Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Sep 2014 07:35

In my meandering gently for over 2 decades over highlands,lowlands,glens,lochs,islands-by rail,road,river and sea,heavily fuelled with single cask,cask strength malt whisky,the once unimaginable thought of an Independent Scotland,the dream of the remaining Jacobite few,drawing a flicker of hope from the glorious ,typically Scottish tragic history of Bonnie Prince Charlie,was resurrected by a doughty Scot,Alex Salmond,who like his great Scottish forbear,Robet the Bruce,never gave up on his dream for Scottish Independence. In increasing strength,the number of Scots who have swung from NO to YES over the last few years has been truly extraordinary.The antics at Westminster have shown the people of Britain that Britain's priorities in recent times had more to do with following like a loyal poodle American global interests rather than the interests of the entities that make up the UK.

In this,the Scots have always come last in the pecking order.A few economic crumbs have been thrown to them form time to time,to keep them warm and in whisky.The North Sea oil,now fast running out,was squandered unlike the canny Nrowegians who invested heavily in their oil wealth and now own approx. 10-15% of all global stocks without any reduction in their high standard of living! Above all,the desire to be masters of their own land is what is driving the Yes vote. Decades ago,we had a Scottish teacher at our school on loan.The warden was an Englishman.His ears grew red with embarrassment when the Scot said that the first foreign capital he had visited was London! The moment you cross Hadrian's Wall by train,in fact the atmosphere changes once you reach Newcastle,you feel that you are entering another country and the attitude of the people is the most expressive factor in realising that you are now in a land which is not England.

The vote is now on a knife edge,the thinnest of the edge of a Scottish dirk.This is a moment that comes once in history.Will the Scots rise up like the Bruce,who never gave up,and win another glorious Bannockburn,or will they fail like that Bonnie Prince and face defeat to haunt them for another 250+ years,as was most cruelly and bitterly experienced at Culloden ?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Sep 2014 08:53

Scottish independence: Ten days to save the United Kingdom as George Osborne promises further devolution after poll shows shock lead for Yes camp

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/sc ... 17329.html

Salmond dismisses ‘panicky bribe’ and says Westminster elite is losing referendum campaign

Opponents of Scottish independence are to launch a last-ditch attempt to prevent the break-up of the UK as shock-waves continue to reverberate inside the pro-union camp following the first poll to put the Yes vote in the lead.

Chancellor George Osborne has promised that specific plans will be announced within days to enable Scotland to gain greater devolution in the event of a No vote, in an attempt to stem the tide of their voters to the Yes camp.

With 10 days to go to the historic referendum on Scotland’s future, Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown will join up to 150 Labour MPs who will flood Scotland to step up campaigning. Alex Salmond, the First Minister, accused the No camp of “spiralling into self-destruction,” but insisted independence supporters remained the underdogs in the battle for votes.

Sunday’s YouGov poll revealed that, of those who had decided, 51 per cent backed the Yes campaign, with 49 per cent intending to vote No, giving a huge psychological boost to Mr Salmond and providing fresh evidence in a sharp drop in support for the UK over the last month. A separate Panelbase poll put No ahead by 52 to 48 per cent lead. As the outcome of both surveys is within polling error, Scotland appears to be heading for a knife-edge result on 18 September.

The figures intensified the jitters and recriminations within Better Together, with one prominent figure in the No camp admitting: “It has been pretty terrible run.”

The campaign threatened to involve the Queen after a report on Sunday that she was worried by the impact of a No vote on her constitutional status as Scottish head of state. A Buckingham Palace spokesman responded: “The Queen is neutral on all political issues. She always has been and always will be.”

Both sides in the increasingly tense contest will now pour massive resources into winning the support of a dwindling number of Don’t Knows, who could hold the key to victory. The SNP will on Monday will claim that only a Yes vote can protect the National Health Service from cuts by an ideologically driven Conservative Government as it focuses on voters in Glasgow.

All Scottish Labour MPs have been instructed to spend this week campaigning and are expected to be joined by around 100 of their colleagues from south of their border.

Their influx has been ordered by party chiefs amid signs that support for independence is growing rapidly among Labour’s traditional supporters in urban areas.

The 11 Scottish Liberal Democrat MPs have been given permission to spend the next 10 days campaigning and will be joined later this week by Nick Clegg.

Mr Osborne today promised that detailed plans for the transfer of more powers to Holyrood would be set out this week. It would include extra powers over tax, spending and welfare policies. The timing of his announcement caused surprise as hundreds of thousands of postal votes have already been distributed.

The Chancellor told BBC1’s Andrew Marr Show: “The timetable for delivering that will be put into effect the moment there is a No vote in the referendum. The clock will be ticking for delivering those powers, and then Scotland will have the best of both worlds.”

But Mr Salmond said: “This is a panicky measure made because the Yes side is winning. They’re trying to bribe us, but it won’t work as they have no credibility left.”

Mr Miliband, who will share a stage with Mr Brown later this week, will also pledge today that work to devolve more powers to Scotland, if it rejects independence, should begin immediately.

Addressing a TUC dinner, Mr Miliband will argue that voting against “separation is also about saying Yes to more devolution” which will see “more decisions being made in Scotland, by Scots, with a stronger Scottish Parliament, with more powers guaranteed”. Mr Miliband will also argue that the “choice which is true to Labour’s traditions, to trade-union traditions” in the referendum is to vote for Scotland to remain in the UK.

But Bob Thomson, of Labour for Independence, said: “We already know that some 230,000 Labour voters – around one in three – are already planning to vote Yes, and we are aiming for a majority a week on Thursday. Members of the RMT union have recently voted to support a Yes vote, and the Scottish Prison Officers’ Association members also back Yes.”

