Scottish Independence Campaign Battles Over BBC Weather Forecast

00_NOP writes "The political battle over Scotland's independence ballot — to take place in September this year — has now moved on to how the BBC project the UK on their national weather forecast. The BBC use a projection based on the view of Britain from geostationary weather satellites and so there is naturally some foreshortening at the northern end of Britain (Scotland, in other words). But nationalist campaigners say this means Scottish viewers are constantly being shown a distorted image of their country which makes it look smaller and hence (in their view) less able to support independence. In response others have suggested that the nationalists are truly 'flat earthers.'"

Comments

Firrrst post the noo

[Hognoxious]

Jings, crivens and helpmaboab!

Will there be a referendum about beta, d'ye ken?

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[dintech]

Although probably economically beneficial to Scotland, most people want independence for moral reasons. Successive Tory governments have been absolutely ruthless of stripping Scotland of it's assets while maintaining that it is a burden. Economic and social policy benefits mainly only London and the south east but negative decisions about war and other foreign policy affect us all equally. It's time for a change in Scotland.

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of your remarks apply equally to most of England. Maybe there should be a referendum on kicking out the south-east.

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[kanweg]

Successive Tory governments have been absolutely ruthless of stripping Scotland of it's assets

As evidenced by the fact that they don't wear briefs.

Bert

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[Sesostris III]

Although probably economically beneficial to Scotland, most people want independence for moral reasons.

Oh, has the referendum happened? I thought it was due in September.

Or are we talking only about those (in Scotland) who so far have expressed a preference for independence. Although substantial, I don't believe this is (yet) a majority of those eligible to vote. And we won't know for certain until September.

As to "Successive Tory governments", from 1997 to 2010 we (the UK - I'm rUK) had a Labour government, with two Scottish Chancellors (Brown and Darling), a Scottish Prime Minister (Brown) and a Prime Minister, who if not Scottish, was educated at one of Scotland's top Public Schools (Blair, went to Fettes, in Edinburgh).

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[ebno-10db]

This Scotland vs. England stuff is placid. Let's have some real fun around here and talk China vs. Taiwan.

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[Half-pint HAL]

anyway, the only people who want independence are the Scottish national party, and even they want everything to be just as it was before only with Alex Salmond declared King of Scotland.

Wrong, wrong and wrong. I am not a member of the SNP. I do not particularly like the SNP. I want Scottish independence. I do not want Scotland to be "just as it was before". I want some things to remain the same and some things to change.

Personally, I think its right that Scotland gets independence for moral reasons - all those Scottish MPs (who are either Labour ot SNP) get to vote on things that only matter in the rest of the UK, so you guys gets to tell us what to do without any for of reciprocity. - so getting rid of those useless MPs would actually be beneficial for the rest of the UK, morally.

It's not Scotland's fault that there is no devolution settlement for England. Personally, I have always thought it ridiculous that devolution is so asymmetrical, with different devolved powers in each of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and none whatsoever for England. But that isn't Scotland's fault.

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[Half-pint HAL]

The English are free to have their own referendum on the matter. The United Kingdom is a union of equals, and any party to a treaty can choose to leave it unilaterally.

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[dintech]

Who was it that had to bail out the British banks RBOS and HBOS? That's kind of a silly question, the British government of course. You can't decide something is British in the good times, absorbing corporation tax, national insurance, PAYE and % of bonuses in the good times then deciding it's Scottish in the bad because you feel like it. This isn't Andy Murray we're talking about. As far as bank bailouts go, could an independent Scotland's banks have avoided collapse during the economic crisis? The experts think yes. Then remember that the US Fed bailed out Barclays to the tune of £552Bn, much less that UK contributions to RBOS and HBOS, themselves large chunks of which are actually English banks of which the investment banking arms based in London. In Europe, considering an independent Scotland may have been in the Eurozone at that time, bailouts were across country boundaries so other avenues. Then again, who's to say Scotland wouldn't have had regulation to prevent the kind of excess we saw in London where the distressed investment banking arm of RBOS is based? That's without even considering a long term oil fund.

Before we joke more about Gordon Brown, remember that the English voted for him. Even if Scotland wasn't in the UK, the outcome of the general elections in the rest of the UK would have been the same. In other words, the rest of UK voted wanted Blair (and Brown by extension), Thatcher etc. It's not something the Scottish force on the rest. The same is not true in reverse. The Scots never vote Tory.

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[Anonymous Coward]

Blair is Scottish too, born in Edinburgh

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[St.Creed]

considering an independent Scotland may have been in the Eurozone at that time,

You can stop considering that. The EU already said "not bloody likely" they're going to be allowed membership as independent state. Unless they also have an army, navy and airforce.

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[dintech]

And to all you Americans, the 4th of July is something we Scots would like to celebrate with you. We think having our own political system is important too.

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[Sesostris III]

Yes, I don't get a say (as in voting in the referendum) on this, and I accept that as right and proper. The decision whether to become independent or not is being rightly left to the voters of Scotland. I don't need to be referred to an article by Roger Scruton to "educate" myself on this! Actually, What I was trying to point out is that the voters of Scotland haven't as yet has a say on this themselves - they will do in September - so to indicate that they have already come to a decision (and that the decision was for 'moral' reasons) is incorrect.

Yes, I'm sure the rUK could vote in a Labour government on it's own. That was not the point I was trying to make. What I was pointing out was that the phrase "Successive Tory governments" seems to ignore the existence of the last Labour government (1997 to 2010), a government where much of the 'top brass' was Scottish.

