settlers: ~80
Black (Negroid Christian & Muslim): ~ 45
Muslim nations which are not part of the two above segments: ~45
Brown Non-Muslim (India, parts of S / SE Asia & Pacific Islands): ~20
Mongoloid (E Asia): ~10

So, about 45 % of the world population (the last 2 slabs) accounts for just 30 countries, while the the remaining 55% is broken up into ~170 !! Clearly there are some interesting inferences that can be drawn.

Coming back to your point - A Scot "Yes" in the referendum would likely have increased centrifugal effect in India, but only for the Abrahamic states (J&K, couple of the NE ones).

sudarshan · Post by **sudarshan** » 20 Sep 2014 21:07

I think a better parallel for India, rather than England-Scotland, would be East and West Germany (multiplied by a factor of four or five). Or North and South Vietnam, which never quite separated despite the best efforts of outside powers.

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 20 Sep 2014 21:54

Deleted

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 21 Sep 2014 01:15

KrishnaK, that's poor analysis. This has been dissected here before. Look it up.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 21 Sep 2014 07:51

Saddest day for Scotland since Queen Mary was beheaded. Now only a guerrilla movement can win Liberation. Inquilab Zindabad!