The former Scottish Secretary, Jim Murphy, said the weekend polls should “shake the complacency out of any No vote”. He said: It’s clear that every vote is now going to count. This isn’t a protest vote, it’s a permanent choice about our country’s future.

“This should encourage passive No voters to become No activists. It’s time for the quiet patriotic majority to stand up.” Meanwhile, a study has suggested that the more information people have in the run-up to the independence referendum, the more likely they are to vote Yes.

Research carried out at Edinburgh University found that information contributed to increasing support for independence “when it meets a ‘fertile soil’,” such as those who are more politically active, are already informed about the referendum and are more emotionally involved in the issue of independence.
Ten days to go: the confirmed campaigning events

Monday

Better Together’s leader, Alistair Darling, campaigns at Stockbridge Market in Edinburgh while the Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, appears in Glasgow to speak about the NHS with the Plaid Cymru leader, Leanne Wood.

Tuesday

Pro-independence and pro-union lawyers hold a debate in Edinburgh on the ramifications of a split in the Faculty of Advocates. Dozens of Labour MPs and David Cameron are also expected to travel north later in the week to campaign.

Friday 12 September

The Labour leader, Ed Miliband, and the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown share the stage at a pro-union rally in Glasgow – while elsewhere in the city leading members of Ukip in Scotland will be joined by the party’s leader, Nigel Farage, for a pro-union rally.

Saturday 13 September

In Edinburgh, the Orange Order will hold a pro-union rally and parade.

Sunday 14 September

The Yes camp hosts the sold-out Night for Scotland concert at Edinburgh’s Usher Hall.

Monday 15 September

In Glasgow, unionist academics and MPs speak at a free event at Glasgow’s Royal Concert Hall.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 08 Sep 2014 09:32

The denouement of the Scottish referendum promises to be a nail biter. The new Yes poll has clearly caused shockwaves in England. MPs have been immediately ordered north, the Queen is worried, Cameron is doing a brave-faced handwaving act threatening and cajoling, claiming terrorism will increase, that home loan rates will increase and various other scare tactics. The fact that the Yes vote surged despite the constant stream of scare tactics from England suggests the English are feeding the Yes vote with them. Fascinating. The UK happened because two warring states - England and Scotland - united to plunder India. Will we be seeing that unholy union dissolve in front of our eyes in less than two weeks ?

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 08 Sep 2014 09:53

My source on the ground...utterly objective and ice-cold rational, has been telling me for at least three months it will be a Yes for independence based on feelers, talking to people across the spectrum, and observation. I take this perspective with as much credence as I would give my own.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 08 Sep 2014 10:05

Any more insights from your source, JEM ? Why did the Yes voters take until now to reveal their cards ? To keep the English from pressurizing them prematurely, and then leave them hanging at the end with a rapid rise in Yes votes ?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Sep 2014 11:43

^ you mean rapid rise in no votes?

I feel the 1400 kids scandal in northern eng expose may have been deftly timed by the scottish rebels to drive some fear into the community as northern eng is where highest density of faithful are present...in big areas like birmingham.

imo bartania is disproportionately uplifted by the finances and importance of the london area. its one of largest urban areas in the world and UK's only megacity. the benefits are not distributed to the serfs elsewhere while the wolves of the city of london and expat thieves and fugitive oligarchs live the high life.

scotland should probably industrialize afresh in high tech , and leverage its old whisky, tourism, north sea gas , fishing franchises independently. why not a couple of world class ports as well? we all have a soft corner for the redheads vs the cunning euro nobles in the south !

and rents from the faslane and orkney naval bases would bring home some revenue.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 08 Sep 2014 11:48

No, I mean the rapid rise in Yes votes in the polls lately. The graph posted above is not as dramatic as this one:
What Scotland Thinks Poll
It is almost as if the Scots did not want to rock the boat until after the CWG2014 finished, and now that it has, they've no problem stating their Yes preference openly.

That's why I asked about JEM's source. Clearly there's been a groundswell of Yes support that kept quiet or stayed dormant until now, when it's nearly too late for the English to do anything much, if the Yes momentum keeps building. Scare tactics can backfire badly.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Sep 2014 11:49

ok I thought it was some cunning engrish plan.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 08 Sep 2014 12:30

JEM Sir,
When Alex Salmond talks about using the British Pound as a currency , doesn't that make the Independence vote moot?
Here is what he is saying ( to A.Darling)
- No one can stop us from using the pound
- We are willing to accept a no vote. But if it is a Yes, will you agree for a currency union.?
- You cannot deny us Bank of Eng. assets. Because if you deny, the entire Eng/Scotland debt it yours. So we need to access the Bank Of England assets but we will also pay part of UK debt (5Billion/year)

So it looks like Salmand is steering away from Yes/No to more of how after a Yes vote. That makes the exercise moot right? Your thoughts?

///---///
England will be cursing Darling. He messed up North Sea oil debate. Repeatedly stressing that output from North Sea is unreliable and quoting vague stats did him in. Alex Salmond was correct when he said that there is only one person in the world (Darling) who keeps saying that a oil field is not an asset to an economy when Norway, gulf state have all enjoyed the boom.
///---///

PS> There was joke abt Darling on Mock The week. "NEver trust a man who's eyebrows are a different color from the hair on the head."

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 08 Sep 2014 13:34

Suraj, apparently they just didn't bother to do so until now. Nothing more complicated than that. The scots are a very laid back and easy going people...