(Talking of governments and parties, the McCrone report, although commissioned by a Conservative Government, was suppressed by the Labour Government under Harold Wilson!)

Finally, if Scotland does vote to become an independent country, then I shall wish it well, and hope for ongoing friendship between Scotland and the rUK. If Scotland votes to remain in the UK, then I hope we all continue to strive to make the UK work well for all its citizens.

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[whoever57]

It's not Scotland's fault that there is no devolution settlement for England. Personally, I have always thought it ridiculous that devolution is so asymmetrical, with different devolved powers in each of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and none whatsoever for England. But that isn't Scotland's fault.

Devolution, perhaps, but the asymmetry could have been corrected by Scotland's MPs. Before devolution, English MPs abstained from voting on things that concern only Scotland, so why do Scottish MPs not abstain from things that only affect England (cf. West Lothian question)?

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[dintech]

According to the Financial Times

If [an Independent Scotland's] geographic share of UK oil and gas output is taken into account, Scotland’s GDP per head is bigger than that of France. Even excluding the North Sea’s hydrocarbon bounty, per capita GDP is higher than that of Italy.

So your saying a western European economy of this size would not have been part of the EU when countries like Slovenia, Latvia, Malta are welcome? That's delusional.

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[pbhj]

>*The United Kingdom is a union of equals* //

What utter nonsense. The UK is the union of 3 kingdoms - England, Scotland and Ulster - with a single monarch; it's not a republic of equals or a federation of states who've agreed equal voting rights. If you want that then you need to get rid of the monarchy first.

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[pipingguy]

Two words: Bond. James Bond.

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[thsths]

That's not what the EU actually said. The answer was that Scotland has to join the queue and go through the regular process. It cannot jump the queue because it already was a member state due to being part of the UK. (And that is really a technicality, but maybe it is also intentionally: they have to prove themselves first.)

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[Half-pint HAL]

so why do Scottish MPs not abstain from things that only affect England (cf. West Lothian question)?

There are actually precious few issues that don't have knock-on effects for Scotland. The Barnett Formula allocates block grants to Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, and it does so based on the expenditure under the Westminster government, meaning both UK-wide politicies and England-only policies.

This means that any issue that has a price-tag attached has a knock-on effect in Scotland. When Westminster cuts budgets for the English NHS, Scotland gets less money. When Westminster cuts funding for higher education, Scotland gets less money. If Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs abstained on all English matters, the result would essentially be that the UK budget was administered by English MPs alone, and that would also be unfair.

The devolution settlement is inherently dysfunctional, but again: that's not Scotland's fault.

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[Suferick]

More likely the (Spanish) EU commission president would look very unfavourably on Scottish membership, considering the boost that would give to the independence ambitions of Catalunya and the Basque country. And would it stop there? What about Sicily, Lombardy, Bavaria...? That's the thinking behind the reluctance to see the UK divided within the EU.

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[whoever57]

Your statement would also be true if Scotland and England were interchanged.

But budget issues are not the only things that the UK parliament votes on.

IMHO, the simple fact is that Scottish MPs are largely aligned with the Labour party and, when in power, Labour would be unable to do anything without the support of Scottish MPs.

Re: Firrrst post the noo

[xelah]

He's Portuguese. And, IIRC, he'll be gone before it matters.

Re: Firrrst post the noo

[xelah]

Which leads to an interesting possibility: an EU border (with EU tariffs) between England and Scotland, followed by the Scots joining the EU and the rUK leaving so that the border reverses. But at least it might give rUK voters a foretaste of what leaving the EU would mean to help inform their votes...

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[Half-pint HAL]

Your statement would also be true if Scotland and England were interchanged.

But budget issues are not the only things that the UK parliament votes on.

No, but budgetary issues have not been divorced from everything else. The devolution settlement did not result in a proper separation of concerns. With a Scottish block grant, a Welsh block grand and a Northern Irish block grant, but no English block grant, the system is completely borked.

IMHO, the simple fact is that Scottish MPs are largely aligned with the Labour party and, when in power, Labour would be unable to do anything without the support of Scottish MPs.

"Your opinion" and "fact" are two very different things. The figures do not support this assertion.

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[Maritz]

Not at all. You're not going to get very far in a political discussion if you're endlessly seeking out logical fallacies. These are personal opinions and subjective value judgements, always have been and always will be.

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[dryeo]

Why would you have to get rid of the monarchy to have a federation? Australia and Canada are two examples of federations of equal states (provinces) under a monarchy. Not so sure of Australia but here in Canada both federal laws and provincial laws need royal consent to come into effect, usually signed by the Queens representative but the Queen herself can sign them into law.
Just like the Queen in Right of Canada is different from the Queen in Right of the UK, you could have the Queen of Scotland as different from the Queen of England and the Queen of the UK.

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[whoever57]

IMHO, the simple fact is that Scottish MPs are largely aligned with the Labour party and, when in power, Labour would be unable to do anything without the support of Scottish MPs.

"Your opinion" and "fact" are two very different things. The figures do not support this assertion.

The Scottish MPs make less difference than I had realized, but that page also relies on a very dodgy assumption: that the SNP would vote with the Tories.

Also, your "facts" are not what you claim -- in that page, there are election results where the Scottish MPs did make a difference.

Re: Firrrst post the noo

[gbjbaanb]

we've already got that - between Gibraltar and Spain. If only there was free movement of people and goods in the EU!

