Skirt Cafe is an on-line community dedicated to exploring, promoting and advocating skirts and kilts as a fashion choice for men, formerly known as men in skirts. We do this in the context of men's fashion freedom --- an expansion of choices beyond those commonly available for men to include kilts, skirts and other garments. We recognize a diversity of styles our members feel comfortable wearing, and do not exclude any potential choices. Continuing dialog on gender is encouraged in the context of fashion freedom for men. See here for more details.
howardh wrote:This weekend's polls show the *yes* (to independence) recent rally has faltered Panelbase in the Sunday Times has topline figures of YES 40%(nc), NO 47%(+2).
ICM in the Scotland on Sunday have figures of YES 34%(-5), NO 46%(+4). Quote; ukpollingreport.co.uk
The Scots are a canny lot and know which side their bread's buttered.
As far as I know, England isn't a country either (no Parliament, monarch of it's own or even capital city!!)
'fraid this is just one huge ego-trip for Salmond. Long Live The Queen, Long Live The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and it's dependent territories!!
(But being from Lancashire, we don't mind if Yorkshire wants to go it's own way, we'll quite happily vote *yes* on that one... )
The Sunday times poll, when you read the article, asked their pollsters for their ethnicity (ie Scottish/English born) and they played a lot on the results of that.
It showed that Scots born voters voted 44% YES and 42% NO and the difference to the full poll comes from the 9% of eligible English voters (who BTW voted 67% NO and 27% YES) that are making the difference. So much so that they posted a headline "English voters may kill off independence" and portrayed Mel Gibson (from the film Braveheart) with an St. George's Cross painted on his face! Not sure what they are trying to prove but no possible good can come of it and it could easily generate resentment. (I have withheld posting the picture as I have no wish to stir up that ill-feeling)
So it isn't the "canny scots" who "know which side their bread's buttered" who are affecting the vote.
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on" - Winston Churchill.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it" - Joseph Goebbels
Yes, English nationalism is rising with the UKIP (UK Independence Party) - who are advocating independence from Europe - and the BNP (British National Party) - who wish to have all non British people removed (deported) AND withdraw from Europe - both of whom are having a rise in their followers. Neither of these parties is welcome in Scotland.
I believe that most of us in Scotland wish to remain within Europe and have little desire to be dragged out by others against our wishes.
As for changes here in the event of a NO vote - I wouldn't count on it! None of the political parties (except the Liberal Democrat party) have confirmed that there would be changes. However, they are in decline as an entity (following their coalition with the Conservatives) and have little chance of gaining any sort of backing, so no hope there. The rest will at most "consider having a discussion" about it. But nothing more definite that that. Certainly the British Prime minister was very recitent on a recent televised interview to commit to anything.
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on" - Winston Churchill.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it" - Joseph Goebbels
Further to my comments on any positive changes Scotland may have if there is a 'NO' vote, here is a letter from Quebec and the ramafications, expectations and reality of their NO vote in a referendum to become independent. (The vote in the second referendum 1995, was 49.42% YES and 50.58% NO)
Letter from Quebec by Viviane Martinova-Croteau.
As a French Quebecer belonging to a generation that was deeply influenced by Harry Potter, it was with great interest and concern that I read JK Rowling’s recent letter on why she opposes Scotland’s independence. Of herself and her fellow Scots, she justly writes that “whatever Scotland decides, we will probably find ourselves justifying our choice to our grandchildren.”
“Well, I’m one of those grandchildren previous generations now find themselves having to justify their decisions to, and I can tell you how it went for us.
I was born in 1990 – exactly ten years after Quebec’s first referendum on independence from Canada. I was too young to vote (or read, for that matter) during its second referendum, in 1995.
As Scots are about to live through the same process, it might be tempting to believe that as Mrs. Rowling writes, a No will really be understood as “not this time, but”:
“My guess is that if we vote to stay, we will be in the heady position of the spouse who looked like walking out, but decided to give things one last go. All the major political parties are currently wooing us with offers of extra powers, keen to keep Scotland happy so that it does not hold an independence referendum every ten years and cause uncertainty and turmoil all over again.