Neela, not really moot. This is about emotion, nationalism, independence and all the rest of it. Some consideration will be given to economic prospects etc, but if you are in favour of independence it is not because of brighter prospects or vice versa. It is also that the scots have a unique historical situation with the English ... This is not so much a referendum about independence from the UK but rather about separation from the English...

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 08 Sep 2014 13:36

Having said all that, London is pulling out all the stops now... They are old hands at this and have a lot of historical experience to draw from in scuttling such things with a straight face and much hand-wringing.

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 08 Sep 2014 20:19

Scotland swings to Yes but Alex Salmond isn't resting on his laurels

From the comment section

Truthbetold

The great thing about the election is regardless of the outcome, it completely destroys the myth of a 'United' and 'Kingdom'. I mean, what intelligent person is ever going to use that ridiculous phrase ever again without taking a big red face. Well done to Scotland for exposing this nonsense.

Scottish independence guide: Everything you need to know ahead of the Yes/No vote

Whatever Scotland decides, the old order is dead and buried

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 09 Sep 2014 00:03

It seems that most of older generation prefer to stay within the Union and it's the younger generation who are supporting the independence. But, in the end I feel it will be a close "No". The Briturds just have too much experience with such situations and could you imagine anyone being able to call out Englistanis if they rig the vote.

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 09 Sep 2014 01:09

To those who cite the days of the Raj as the golden period for India........(like our Honourable ex-PM Dr. Manmohan Singh ji, PhD)

Scorched earth
By 1943, hordes of starving people were flooding into Calcutta and a huge number of them died on streets.
The Bengal Famine of 1943-44 must rank as the greatest disaster in the subcontinent in the 20th century. Nearly 4 million Indians died because of an artificial famine created by the British Government, and yet it gets little more than a passing mention in Indian history books.
What is remarkable about the scale of the disaster is its time span. World War II was at its peak and the Germans were rampaging across Europe, targeting Jews, Slavs and the Roma for extermination. It took Adolf Hitler and his Nazi cohorts 12 years to round up and murder 6 million Jews, but their Teutonic cousins, the British, managed to kill almost 4 million Indians in just over a year, with Prime Minister Winston Churchill cheering from the sidelines.
Australian biochemist Dr Gideon Polya has called the Bengal Famine a “manmade holocaust” because Churchill’s policies were directly responsible for the disaster. Bengal had a bountiful harvest in 1942, but the British started diverting vast quantities of food grain from India to Britain, contributing to a massive food shortage in the areas comprising present-day West Bengal, Odisha, Bihar and Bangladesh.
Author Madhusree Mukerjee tracked down some of the survivors and paints a chilling picture of the effects of hunger and deprivation. In Churchill’s Secret War, she writes: “Parents dumped their starving children into rivers and wells. Many took their lives by throwing themselves in front of trains. Starving people begged for the starchy water in which rice had been boiled. Children ate leaves and vines, yam stems and grass. People were too weak even to cremate their loved ones.”
“No one had the strength to perform rites,” a survivor tells Mukerjee. “Dogs and jackals feasted on piles of dead bodies in Bengal’s villages.” The ones who got away were men who migrated to Calcutta for jobs and women who turned to prostitution to feed their families. “Mothers had turned into murderers, village belles into whores, fathers into traffickers of daughters,” writes Mukerjee.
Mani Bhaumik, the first to get a PhD from the IITs and whose invention of excimer surgery enabled Lasik eye surgery, has the famine etched in his memory. His grandmother starved to death because she used to give him a portion of her food.
By 1943 hordes of starving people were flooding into Calcutta, most dying on the streets. The sight of well-fed white British soldiers amidst this apocalyptic landscape was “the final judgement on British rule in India”, said the Anglophile Jawaharlal Nehru.
Churchill could easily have prevented the famine. Even a few shipments of food grain would have helped, but the British prime minister adamantly turned down appeals from two successive Viceroys, his own Secretary of State for India and even the President of the US .
Subhas Chandra Bose, who was then fighting on the side of the Axis forces, offered to send rice from Myanmar, but the British censors did not even allow his offer to be reported.
Churchill was totally remorseless in diverting food to the British troops and Greek civilians. To him, “the starvation of anyhow underfed Bengalis (was) less serious than sturdy Greeks”, a sentiment with which Secretary of State for India and Burma, Leopold Amery, concurred.
Amery was an arch-colonialist and yet he denounced Churchill’s “Hitler-like attitude”. Urgently beseeched by Amery and the then Viceroy Archibald Wavell to release food stocks for India, Churchill responded with a telegram asking why Gandhi hadn’t died yet.
Wavell informed London that the famine “was one of the greatest disasters that has befallen any people under British rule”. He said when Holland needs food, “ships will of course be available, quite a different answer to the one we get whenever we ask for ships to bring food to India”.
Churchill’s excuse — currently being peddled by his family and supporters — was Britain could not spare the ships to transport emergency supplies, but Mukerjee has unearthed documents that challenge his claim. She cites official records that reveal ships carrying grain from Australia bypassed India on their way to the Mediterranean.
Churchill’s hostility toward Indians has long been documented. At a War Cabinet meeting, he blamed the Indians themselves for the famine, saying they “breed like rabbits”. His attitude toward Indians may be summed up in his words to Amery: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” On another occasion, he insisted they were “the beastliest people in the world next to the Germans”.
According to Mukerjee, “Churchill’s attitude toward India was quite extreme, and he hated Indians, mainly because he knew India couldn’t be held for very long.” She writes in The Huffington Post, “Churchill regarded wheat as too precious a food to expend on non-whites, let alone on recalcitrant subjects who were demanding independence from the British Empire. He preferred to stockpile the grain to feed Europeans after the war was over.”
In October 1943, at the peak of the famine, Churchill said at a lavish banquet to mark Wavell’s appointment: “When we look back over the course of years, we see one part of the world’s surface where there has been no war for three generations. Famines have passed away — until the horrors of war and the dislocations of war have given us a taste of them again — and pestilence has gone… This episode in Indian history will surely become the Golden Age as time passes, when the British gave them peace and order, and there was justice for the poor, and all men were shielded from outside dangers.”
Churchill was not only a racist but also a liar.