(ie the Spanish make things hard at the border for their own political reasons, regardless of what the rules say)

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[Hognoxious]

These are personal opinions and subjective value judgements, always have been and always will be.

Fair enough. So I don't have to point out the logical fallacies, glaring though they are, because they carry as much weight as that guy in the park's belief that he has an invisible rabbit for a friend.

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[Hognoxious]

Then again, who's to say Scotland wouldn't have had regulation to prevent the kind of excess we saw in London where the distressed investment banking arm of RBOS is based?

The shareholders. Much as I hate to defend the bankers, I remember one of them said something along the lines of "if I hadn't done $ApparentlyProfitableButRiskyThing they'd have fired me and then my successor would have done it".

The same applies also to voters. Suspend disbelief for a moment and assume Gordon Brown had a rudimentary knowledge of economics and wanted to damp down the housing bubble; what do you think the Daily Fail headlines would have been like? Something like "Miserable boz-eyed scotch cunt doesn't want us to send our kids to private schools and buy 17 new SUVs based on totally fictitious gains because he's a miserable boz-eyed scotch cun, the cunt"

tl;dr: it's difficult to turn down free money.

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[N1AK]

Most of your remarks apply equally to most of England. Maybe there should be a referendum on kicking out the south-east.

The way the South East see it they're subsidising the rest of the UK so don't wish too hard for that referendum unless you know what both sides really have on the line. (Disclosure: Proud Manc living in the South East).

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[ACNiel]

You could have avoided this by not being a grammar nazi.

"Most people want independance" was clearly in terms of the domain that wants iy; most people that want independance want it on moral grounds.

Does letting something like that slide have implications on public opinion? If I trusted anything that cited an op ed description of an article, then we have other problems.

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[TapeCutter]

Oz works the same way, the Governor General is the Queen's rubber stamp. The stamp is automatic and simply signifies the legislation was passed according to proper parliamentary process. The only real power she has is the ability to sack the government in the case of a double dissolution, but if that happens she must also call fresh elections. This avoids the silly situation you see in the US where the government can be forced to stop paying its regular bills by a hostile senate.

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[mikael]

That's very true. Back in the late 1980's, when everyone was warning the government about how house prices in the South were becoming unaffordable, they were called "a bunch of moaning minneys". Then interest rates had to rise in quick succession over a period of weeks to stop runaway inflation, and then the property market collapsed, until another debt fueled economic boom by New Labour started things off again.

RBOS blew a lot of money on buying up golf courses - one for a new campus, so they could move all of their small but expensive offices out of the city, and another golf course was for their executives.

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[Aighearach]

Jings, crivens and helpmaboab!

Will there be a referendum about beta, d'ye ken?

Vote Soylent for Beta! Soylent for Beta! Soylent Betas are Nerds!

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[dryeo]

It's the Queens role in the Australian States government that I'm not so sure of. Do they have Lieutenant Governers? Can the Queen open a States legislature?
Here the General Governor has acted the opposite of sacking the government in the case of a vote of no confidence by proroguing Parliament before the vote, on the advice of the PM of course. He does now get to travel and sign trade agreements instead of an elected official. Our ruling Conservative Party considers it undemocratic for parties to form a coalition and now with the [un]fair elections act it'll be illegal for many Canadians to vote (severe limits on acceptable ID), good bye campaign spending limits and Elections Canada won't even be allowed to tell the voters there's an election on or where to vote, little well prosecute when the remaining rules are broken.

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[mcpheat]

Devolution, perhaps, but the asymmetry could have been corrected by Scotland's MPs. Before devolution, English MPs abstained from voting on things that concern only Scotland, so why do Scottish MPs not abstain from things that only affect England (cf. West Lothian question)?

English MPs did not abstain from voting on things that concerned only Scotland, they regularly outvoted the Scottish MPs on Scottish legislation. The Poll Tax was the most infamous example.

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[mcpheat]

The EU hasn't actually said anything. Barroso has said a lot but his term of office is up and he has been contradicted by multiple experts.

There is no queue to jump, countries are admitted to EU membership when they satisfy the Copenhagen criteria. Turkey applied in 1987, numerous countries that applied after them have become EU members while Turkish membership is likely a decade away.

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[Half-pint HAL]

Your statement would also be true if Scotland and England were interchanged.

I failed to notice this statement first time round. Sorry, but this is entirely untrue. Scotland's total budget is determined in a single calculation under the Barnett formula. That calculation is made on English spend. When England spends more, Scotland's budget increases; when England spends less, Scotland's budget decreases. The Scottish Parliament cannot make any decisions that change the amount of money England gets.

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[FreedomFirstThenPeac]

Subsidies within governments. One of the ONLY reasons we form large area governments (e.g., EU, USA, USM, etc) is to facilitate the transfer of wealth from haves to have nots. A shared currency with a central taxation is the vehicle for that transfer. As soon as little subdivisions (New York(USA), South East(UK), Germany(EU)) start accounting and saying "hey, mate! We send more than we get" then they are forgetting that purpose. As we say here, and you've heard elsewhere, within my house, we are all communists (sharers and carers) but at some distance that fades to being something less sharing and caring. For some, that distance is across the street, for others, it is across the planet. When an "across the planet" type sees an "across the street" type doing well, they sometimes get jealous and send in the "boyz with bayonets" to breach that barrier. The relative homogeneity of some countries makes it easier to extend that barrier to the border, but at the same time makes it harder to push it beyond that border. The social capital benefits of homogeneity, to me, suggests that we should work to increase the perception that we are all "home boyz", rather than encouraging the Balkanization of our societies. Bottom line - don't play the "we send more than we get back card", just be glad that you are better off than those other blokes that need central help. And hope that the centrals don't get so greedy that they drive away the wealth generators. After all, the best parasite is the one that does not kill the host.