I doubt whether we will ever have been more popular, or in a better position to dictate terms, than if we vote to stay.”
Well, we in Quebec are here to tell the tale. Our extensive experience with the aftermaths of No votes may be of some use to those in Scotland who still hesitate.
Following both 1980 and 1995’s referendum losses, our parents and grandparents were also promised the upper hand in future negotiations. The consecrated phrase was “renewed federalism”; constitutional changes which would recognize Quebec’s distinct character as well as more power and autonomy within the Canadian Confederation.
Attempts at this systematically failed. From the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords (1987, 1992) to the Calgary Declaration (1997), no agreement was ever reached between the two parties. When the Canadian government didn’t arrogantly trample demands, the other provinces made sure we would not step out of line.
Here, the term “Night of the Long Knives” was used to refer to the night of November 4, 1981, when the Prime Ministers of Canada and its provinces agreed in complete secrecy to sign the patriation of the Canadian Constitution – and did so, literally and purposefully, behind Quebec’s back. In the end, the much hyped “offers of extra powers” and “position to dictate terms” amounted to nothing.
To this day, the Canadian Constitution lacks Quebec’s signature. We are still in a constitutional limbo more than thirty years after our first referendum. However, all things considered, these are technicalities.
What is solid fact is that in 2011, in the last federal election, a new Canadian government was elected entirely without Quebec—a first. In the last five years specifically, so many game-changing decisions have been taken against Quebec’s strong collective will that we are now simply used to the dichotomy and annoyed, instead of revolted.
We were made to retract from our commitment to the Kyoto Accord on climate change. We were made to abolish our national Firearms Registry, which had been put in place after the traumatising mass shooting at the École Polytechnique de Montréal. The government in Ottawa uses underhand tricks every once in a while to try to weaken women’s rights.
It has adopted foreign policies which do not represent us, but shame us. It made drastic cuts in culture as well as in research and science. Finally, it seizes every chance it gets to make Quebec more dependable on the dirty tar sands and fossil energies produced by other provinces, a policy that right now means putting a dangerous pipeline – over which we have no power whatsoever – through our most densely populated territory.
No one in the Canadian government feels threatened at all by another referendum. Quebec is The Province Who Cried Wolf.
Meanwhile, we underwent a well-documented phenomenon known as “post-referendum syndrome”. Disillusion, lack of vision and cynicism have plagued our collective space for as long as I can remember; I have never known real political enthusiasm (Except, admittedly, during the 2012 student strike). Social ambition became political corruption. From culture to entrepreneurship everything withered instead of exploded.
If the Yes side had won either time, would we be a debt-ridden, corrupted country? There is no way we can ever know. What we do know is that we are now a debt-ridden and corrupted province. And it is far from certain that we can ever clear away enough cynicism to hold one referendum more, someday. Such a move requires incredible energy and optimism, and those are in short supply. (And charismatic and inspiring political leaders do not come every decade, either.)
Some, of course, will disagree. Many believe that we could be better off if only we were more like the rest of Canada and less attached to our distinctiveness. Others will point out that we can still try to nudge Canada’s nature in the right direction.
However, it’s the world’s nature that Quebecers of my generation would have liked to impact on. The world we live in is going to change, probably drastically - environmental issues will force these changes onto us if we don’t make them ourselves. It would be a fantasy to trust that our children and our children’s children will experience the same paradigms and systems we know now.
Mrs. Rowling mentions that “dramatically differing figures and predictions are being slapped in front of us by both campaigns, so that it becomes difficult to know what to believe.” Probably the answer is no one. Or everyone.
History has taught us that economic trends can only ever really be predicted in hindsight. Numbers can be formed and unformed to the advantage of one side or the other until the day they actually happen. Therefore, once it can be demonstrated that either option offers a reasonable chance of opportunity and success, why not go back to the basics?
Scotland is not Quebec. The UK is not Canada, and Europe is not North America. But believe me, if there’s one thing you don’t want to have to tell your grandchildren 34 years from now, it’s that you thought you were protecting them when you decided to make them experience the next era’s world as spectators, not players.”