India-hater Winston Churchill blamed Indians for the famine

A history of holocausts
To be sure, Churchill’s policy towards famine-stricken Bengal wasn’t any different from earlier British conduct in India. In Late Victorian Holocausts, Mike Davis points out that here were 31 serious famines in 120 years of British rule compared with 17 in the 2,000 years before British rule.
In his book, Davis tells the story of the famines that killed up to 29 million Indians. These people were, he says, murdered by British State policy. In 1876, when drought destituted the farmers of the Deccan plateau, there was a net surplus of rice and wheat in India. But the Viceroy, Robert Bulwer-Lytton, insisted that nothing should prevent their export to England.
In 1877 and 1878, at the height of the famine, grain merchants exported record quantities of grain. As the peasants began to starve, government officials were ordered “to discourage relief works in every possible way”. The only relief permitted in most districts was hard labour, from which anyone in an advanced state of starvation was turned away. Within these labour camps, the workers were given less food than the Jewish inmates of Buchenwald, the Nazi concentration camp of World War II.
Even as millions died, Lytton ignored all efforts to alleviate the suffering of millions of peasants in the Madras region and concentrated on preparing for Queen Victoria’s investiture as Empress of India. The highlight of the celebrations was a week-long feast at which 68,000 dignitaries heard her promise the nation “happiness, prosperity and welfare”.
In 1901, The Lancet estimated that at least 19 million Indians had died in western India during the famine of the 1890s. The death toll was so high because the British refused to implement famine relief. Davis says life expectancy in India fell by 20 percent between 1872 and 1921.
So it’s hardly surprising that Hitler’s favourite film was The Lives of a Bengal Lancer, which showed a handful of Britons holding a continent in thrall. The Nazi leader told the then British Foreign Secretary Edward Wood (Earl of Halifax) that it was one of his favorite films because “that was how a superior race must behave and the film was compulsory viewing for the SS (Schutz-Staffel, the Nazi ‘protection squadron’)”.
Crime and consequences
While Britain has offered apologies to other nations, such as Kenya for the Mau Mau massacre, India continues to have such genocides swept under the carpet. Other nationalities have set a good example for us. Israel, for instance, cannot forget the Holocaust; neither will it let others, least of all the Germans. Germany continues to dole out hundreds of millions of dollars in cash and arms aid to Israel.
Armenia cannot forget the Great Crime — the systematic massacre of 1.8 million Armenians by the Turks during World War I. The Poles cannot forget Joseph Stalin’s Katyn massacre.
The Chinese want a clear apology and reparations from the Japanese for at least 40,000 killed and raped in Nanking during World War II. And then there is the bizarre case of the Ukrainians, who like to call a famine caused by Stalin’s economic policies as genocide, which it clearly was not. They even have a word for it: Holodomor.
And yet India alone refuses to ask for reparations, let alone an apology. Could it be because the British were the last in a long list of invaders, so why bother with an England suffering from post-imperial depression? Or is it because India’s English-speaking elites feel beholden to the British? Or are we simply a nation condemned to repeating our historical mistakes? Perhaps we forgive too easily.
But forgiveness is different from forgetting, which is what Indians are guilty of. It is an insult to the memory of millions of Indians whose lives were snuffed out in artificial famines.
British attitudes towards Indians have to seen in the backdrop of India’s contribution to the Allied war campaign. By 1943, more than 2.5 million Indian soldiers were fighting alongside the Allies in Europe, Africa and Southeast Asia. Vast quantities of arms, ammunition and raw materials sourced from across the country were shipped to Europe at no cost to Britain.
Britain’s debt to India is too great to be ignored by either nation. According to Cambridge University historians Tim Harper and Christopher Bayly, “It was Indian soldiers, civilian labourers and businessmen who made possible the victory of 1945. Their price was the rapid independence of India.”
There is not enough wealth in all of Europe to compensate India for 250 years of colonial loot. Forget the money, do the British at least have the grace to offer an apology? Or will they, like Churchill, continue to delude themselves that English rule was India’s “Golden Age”?

(Published in Tehelka Magazine, Volume 11 Issue 25, Dated June 13, 2014)

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 09 Sep 2014 01:40

So will they turn the Holy Rood Castle into one giant public WC (windsor castle)?Will be interesting to see what happens to the Feud between the McDhonalds and the CampBhells. Good scope for sales of knives, AK-47s etc.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Sep 2014 02:00

Past time to send in Corporal Jones ("Don't panic! Don't panic!),Blackadder and Baldric (with his cunning plan) to save the UK! You can add Johnny English (aka Mr.Bean) and Basil Fawlty for good measure.The Scots will die laughing ,be too p*ssed to vote and save the day. On the other hand,they could use pres.Putin's tactic,of vodka convoys.But then the Scots have their own vast quantities of uisque beatha --poteen,good old home brew to ward off perfidious Albion.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 09 Sep 2014 02:22

JE Menon wrote:Having said all that, London is pulling out all the stops now... They are old hands at this and have a lot of historical experience to draw from in scuttling such things with a straight face and much hand-wringing.