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[bmcage]

He said: "The UK has a veto vote, so the changes of Schotland becoming a member are up to the remaining UK". He hence evaluated the chance of the EU to allow Schotland in very poor. That is, the UK is part of the EU and would not allow Schotland in.

This is a very, very important point to make, and he was right to make it. Cyprus is also blocking Turkey, Greece Macedonia, ...

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[Hognoxious]

Are you referring to a certain actor who schupports Shcottish independensh but lives in Schpain?

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[Hognoxious]

For it to be a No true Scotsman fallacy, you have to be making up the definition of a "true Scotsman" ad hoc.

He's redefining Labour to mean "Labour that he agrees with" or "what he thinks Labour should be". How ad hoc do you want?

GP was referring to the UK Labour party not confirming widely established expectations for a Labour/Socialist party

Well they did fuck the economy up ...

Unless he's a mindreader, how the hell does he know what everybody's expectations are/were? Certainly the voters weren't disappointed.

Re: Firrrst post the noo

[Hognoxious]

It'll be like the border between Northern & Southern Ireland. At one time you could get a subsidy for animals going in one direction, so they used smuggle them back and go round again. And again.

The story was that some cows knew the route so well they could practically do it on their own.

Re: Firrrst post the noo

[Hognoxious]

Wales are not a kingdom, isnit. A principality don't you know, boyo, Gareth Edwards and all that.

Re:Firrrst post the noo

[Hognoxious]

The english don't get a say because it is not the global norm for the non-separating part to get a say.

Guy called Vladimir Putin on line 1.

Re: Firrrst post the noo

[xelah]

That Northern Ireland/Ireland border is not an EU border - and I would presume that England and Scotland would prefer the goods could move freely just as they do now. The EU imposes certain tariffs on everything entering the EU, and all countries in the EU have to impose them (eg, 12% on plums, 8.8% on knitted gloves, 7.6% on non-knitted gloves, etc. to the level of your worst bureaucratic nightmare.). If there's an EU border between England and Scotland then that means either a dispute with the EU, or border posts, paperwork and tariff payments for probably both sides. Think of the effect on supply chains, too.

Bravemap

[RDW]

"Would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take OUR MERCATOR PROJECTION!"

Re:Bravemap

[Joce640k]

Foreshortening probably give a more accurate view of Scotland's prowess. There's not much of anything except sheep and heather in the top half of Scotland. And some bearded people who need subtitles when they appear on English television.

Re:Bravemap

[Aighearach]

I'm 1/4 sheep, you insensitive clod! Sheep are sheeple too.

Now get off my lawn!

Map projections

[hammeraxe]

This is an interesting point actually. Different map projections really do affect the way countries (and especially big countries) look like on the map.

Whether this should have an impact on how the Scottish view their potential independence I don't know....

Re: Map projections

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello, Ireland checking in here. Ireland most certainly does not belong to England. Only the north does. Even then, the extent of the crowns control over NI is limited by NIs recent devolution. The concept of the Irish having a poorer social status in England is also non applicable since we are both members of the EU. Source: having lived in both countries.

Re:Map Projections

[JustOK]

You can't do that! It's freaking me out!

Re: Map projections

[SJHillman]

I just have a hard time taking Ireland seriously because the Irish have one of the silliest sounding accents in Europe. However, you make damned good whiskey, so I support you.

Re: Map projections

[flyneye]

I understand they make decent stout as well, but, since it gets turned to beer extract before its shipped here and then added to worthless U.S. lager, who would fucking know if Guiness is worth a shit or not. There are so many domestic stouts that just kick the shit out of Guiness + water.

Re:Map projections

[ShanghaiBill]

I picture it being like our hillbillies of the south,wanting to secede @ civil war

Most hillbillies did NOT want to secede. Mountainous regions did not have plantations, so had few slaves, and the people there saw little benefit in secession. The hillbillies of Virginia seceded from their state, and rejoined the Union as West Virgina. The hillbillies of the other states raised regiments to fight in the Union Army. The only state that didn't raise at least a regiment for the Union was South Carolina, which has few mountains.

Time and economy say its right to let Scotland and Ireland go.

It seems the opposite to me. Economics says stay in the UK, and the independence movement is most driven by emotion. Which is why I predict the independence vote will fail. People will follow their heart when answering pollsters, but are more hard headed when casting ballots.

England should let them go and concentrate their efforts instead, on making a beer thats worth a fuck.

Or they could do what Americans do: chill it down so cold that you can no longer taste how horrible it is.

Re:Map projections

[Sesostris III]

"England" (or more correctly the rest of the UK, or "rUK" as it's become known - there's Wales and Northern Ireland as well) don't have a say in the decision. The decision either to become an independent country (or not) will be made by the voters of Scotland, and the voters of Scotland alone.

As someone in the rUK all I can do is sit back and accept whatever they decide. That said, I cannot help feeling that if the decision for independence will somehow be influenced on how Scotland looks in the BBC weather map, somewhere the plot has been lost!

As to beer, try Theakston's Old Peculier. Ace!