I hope the same thing doesn't happen to Scotland
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on" - Winston Churchill.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it" - Joseph Goebbels
This was, to me, a very sad and almost depressing post and, if true, emphasises the negativity and hopelessness that can be produced by trying to do the right thing. Not that in any situation like this would you necessarily recognise the right thing if it stood up in front of you naked, waving its arms about and holding a banner saying "I am the right thing!" Can you tell that I love the black humour in "Blackadder"?
As for their ( either side ) production of economic figures these come into the category of "lies, damn lies and statistics". I like Homer's view when he says, "You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!" Homer is a genius! Only time will tell if whatever decision is made will be the right one, if it can ever be proved that the decision was the right one. I am very cynical about ANYTHING that has to do with politicians which is the main reason why I would never want to be one. Plus the fact that I love my family too much to want the lifestyle imposed on politicians. I spent four years travelling across country to work during the week and returning home at weekends and I would not wish to repeat the experience.
I believe in offering every assistance short of actual help but then mainly just want to be left to be myself in all my difference and uniqueness.
In the 1700s Ireland did have a parliament in Dublin and home rule of sorts. The 1800 Act of Union demoted Dublin back to just another provincial town and set the pot boiling.
The Bank of Ireland founded after 1829 took over the former parliament building in College Green and still owns it.
It took another Century for that pot to boil over with the loss of a lot of lives.
john62 wrote:But Jack you already are, do not more Kiwis live in Australia than NZ?
John
By that logic, I suspect both Ireland and Scotland are states in the USA...
Have fun,
Ian.
Do not argue with idiots; they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Cogito ergo sum - Descartes
Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum - Ambrose Bierce
The difference Ian is that the Scots and Irish became US citizens, here the Kiwis come over the Tasman remain NZ citizens but expect all the benefits that Australian citizens have and then complain bitterly if they do not get these benefits.
Speaking of new Zealand, I came across this article and his thoughts and comments:-
(Written by Colin Campbell – Scottish ex-pat now living in New Zealand)
In 2009, nearing the end of my Masters degree in Scotland and with the UK recession in full swing, I decided to leave for New Zealand. I’ll admit that the decision was somewhat influenced by a breathtaking TV ad. Sweeping helicopter shots of stunning mountain ranges, photogenic youngsters frolicking on sunny beaches, and a thumping soundtrack. I still can’t listen to “Forever Young” without goosebumps.
New Zealand is a country slightly larger than Great Britain with a population smaller than Scotland. Famed for its beautiful scenery, laid-back lifestyle and sporting achievements, this small and successful country where I still live, tucked away in the southwestern Pacific Ocean, provides an ideal argument for an independent Scotland.
Why? I’ll explain.
My first year in New Zealand was at times difficult, as I struggled with homesickness. Without any family or friends within 11,000 miles, I was, for the first time in my life, completely independent and with that came a real sense of responsibility. Over the next three years, I settled into a positive new life in New Zealand and developed a stronger self-belief than I ever knew was possible.
It’s an unbeatable feeling to achieve your dreams through your own choices and determination. I believe that independence for Scotland will mark the start of just such a positive transformation. With a renewed sense of responsibility, Scotland will begin to forge its own path in the world. With that will come a self-belief that’s currently lacking. There will undoubtedly be obstacles along the way. They will be overcome.
In contrast, Scotland within the union will forever be unable to make key decisions about its own future, and will forever remain uncertain of its true potential. Scotland doesn’t require the so-called broad shoulders of the UK.
If you’re concerned about the tenability of an independent Scotland, then you need only consider New Zealand. I won’t claim that NZ is a utopia, but it performs very well in international comparisons on human development, life expectancy, public education, civil liberties, press freedom, lack of corruption, and so on.
Indeed, it outperforms the UK in many such comparisons. For example, New Zealand was rated 6th in the 2013 Human Development Index (pg 15), compared to 27th for the UK. In 2012, it ranked 1st in the Worldwide Index of Human Freedom. All this for a geographically isolated country of 4.4m people, with a near-identical GDP per capita to the UK, and no massive bounty of natural resources comparable to Scotland’s oil.