Even so, the myth of the 'alliance of equals' is dead. The Scots never quite considered it as such, due to London's dominance within a unitary system. It was papered over for a long time, thanks to the spoils of colonial loot from India and elsewhere, and then thanks to the North Sea oil. Thatcher did yeoman service to the task of splitting the union, by hollowing out the Scottish industrial base. Even if the referendum votes no, the vote will be by barely a few points, as opposed to a clear No vote by at least a 20-25 point margin. That means that chances are still good that the UK will dissolve within a decade. In fact Al Guardian has already thrown in the towel and declared as such:
Whatever Scotland decides, the old order is dead and buried

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Sep 2014 07:12

where did most of the UK->USA immigrants come from? iirc it was scots and irish fleeing famine and poverty. scots also made a good chunk (with germans) of the voluntarily immigration to australia.

vina · Post by **vina** » 09 Sep 2014 07:57

scots also made a good chunk (with germans) of the voluntarily immigration to australia

Australia historically was English, Scots and Irish. The culture is still strongly Anglo-Celtic. The Brits limited other European influx in to Australia. That mass migration of other whites (okay, the Southern Europeans were not considered white enough) is a post WWII phenomenon under the Whites only Australia program.

US and South America was the place where the bulk of non Brit Isles Europeans went.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 09 Sep 2014 10:14

vina wrote:
US and South America was the place where the bulk of non Brit Isles Europeans went.

OT.

And that is exactly why I call b$ on World Cup fussball. Have a look at the diff quotas for diff regions.
The World cup is match between cousins & the world is invited.....to watch.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Sep 2014 10:57

I think german farmers settled in a patch of SW aus around adelaide. there is some kinda fertile delta there where aborigines had started farming and fishing vs their current desert life. but euro settlers soon chased them off the limited areas of fertile land with good water in australia into the outback...so even those who had settled had to revert back to the desert.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 09 Sep 2014 12:13

if the scottish vote no, it will be because of mailed-in votes from people outside. Also, counting may have something to do with it.

Ardeshir · Post by **Ardeshir** » 09 Sep 2014 13:51

People not resident in Scotland aren't allowed to vote. Hence, many Scots who live overseas, as well as those living in England for example, are not eligible to vote.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 09 Sep 2014 14:02

Singha wrote:I think german farmers settled in a patch of SW aus around adelaide. there is some kinda fertile delta there where aborigines had started farming and fishing vs their current desert life. but euro settlers soon chased them off the limited areas of fertile land with good water in australia into the outback...so even those who had settled had to revert back to the desert.

OT, but all this talk of settlement by euros made me look up the breakup of countries of the world by predominant race. The approx 200 countries of the world seem to be broken up something like:

Euro (White) settlers: ~80
Black (Negroid): ~ 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

No wonder the Anglo-Americans (leaders of the 'White' world) punch above their weight in one country-one vote forums like the UN. The last two races (the more productive ones in any case) need to push for proportional representation on the basis of population.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Sep 2014 14:16

east asia, india and BD would surely be 50% of the world pop.

white wealth and industrialization was greatly facilitated by the greatest landgrab and wipeout of native cultures in the history of human race - just add up North and South america, Australia , south africa, NZ and see what it comes to. 3 of the seven continents. of the 4 remaining continents, one is antarctica and one(africa) was raped down to the bone for resources and labour. the last remaining is europe itself and asia!

asia was the only continent they could not damage permanently...the population, culture and bedrock of old civilizations was a bit too strong for wholesale conquest but they left behind the Nehrus, Gandhis and such to 'keep an eye on things'

if antarctica were more hospitable or had gold under rocks they would have grabbed that too and killed all the penguins and seals.

the model I see is a band of locusts who over 300 yrs ravaged half the worlds land area and fished the seas empty as well.

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 09 Sep 2014 15:27

Post Vote: The "Nay" voters (those that are voting to stay in the union) have a troubled future ahead, I think. If the No votes exceed the Yes votes by a narrow margin, and the union remains intact, the Yes voters will always look down upon the No voters as having committed something akin to treason to the Scottish cause. Especially if the No voters are ethnically Scots. Will that be grounds for a rebellion of sorts? Hard to say but the Scottish society will be divided from there on.

If the NO votes are less than the Yes votes (probably does not matter by what margin), and Scotland breaks free from the union, the No voters have an uncertain future ahead in independent Scotland and may even have to relocate to the south, especially those who are ethnically English. Ethnic Scots who voted No but failed will probably find a way to survive in the new Scotland.

There was an interesting photo of soot Asian muslims in Edinburgh with Yes placards. They were all smiling. Imagine going through three partitions.

England is about to experience what India went through in the '40s. Interesting times ahead, that's for sure.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 09 Sep 2014 16:23

Financial Times ‏@FT 1h

Scotland: YouGov poll was not an outlier. TNS shows No on 39%, Yes on 38%, with 23% undecided http://on.ft.com/1on8Npk

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 09 Sep 2014 20:14

'Wales has no plan for Scots Independence, we desperately need one'

The panic may be necessary but panic it is. With polls saying the Scottish referendum is too close to call, in the next few days Scotland will be offered, constitutionally, something just short of the earth, while markets and big industries will apply the economic frighteners.

Meanwhile the Queen will be wondering whether her reign will be known not for its longevity but for being the last over an united kingdom, and whether the annual trip to Balmoral will henceforth be a trip abroad.

How did we get to this precipice?

It is easy to blame poor tactics on the part of the present UK government, but it is more deep-rooted than that. History and the asymmetry of the United Kingdom makes it inherently difficult for Whitehall to heed consistently, even the periphery of England itself. A centralising mindset, almost unmatched in Europe, has survived devolution to Scotland and Wales.