Re: Map projections

[flyneye]

Well, let Bono know! That prick has been hanging around the rest of the world whining how fucking bad it is living in Ireland and then offering political solutions to fix other countries. Would you please keep him home and give him his shots, tag him and make him wear a shock collar so he doesnt get outside your borders again, like responsible dog owners should !?

Re:Map projections

[Spacelem]

England should let them go and concentrate their efforts instead, on making a beer that's worth a fuck.

Nothing wrong with English beers, there are a great many excellent ones, and many interesting regional ones to be found. The UK does good beer -- go and find a bottle of Norfolk Nog, and tell me it doesn't taste wonderful, or try a bottle of Fraioch heather ale, and note how refreshing it is.

It might be the case that you're too used to crap beer that needs to be chilled in order to taste okay. Good beer isn't supposed to be served warm, just cool, because you're meant to be able to taste it.

Re:Map projections

[flyneye]

Wow, that was mostly bullshit, but I give you a +1 used car sales.
Incedentally lager, is the beer that needs low temperatures, because it tastes like diarreah once it warms, unlike a good ale.
I tend toward the artisans of Colorado brewries, Breckenridge brewries,New Belgium,and various others. Anheiser Busch, Coors and the other criminals will one day pay for not putting any beer in their beer.

Re:Map projections

[flyneye]

We actually fought to get away from England, glad you dont have to. Cheers!

Re:Map projections

[flyneye]

I actually have had the Norfolk Nog, in the import section of my liquor store, I paid $12 U.S. for a pint.
If you get the chance, do try one of Breckenridge Brewries Vanilla Porters.

Re:Map projections

[Sesostris III]

Actually you fought to get away from Great Britain, not (just) England. The Union was in place when America declared it's independence (I assume you're US-American).

Re:Map projections

[Sesostris III]

G.B., England, its all the same viewed from our east coast.

Maybe, but it really pisses off the Scots!

Re:Map projections

[Gonoff]

I picture it being like

You picture it wrong. They are unrepresentative. I am Scottish. I am also British, Orcadian, European, Western and various other groupings. The one "British" is good enough for most purposes when doing business or travelling. Scottish identifies what part of the UK and Orcadian could be my ethnicity within that. The modern trend is towards linking states, not breaking them up into non-functional bits.

Because it wouldn't work. Yes they are a long way from the control centres of an over-centralised nation. Just like Scotland. They have their own capital, state plant, legislature just like Scotland. It's a long list. It doesn't matter. Some things are best done locally - probably a lot more than actually gets done this way but some other things are better done as part of a larger system.

Nationalism is the past. History is interesting and must be known but we don't want to go and live in it. That's why our ancestors left...

Re:Map projections

[flyneye]

Perhaps Scotland should have a hockey team...

Re:Map projections

[gbjbaanb]

absolutely.. buy the T-Shirt

Re:Map projections

[Sesostris III]

Perhaps Scotland should have a hockey team...

http://www.scottish-hockey.org.uk/international-teams.aspx

Re:Map projections

[beelsebob]

Actually, from your east coast, you can see significantly more Scotland than England. Partly because Scotland is actually as long as England north to south, and partly because Ireland blocks your view of England.

Re:Map projections

[ebno-10db]

America fought to stop being oppressed colonies of the English crown (stuff the facade of being a united kingdom). You raise a good point though. In hindsight we should have allied with Scotland, which was a fellow oppressed colony. A two front war would have been a good strategy. It would also have taken advantage of the Franco-Scottish Auld Alliance - which is still in effect.

Re:Map Projections

[ebno-10db]

The only truly superior option is a globe.

Re:Map projections

[Half-pint HAL]

Fraoch (note spelling) Scottish. Please do not confuse "England" with "the UK".

Re:Map projections

[Half-pint HAL]

The modern trend is towards linking states, not breaking them up into non-functional bits.

That's misrepresentative. The modern trend is for countries to get smaller, and for countries to form closer alliances via supra-national entities. Czechoslovakia split in two; Yugoslavia fragmented bit by bit; India was partitioned into India and Pakistan, then East Pakistan became independent as Bangladesh.

Iceland gained its independence from Denmark in the 40s, and Greenland and the Faroe Islands have gradually increased in autonomy, on a slow move that seems likely to end in full independence. It must be remembered also that Norway was a part of Denmark until 1814.

The Renaissance model of large countries was based on principles of colonialism, imperialism and restricted trade. Scotland entered the Union because the imperial powers had set up trade barriers and Scotland was effectively frozen out of all international commerce. These conditions no longer apply, so we should instead look at state size in more practical terms. As it turns out, the governance of large countries seems to be far less effective than the governance of large countries. If you look at the world's countries in terms of GDP per capita, you'll see a heck of a lot of small countries at the top. The USA is an exception, but then it (like Germany) is a federal system and its states have a high degree of autonomy. Notably, as the federal government has taken more and more power away from the state legislatures, the US has decreased in wealth relative to the rest of the world....

Re:Map projections

[Half-pint HAL]

There have been about 2 general elections where the Scottish vote would have made a difference, and in both of those the difference was between a hung parliament and an outright majority. "Labour can't win without Scotland" is a myth.

Re:Map projections

[budgenator]

doubt you could tell much difference between Canadian and U.S. sports bars, save for the number of hockey sticks.

Nope even California has a hockey team; and with the amount of cross-boarder partying, the differing accents wouldn't help much either.