The relationship between New Zealand and its nearest large neighbour, Australia, is in many ways similar to that between Scotland and England. Most New Zealanders have family and friends living in both countries. Indeed, tens of thousands of New Zealanders make the move across to Australia every year.
Australia is New Zealand’s leading trade partner. They enjoy an intense sporting rivalry and take pride in winding each other up, usually over a few beers. They share a common travel area, allowing citizens from each country to live and work freely in the country of their choice. In other words, the two countries share a close bond.
If you were to try to convince New Zealand to abolish its own government and instead hold a minority share in Australia’s, you’d rightly be met with a swift proclamation of your insanity. Such an arrangement would undoubtedly fuel a sense of grievance against Australia and ultimately lead to a deterioration in the relationship.
And yet this is the political arrangement that was created in Scotland. An independent Scotland can aspire to having a more positive relationship with England, unburdened by blame, much like New Zealand currently has with Australia. Treating each other as equals can only break down barriers, not build them.
It’s also worth commenting that people living in an independent Scotland will be no more foreign to those in the rest of the UK than they are now. As an immigrant myself, I know that you’re not defined by your nationality, but rather by your thoughts and actions. My friends and family in Scotland will always be that, regardless of their nationality. I know that they’ll see me in the same way even if I someday return with a New Zealand passport.
The economic arguments for or against an independent Scotland are already settled to the extent that they need to be. Scotland can and will survive financially, as has now been accepted by both sides of the debate. There’s still debate over the precise wealth of an independent Scotland, but these concerns are ultimately unnecessary.
For example, in 2012 New Zealand (13th) outperformed the UK (22nd) in the United Nations’ World Happiness Report. This is despite much greater mean wealth per adult in the UK (6th in the OECD) than in New Zealand (14th). That’s because what’s most important is how a country chooses to spend and distribute its collective wealth, not the sum total of it.
New Zealand spent just 1.1% of GDP on its military in 2012, compared with 2.5% in the UK. The country, which is listed by the USA as one of its “Major Non-Nato Allies”, or MNNA, was declared a Nuclear Free Zone in 1987, which ensures that no nuclear weapons are allowed on NZ territory.
The New Zealand government has committed around £8 billion to the cost of rebuilding the city of Christchurch following the devastating earthquakes in 2010 and 2011, yet in the most recent budget NZ was still running a government surplus without the need for massive cuts to public services like those being experienced in the UK. These are the distinctive features of a peaceful nation focused on social development for its people, rather than “punching above its weight on the world stage”.
I am finding it increasingly difficult to imagine returning to live in the UK. I struggle daily to comprehend the constant vilification of immigrants, the unsettling rise of UKIP, the relentless privatisation of public institutions, and the crippling austerity agenda that attacks the poorest and most vulnerable in society. The mainstream media spout propaganda and lies at a rate that makes my head spin. The UK, full of bitterness and vitriol, suddenly seems very different to the one in which I grew up.
Scotland has an opportunity to vote for something better in September. From a very similar position on the other side of the world, I recommend you take it.
And on that last paragraph, Hear! Hear!
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on" - Winston Churchill.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it" - Joseph Goebbels
Where the analogy falls down is the one absolutely huge elephant in the room - Europe. New Zealand doesn't have the equivalent. And whether Scotland separates from the UK, whether the UK comes out of the EU and whether Scotland is allowed into the EU does make a lot of difference over currency, borders etc.
I believe in offering every assistance short of actual help but then mainly just want to be left to be myself in all my difference and uniqueness.
john62 wrote:The difference Ian is that the Scots and Irish became US citizens, here the Kiwis come over the Tasman remain NZ citizens but expect all the benefits that Australian citizens have and then complain bitterly if they do not get these benefits.
John
I have an idea there are more Australians in New Zealand escaping their evolving climate, than the other way round.
)
None of the political parties (except the Liberal Democrat party) have confirmed that there would be changes. However, they are in decline as an entity (following their coalition with the Conservatives) and have little chance of gaining any sort of backing, so no hope there. The rest will at most "consider having a discussion" about it. But nothing more definite that that. Certainly the British Prime minister was very recitent on a recent televised interview to commit to anything. 