Centralisation of government and business, the emasculation of local government, the primacy of finance, the neglect of the productive economy, the excessive lauding of the market, the undermining of social solidarity have all made their contribution. Margaret Thatcher had no Plan B for the coal-mining communities.

But what will be the consequences if Scotland does not resist the urge to push us all over the edge? There is much general talk to the effect that there will be change, whatever Scotland decides. No doubt, but a Yes vote will not produce the same kind of change as a No vote. And it might not be as benign.

A bare majority for No could well force the kind of full-scale constitutional reassessment of the governance of the UK that is decades overdue. The First Minister of Wales, Carwyn Jones, has been campaigning for a UK Constitutional Convention to do just that for at least 18 months, unfortunately with precious little response until now.

I say ‘could’ because the British penchant for muddling through on constitutional matters is very deep-seated. That is why we still have the absurdity of hereditary peers in the House of Lords . But Britain has now run out of excuses.

The consequences of a Yes vote are of a different order, and far less predictable. It is difficult to overestimate the impact of Scottish secession from the union. Yes, we can have fun contemplating a name for the rump UK – Little Britain or, more controversially, England. Don’t laugh, the elephant next door would comprise 92 per cent of the population.

We can amuse ourselves re-designing the Union Jack to remove the Scottish saltire and insert a dragon or the cross of St David. We can debate whether a Yes vote would require David Cameron’s resignation, or whether Boris Johnson might become the first Prime Minister of ‘England plus’ on the basis that he might provide England with a psychological pick me up.

But beneath all this would be the reality that the loss of Scotland would be more traumatic for England – and particularly for the political, financial and cultural elites of the south east – than the loss of the British empire. We cannot know what the psychological effect of such an amputation will be.

There is a common, but false assumption that the United Kingdom has endured for all time. Wales was annexed in the 16th century, the crowns of England and Scotland came together under the Stuarts at the beginning of the 17th century, union with Scotland followed at the start of the 18th century and union with Ireland in the 19th century.

The loss of empire was swifter, but took the best part of a century. Irish Home rule was debated and fought for from the 1870s to 1921. In 1931 the Statute of Westminster declared that colonial legislatures were no longer subservient to the Imperial Parliament.

India won its independence in 1947, 90 years after the first Indian mutiny. In 1956 the Suez crisis exposed our lingering imperial pretensions. And four years later Harold Macmillan reminded an audience in South Africa of the ‘winds of change’ blowing through the continent.

Importantly, as the empire ebbed away the power elites were able to suck on two comfort blankets: first, the fact of having been the victor in 1945; second, membership of what was then a very small nuclear club. The UK’s status was not dependent on land mass, population, natural resources or finance. After all, at the end of the war we were broke.

Scottish secession would be a different matter. In historical terms it would have come remarkably swiftly, and the comfort blankets are threadbare. 1945 is now too far away, the world’s nuclear club is bigger, and our nuclear deterrent seems less relevant to modern circumstances.

On the other hand, population and economic performance are now a significant determinant of our relationship with Europe. They help determine our financial contribution and rebate, and our influence over allocation of portfolios in the Commission. The UK’s population determines the number of our seats in the European Parliament. Our military capacity affects our standing in NATO and the UN, as well as our relationship with the United States.

All these would be affected by Scottish secession. It will not be possible – as it was with the loss of empire – for the power elites to go on pretending that nothing had changed. England (and London in particular) would feel this diminishment far more than Wales. The effects of trauma are not always predictable, and recent polling on English attitudes provide no comfort.

Wales would face some perils of its own. With Scotland gone, we might find it easier to get a better overall funding deal through reform of the Barnett formula. But other consequences might be harsher and more unpredictable. For instance, although Scotland would no longer be part of UKTI’s inward investment team, it would be fighting its own corner – like Ireland - with a sharply reduced corporation tax.

Toughest of all would be that Wales would be faced with the harsh reality of its own lack of leverage. The threat of independence for Wales has no current credibility. We do not have oil. Neither do we have – like Northern Ireland – a border with another state that has a claim on us.

Faced with this situation, over the last half century we have been very adept at using Scotland as the battering ram, and following in its wake – what one BBC colleague called ‘kiltstreaming’. That option would be gone. The only leverage that we could build would have to be on the foundation of superior performance which, regrettably, still seems a long way off.

We have a fair idea of what Wales might want out of a new UK settlement in the event of a Scottish no vote. There are no signs yet that we have a Welsh contingency plan in the event of a Yes vote. We need one urgently.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 10 Sep 2014 07:17

Scotts would have to be real pussies to say no now, in mvho. current fear mongering --

1. no currency union -- no jobs, housing, economy dead
2. no ships for uk navy from scottish yards
3. border/armed forces confusion
4. visit by every one and his auntie to reinforce the fear
5. asking the queen to join in ( no for now, but lets see in a week)
6. passport/border controls/schengen/no eu/...
7. scotts have nothing but oil, not much oil either.
....

stupid approach as far as i can see. wonder if a new northern ireland situation will develop if yes wins.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Sep 2014 07:36

If the vote is exceptionally close and the NO gang win,expect a chorus of "Begorrah! We wuz robbed by the Sassenachs" by outraged Scottish nationalists.There will be massive heartburn and animosity if "NO" wins and the Sassenachs crow as they inevitably will.The UK mould is about to be broken whatever the outcome of the vote.The split in the union has already entered the hearts of the Scots.Och aye!

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news[b]
Party leaders take high road to Scotland in united effort to avert yes vote[/b]

Salmond derides 'panic' in no campaign as Cameron, Miliband and Clegg appeal to Scots and Carney warns on currency union

Britain's three main party leaders will cast aside partisan Westminster politics on Wednesday, abandoning the routine of the weekly battle of prime minister's questions, to travel to Scotland in a desperate joint bid to stop a haemorrhage of votes towards Scottish independence.