Re:Map projections

[pbhj]

Flat-Earther with incredible eyesight?

Re:Map projections

[Sesostris III]

The Union of the Crowns happened in 1603, even before the Act of Union of 1707. Even if they gain independence, I believe the plan is for Scotland to keep the current monarchy.

Re:Map projections

[nojayuk]

Actually wealthy plantation slaveholders and their allies in the American colonies (Washington, Jefferson, even Franklin profited from slaves) broke away when it became obvious the British government was going to abolish slavery in the near future. I understand American history books take a different view but since they were written by the slaveholders, for the slaveholders that's not surprising.

Their constant harping on the British crown and George III as the Bad Guy because he wanted to abolish slavery is further evidence of their propagandistic efforts since the Crown had possessed little or no political power in Britain since the mid-1600s when Parliament explained the facts of life to Charles I with the edge of an axe. It was Parliament that sent troops to put down the treasonous rebellion of the slaveholders, not George.

Re:Map projections

[xclr8r]

doubt you could tell much difference between Canadian and U.S. sports bars, save for the number of hockey sticks.

Nope even California has a hockey team; and with the amount of cross-boarder partying, the differing accents wouldn't help much either.

3 NHL teams that I recall - Sharks, Ducks, Kings

Re:Map projections

[ebno-10db]

Actually wealthy plantation slaveholders and their allies in the American colonies (Washington, Jefferson, even Franklin profited from slaves) broke away when it became obvious the British government was going to abolish slavery in the near future.

Obviously the Revolution was fought to preserve slavery, since it started in Massachusetts, which banned slavery in 1783. That was the same year that the earliest serious anti-slavery movement even started in the UK, and 50 years before that movement had any serious effect (60 years before slavery was banned throughout the empire). That ban was also as motivated by a slave result in Jamaica as any serious abolitionist sentiment. Moreover, by the time that the UK seriously started to ban slavery in the empire, every single Northern state had already passed laws against it. Since your understanding of the American Revolution is let us say scant, I'll mention that those Northern states that banned slavery before the British Empire were the colonies that had the strongest Patriot (pro-revolution) sentiment.

I understand American history books take a different view but since they were written by the slaveholders, for the slaveholders that's not surprising.

American history books were written by slaveholders? I know some of them are out of date, but probably less than 149 years. If your point is that the victors write the history books, you should learn something about the American Civil War and its pivotal role in American history.

Their constant harping on the British crown and George III as the Bad Guy because he wanted to abolish slavery

Nobody harps about that, because it's a complete fantasy.

the Crown had possessed little or no political power in Britain since the mid-1600s when Parliament explained the facts of life to Charles I with the edge of an axe

You should read up on UK history. The English Civil War certainly put the crown on notice not to antagonize Parliament too much, and the Glorious Revolution established Parliament's power to select the successor to the crown (no Catholics please), but the crown still retained considerable power. It was hardly like today.

Re:Map projections

[dryeo]

Other factors not often mentioned, Roman Catholics being allowed into government (Americans still hate the French) and the big one, King George recognizing the Native Americans as equal subjects and stopping the theft of land which is why so many land speculators were pro-independence and America went on to steal a huge amount of land as well as purchasing some.

Re:Map projections

[N1AK]

England should let them go and concentrate their efforts instead, on making a beer thats worth a fuck.

Our beers pretty damn good, but even if it got 10x better it wouldn't be worth fucking a fat ass American for :P

Re:Map projections

[N1AK]

Wow, that was mostly bullshit, but I give you a +1 used car sales.

Yet vastly more accurate than the nonsense you posted, so I'll give you -1 Wrong and -1 Ineffective attempt to act like you weren't.

Re: Map projections

[TapeCutter]

Bono and to a lesser extent Geldof get a lot of flack for what they have done. However together they basically eliminated the crippling cold war debt foisted on Africa. Bono also had a pivotal role in persuading Clinton to clamp down on IRA funding coming out of Boston, his short fuck the revolution speech (starts @ 2:35) during a 1980's Boston concert took the balls of an elephant to make and unsurprisingly attracted credible death threats from the IRA.

Re:Map projections

[Spacelem]

Oops, typo -- it's one of my favourite ales too. Don't worry, I've lived in Scotland most of my life, and I most certainly don't confuse England with the UK! However, the taste / temperature issue applies to Scottish beers too, and it was a general statement. I certainly don't discriminate when it comes to good beer!

Re:Map projections

[ebno-10db]

Roman Catholics [not?] being allowed into government

The US Constitution forbade any religious test for office from the outset. Catholics weren't allowed into Parliament until the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829. Moreover the House of Lords, which didn't really lose its power until the 20th century, includes bishops of the CoE.

Americans still hate the French

You think we hated our allies in the Revolution?

King George recognizing the Native Americans as equal subjects

You're kidding, right? As for trying to temporarily stop westward expansion, the UK's concern was money. It's expensive to keep armies in the field, and they were still paying off debts from the French and Indian War. Remember those taxes the colonists complained about - what did you think they were paying for?

As for George's oh so progressive attitude towards the Native Americans, it's odd that he would take that stance while simultaneously expanding the British Empire in India.

Re:Map projections

[Cederic]

What the fuck is Anglo-catholic?

You do realise the Church of England is protestant?

Re:Map projections

[dryeo]

Roman Catholics [not?] being allowed into government

The US Constitution forbade any religious test for office from the outset. Catholics weren't allowed into Parliament until the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829. Moreover the House of Lords, which didn't really lose its power until the 20th century, includes bishops of the CoE.

Err, the Quebec Act (1774) removed the Protestant Faith part of the Oath of Supremacy therefore allowing Roman Catholics to be involved in (colonial?) government. America didn't enact a bill of rights (or illegalize letters of attainment) until after they'd purged most the undesirables from the 13 colonies.

Americans still hate the French

You think we hated our allies in the Revolution?

No you hated the French to the north of you, especially when they beat Washington again.

King George recognizing the Native Americans as equal subjects

You're kidding, right? As for trying to temporarily stop westward expansion, the UK's concern was money. It's expensive to keep armies in the field, and they were still paying off debts from the French and Indian War. Remember those taxes the colonists complained about - what did you think they were paying for?

Protecting the colonists who were expanding into the natives land. Even back then some Americans believed in their right to a free lunch.

As for George's oh so progressive attitude towards the Native Americans, it's odd that he would take that stance while simultaneously expanding the British Empire in India.

It was a private business that was expanding into India.

Re:Map projections

[flyneye]

Cool, well, they are definitley ready for independence then.
Mexico has no hockey team and look at their mess!

Re:Map projections

[flyneye]

So we will see legalized marijuana from Scotland soon then...

Re:Map projections

[flyneye]

LOL, so either the battles within will be either very much more interesting or much more boring...

Re:Map projections

[flyneye]

Youve a long way to go before you; brew better beer than the Irish or develop the ability to pull American tail out of any bar...

Re:Map projections

[flyneye]

Il see your -1s and raise you a squirt of Bodkins..er, piss...

Re: Map projections

[flyneye]

The man would sell his mother for a minute of camera time.

everywhere!

[polar red]

They're everywhere the same. They have this ridiculous niotion that a border reinstated not very long ago makes the people on both sides in any way different.

Re:everywhere!

[Half-pint HAL]

Nationalism is a very good tool for the 1%-ers (just like religion is/was.)

You mean UK nationalism? Like all the "rule Britannia, better together" nationalism?

I will never happen

[Anonymous Coward]

Independence is a big word, Sovereignty is perhaps a bit better.

If they would achieve that, they would be outside the EU as well, because GB, Spain, France an a few others would veto it.
They are too afraid it would encourage their own Nationalist Basques, Catalans, Corse an so on.

Re:I will never happen

[duckintheface]

And all that oil would be outside the EU then.

Re:I will never happen

[Half-pint HAL]

Not to mention some of the Spanish fleet's most productive fishing grounds. The last thing Spain needs at the moment is more unemployed people trying to claim benefits.

Re:I will never happen

[Half-pint HAL]

Independence is a big word, Sovereignty is perhaps a bit better.

If they would achieve that, they would be outside the EU as well, because GB, Spain, France an a few others would veto it. They are too afraid it would encourage their own Nationalist Basques, Catalans, Corse an so on.

It would be in the UK's interest (NB: UK, not GB) for an independent Scotland to be seen as a "continuing" state rather than a "successor" state -- successor states are new countries and do not inherit debt from the parent country. As the UK would want Scotland to take a proportionate share of the debt, the UK cannot veto Scotland's membership of the EU, of NATO or of the UN.

France or Belgium might object, but Spain's stance really depends on who's in power at the time -- Rajoy has made noises against Scotland, but some of the smarter heads in Spanish politics and diplomacy have hedged their bets more, going with the Yes Scotland line that Scotland is a completely different case due to the Treaty of the Union and the Edinburgh Agreement. I say "smarter heads", because while Rajoy doesn't want Scotland to become independent and set a precedent for Catalunya to follow, these guys appreciate that accepting the Yes Scotland line means that whatever Scotland does, no precedent can or would be set.

Re:I will never happen

[pbhj]

Why? Under what treaty or agreement would the EU not be able to claim those oilfields? They are British oil fields, hence part of the EU at the moment. What law means that Scotland receives them if it chooses independence? What bargaining power do Scotland have against the united might of the EU if the EU say "lolz, nice try, still ours"?

It's going to be interesting if the vote goes through as "yes". No established currency, no rights under international treaties (but then no obligations, like copyright), no protection from established accords, no monarchy, no armed forces and such. Will be interesting to see, for example, if the Queen allows Scots to resign their posts in UK armed forces and such.

Re:I will never happen

[Richard_at_work]

With all due respect, whether or not Scotland take a share of the UKs debt is solely down to negotiations between the British government and the independent Scottish government and most certainly not some label a newly independent Scotland would gain from third parties - so its entirely possible they could become a "successor state" with regard to the EU and still take their share of debt.

Re:I will never happen

[Aighearach]

There are standard formulas for who owns water, and how far out, and who has an exclusive economic zone, and where. There might be argument over a few miles here and there at borders, but generally the formula is well established.

Re:I will never happen

[mcpheat]

Why? Under what treaty or agreement would the EU not be able to claim those oilfields? They are British oil fields, hence part of the EU at the moment. What law means that Scotland receives them if it chooses independence?

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

Re:I will never happen

[Half-pint HAL]

With all due respect, whether or not Scotland take a share of the UKs debt is solely down to negotiations between the British government and the independent Scottish government and most certainly not some label a newly independent Scotland would gain from third parties - so its entirely possible they could become a "successor state" with regard to the EU and still take their share of debt.