Travelling separately and speaking to different audiences, David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg will fan out across Scotland on Wednesday to make an impassioned collective appeal to Scots to vote to stay inside the what they will say be a changed United Kingdom.

"There is a lot that divides us – but there's one thing on which we agree passionately: the United Kingdom is better together," the leaders said in a joint statement on Tuesday. "That's why all of us are agreed the right place for us to be tomorrow is in Scotland, not at prime minister's questions in Westminster.

"We want to be listening and talking to voters about the huge choice they face. Our message to the Scottish people will be simple: 'We want you to stay.'"

Alex Salmond, the first minister of Scotland, described the trio's decision to travel north as "the biggest blunder of the campaign" and claimed the Westminster establishment was "in a total and utter panic" as its campaign disintegrated.

The unprecedented cooperation across the Westminster divide exposes the naked fear in London that Scottish voters are not heeding the jitters in the financial markets or dark warnings about the irreversible risks to the Scottish economy entailed in a vote for yes next week.

The three leaders arrive a day after Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, warned that a currency union was "incompatible with sovereignty", rejecting Salmond's claim that Scotland could share the pound and become an independent nation. The governor set out three elements necessary for a successful currency union: free movement of capital, banking union, and joint fiscal arrangements over tax and spending.

The currency debate is being watched closely by financial markets, along with the approach that would be taken by the banking industry in the event of a yes vote. Analysts at Credit Suisse said Scotland would fall into a deep recession in the event of a yes vote. "We think deposit flight is both highly likely and highly problematic," they said, pointing out that Scotland's bank assets were 12 times GDP.

The Queen also stepped into the debate, with Buckingham Palace releasing a statement saying the outcome of the independence referendum is "a matter for the people of Scotland". Currently in Balmoral, where she will stay until after the vote on 18 September, her intervention came after Salmond suggested she would be "proud to be Queen of Scots" and the Sunday Times said she had a "great deal of concern" about a yes vote.

Cameron had not been expected to travel to Scotland until the final week of the campaign, but the prime minister agreed to tear up this timetable after a meeting with Ed Miliband on Monday afternoon at which the two men discussed a second opinion poll from TNS that had the yes vote surging to 38% and in effect tied with the no camp on 39% once undecided voters are excluded.

Cameron ordered the saltire to fly over Downing Street until the referendum is concluded, as Miliband urged towns and cities across the UK to fly the flag in support of the union.

Miliband's team rejected the prospect of the three party leaders appearing together on a joint platform, fearing the Labour leader would be tainted if he appeared alongside Cameron, and might come across as part of a bullying Westminster elite entering Scotland to demand surrender terms. "We agreed to march separately but to strike together," said a Labour source.

Salmond was scathing about the politicians' arrival in Scotland, pointing to opinion polls giving all three leaders a substantial negative rating – adding up to minus 150 points in the latest YouGov poll. That made them the most distrusted Westminster politicians ever, Salmond said. He added: "The message of this extraordinary, last-minute reaction is that the Westminster elite are in a state of absolute panic as the ground in Scotland shifts under their feet." He even offered to pay for their travel costs.

In what appears to be a deliberate attempt to offer rolling news networks a stream of pro-UK events, Cameron is due to appear in the Edinburgh area in the morning, followed by an event featuring Clegg in the Scottish Borders, while Miliband is due in the Glasgow area later.

In his speech in Glasgow, Miliband will deliver the strong message of change that the former prime minister Gordon Brown is now sending to Labour supporters in an attempt to reassure them the choice next week is no longer between an unsatisfactory status quo or separation.

Reminding voters that they would be casting their vote in indelible ink, Cameron writes in the Daily Mail that he "agrees wholeheartedly" with Brown's timetable for further devolution. He says: "This is the sort of clarityyou need as you make this decision, especially when you're not just making this decision for yourself, but for your children, your grandchildren, and their children too.

"With this timetable, we are giving people that clarity, showing that by voting no, Scotland gets the best of both worlds: power over the policies that matter, and the stability of the United Kingdom; the freedom to chart its own destiny, and the support of three other nations; the reputation in the world as a successful nation, and the clout of a world-renowned union".

He adds: "While a yes vote may be a lucky dip, a no vote is a guaranteed win for anyone who wants a stronger, more autonomous Scotland."

Miliband will say on Wednesday: "A vote for no is not a vote for no change, it is a vote for change, a vote for change in terms of more devolution of power, and a vote for change in the way our economy and our country works, because we've heard the call for change from the voters of Scotland."

Some Labour sources acknowledged that alongside an emotional appeal for the UK to stay together the three leaders needed to put pressure back on Salmond to explain how Scotland could operate alone. "It has got to the position where he appears like a commentator on the campaign," said one frustrated London official.

The last party political broadcast from the cross-party Better Together campaign is aimed at wavering and rebellious Labour voters after the latest polls suggested up to a third of them intend to vote yes in the referendum.

It features emotive black-and-white-footage of the Jarrow jobs march, of the early NHS and promotes Labour's role in introducing the minimum wage and the Scottish parliament. It ends with Brown speaking directly to the camera, where he says: "I love Scotland. It's as simple as that. I'm proud of our history and of our culture."

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 10 Sep 2014 09:44

So who gets Scotland yard? (I know, I know - they have changed the name to something watchammacallit

).

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 10 Sep 2014 09:49

I was "dreading" that UK would descend into anarchy but some people (who should have RTIed or come to the good old US of A which would have accepted the poor, huddled masses into their classless society) assured me that the gallows at tower of london have been decommissioned for good. Let us wait and see - wonlee.

Yayavar · Post by **Yayavar** » 10 Sep 2014 10:30

what was that churchill said..something about men of straw and breaking apart...guess he had the location wrong

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 10 Sep 2014 11:05

Brilliant argument. Those who grew up in that era might recall the frequent references to India coming apart. In particular, Neville Maxwell - who leaked the Henderson Brooks report - once wrote before the 1967 Indian general elections "India's experiment with demorcratic government has failed, as it conducts its fourth, and surely its last, general elections". It needs to be repeatedly underlined that the UK itself is likely to come apart before India ever does.

It would be particularly galling for British Tory supporters, who see their union unraveling in front of their eyes while their despised old colony is now led by someone in the strong-willed likeness of their own pet Tory high deities Churchill and Thatcher, while their own Tory PM desperately beseeches the Scots to stay in the union.

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 10 Sep 2014 18:31

The "Great" in Great Britain and "United" in UK were the 1800's artificial constructs to project the English as some form of a global power that had a larger home land base than the Spanish or the Portuguese. The WW-II and post war realignments saw an end to that dream. Where would England be without the colonies? In that vein of thought, perhaps Scotland and Wales should be seen as a end result of the long awaited break up of that dream. Although Wales may not afford to take the plunge, I have a feeling that this (Scottish vote) is a precursor for Catalonia, Basque and other pan-European secessionists to moving ahead and chart their destinies with a bigger show of confidence. They are waiting and watching this vote.

The era of "nation states" is truly doomed, and the term "nation" may have to be redefined. Perhaps another realignment in Europe is due.

See the map below.

Active Separatist Movements in Europe

jagga · Post by **jagga** » 10 Sep 2014 18:52

If Scotland gets independence, how would old UK be referred? Former UK (FUK)

kish · Post by **kish** » 10 Sep 2014 19:36

Amidst the chaos of scotland referendum, racist brits never forgot 'cashmere' issue.

Debate on Human Rights Situation in Kashmir Causes Stir in UK Parliament

A debate on the human rights situation in Kashmir to be held in the UK Parliament building tomorrow has caused a stir among Indian groups here who fear it could be used as an India bashing opportunity.

Liberal Democrat MP David Ward has secured a 'General debate on political and humanitarian situation in Kashmir' as part of the regular Backbench Business Committee application process in the House of Commons.

Based on a petition by the 'Jammu & Kashmir Self-Determination Movement' which gained around 5,000 signatures, the Bradford East MP was able to push for the debate calling Kashmir dispute a "threat" to regional and global peace and to give the people "right to self- determination".

It has raised concerns among some Indian groups regarding the timing coinciding with the September 11 attacks anniversary as well as the focus of the debate.

"A number of British Indian organisations have contacted us expressing concerns on this Kashmir debate development in the House of Commons at this time because they fear that it could be used as an India/Indian bashing opportunity," said the Leicester-based British Hindu Voice in an appeal to its local MPs.

"If possible, please speak in the Kashmir debate and let your constituents know your and your party's stand on this subject," the appeal adds in reference to Leicester MPs Keith Vaz, John Ashworth and Liz Kendall.

The British Parliament's Backbench Business Committee meets weekly to consider requests for debates from any backbench MP on any subject, including those raised in e-petitions or national campaigns.

These debates are held in a chamber within the House of Commons complex and aimed at lobbying UK government on specific issues.

Around 20 British MPs, including Ward, Labour's shadow finance secretary Shabana Mahmood and secretary of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Kashmir Richard Harrington, are lined up to address the debate.

sudarshan · Post by **sudarshan** » 10 Sep 2014 19:53

anupmisra wrote:Post Vote: The "Nay" voters (those that are voting to stay in the union) have a troubled future ahead, I think. If the No votes exceed the Yes votes by a narrow margin, and the union remains intact, the Yes voters will always look down upon the No voters as having committed something akin to treason to the Scottish cause. Especially if the No voters are ethnically Scots. Will that be grounds for a rebellion of sorts? Hard to say but the Scottish society will be divided from there on.

Was there ever any such sentiment in Quebec against the No voters there? Just curious.

This referendum holds almost as much interest for me as the Lok Sabha elections in India earlier this year. Thankfully this one isn't spread out over nine phases with counting another four days after the last phase.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Sep 2014 20:04

Philip, Scottish Yes vote would one of the last nails in End of Colonialism coffin.
Wales would be the last nail.

The Guardian correspondent on NPR was talking about the pain of amputation a yes vote would mean.

Part of me wants the English, masters of divide and rule, to feel the pain of Partition.

Besides Scottish nationalism/self-determination is an outgrowth of Westphalian nation-state mantra.

Union with Scotland was the foundation of the Anglo-Saxon British Empire built with Scottish soldiers. Indian colonial grave yards are replete with Scottish names on gravestones.

Besides Scottish are the butt of English humor always being derided for their frugality.
The English preferred to crown a German prince George (who spoke no English for 3 generations!) rather than a Scottish Prince Charles and killed Scottish independence in Culloden.
At Culloden the massacre of the losing Scottish side was horrific.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 10 Sep 2014 20:17

Scottish nationalism was around long before the peace of Westphalia. William Wallace was busy showing his posterior to the English about 400 years before it.

The Chinese media is actively mocking the British and calling them a third rate country now, no longer fit to be a great power. I wish our press would be more active in doing so too.

On the Telegraph, there was an opinion article stating that the loss of Scotland would be a much greater body blow than the loss of Empire, akin to losing a limb rather than just losing their wallet.