That is at best an oversimplification, at worst wrong. National debt is a contractual affair between a lender and a state. The lender has legal protections in international law that allow them to pursue the state if they fail to pay up. If Scotland is given the status of "successor state" and the rUK "continuant state", then international law means only the rUK would be liable to the debt -- we're not talking mere "labels", we're talking legal definitions.

George Osborne's already walking the line very dangerously, having declared that the UK will guarantee all debt and saying that rather than transferring a portion of the debt to Scotland, the UK would retain the balance and would charge Scotland annually for our share. That stretches the definition of a continuant state beyond all credibility in my book.

Re:I will never happen

[Richard_at_work]

Except your assertions are where the oversimplification occurs, as there is ample prior examples of an entity splitting into multiple smaller entities and separating debt obligations in the process. There is absolutely no scope for Scotland simply walking away from UK debt obligations without their own share - if they did that, they lose significant amounts in assets that would otherwise be transferred north of the border.

One example would be the £28Billion that Scottish banks are required to deposit in holding at the Bank of England (a requirement for the Scottish banks to be able to print and distribute their own currency) - walk away from the debt obligations and that wont be transferred back.

Osborne had to guarantee the debt, as any doubt surrounding it would have repercussions on the UKs credit rating internationally and the UK government cannot allow that to happen.

I'd also love for you to show me this international law which your comment so heavily relies on, because this is an internal issue between the UK and Scotland - external entities can label Scotland whatever they want, but ultimately its the agreement that the UK and Scotland comes to which dictates Scotlands ongoing debt obligations.

Re:I will never happen

[Half-pint HAL]

Except your assertions are where the oversimplification occurs, as there is ample prior examples of an entity splitting into multiple smaller entities and separating debt obligations in the process.

There are ample prior examples of that, yes (eg Czechoslovakia), and ample prior examples of states where the debt has been ascribed unilaterally. This is how the distinction of continuant state and successor state comes about.

There is absolutely no scope for Scotland simply walking away from UK debt obligations without their own share - if they did that, they lose significant amounts in assets that would otherwise be transferred north of the border.

There are absolutely no absolutes in this debate. There is scope for literally anything happening however unlikely, right up to armed conflict and nuclear escalation. The only implied threat to walk away from debt is in response to being denied access to assets, so your argument is kind of back-to-front there.

One example would be the £28Billion that Scottish banks are required to deposit in holding at the Bank of England (a requirement for the Scottish banks to be able to print and distribute their own currency) - walk away from the debt obligations and that wont be transferred back.

I'm no expert, but I don't think that particular example would be legal -- that's corporate assets, not national assets. There are provisions for punishing states through sanctions on corporations, but that has to go through the WTO. Besides, with the government holding a majority stake in both HBOS and RBS, damaging their business would be a matter of cutting off your nose to spite your face. A far better approach would be to retain the banks as UK assets and not split ownership, surely...?

external entities can label Scotland whatever they want, but ultimately its the agreement that the UK and Scotland comes to which dictates Scotlands ongoing debt obligations.

If it was a truly internal matter, then there would be nothing obliging Scotland to pay. For the UK to force the issue requires the recognition of the international community -- Osborne's bet is that Scotland won't refuse the debt, for fear of harming their credit rating. If the international community (and in particular the international banking community) don't recognise the debt, then it does not go on the books for the credit rating, and the UK loses its leverage.

Note that I am not saying that this will/would happen, my point is that this is one element of negotiations, and Westminster currently has enough rope to hang themselves.

Half right

[kaiidth]

Yes, they changed the projection in around 2005. The new format did indeed suck - take a look at the 'this is how weather maps look now' image on this page. It was a triumph of 3D prettiness over usability and produced wonderfully unhelpful graphics like this and there was a lot of sulking over it, not so much because of nationalist fervour, but more because it was crap. The BBC themselves claim they had 16,000 complaints. So they tweaked it, significantly.

It's a shame that the BBC's obsession with shiny things produced a weather forecast that sucked, and it is indeed quite possible that they didn't recognise how much it sucked because of inner-M25 London myopia, although if so the joke's on them because a significant proportion of BBC staff were moved to Manchester fairly shortly thereafter. Since the BBC produces a lot of things that are shiny but happen to suck it doesn't seem necessary to attribute the weather forecast to a subconscious urge to portray Scotland as negligible. Occam's razor suggests that the simpler explanation might be that whoever outsourced the weather forecasting isn't half as smart as they think they are.

Re:Half right

[smallfries]

It's not particularly hard to fix: spin the viewpoint around the country. For the southern forecast a view from across the channel (pretty much what it is now). For Scotland spin round to viewing from the north, Wales from the west etc. This then has the benefit that whatever region is being discussed takes up most of the screen and the rest of the UK drops away in perspective.

Whoever they outsourced to is not just less smart that they think they are. They have gone full-retard.

Re:Half right

[SJHillman]

"spin the viewpoint around the country"

And the even bigger upside is that it would then make sense to display it in 3D prettiness. Displaying a 3D image from a fixed 2D viewpoint is just bad.

Re:Half right

[kaiidth]

The system is apparently Weatherscape XT, aka the commercial arm of the New Zealand MetService. See an example that does something more like what you suggest here. The technology looks quite capable, if a bit gratuitous, so probably someone with a good understanding of how to use such packages could've made something very successful out of it. Weatherscape XT may simply have been doing what the customer requested (no matter how loopy). In view of the AC's remarks on the creative brokenness of the BBC it might well be that the BBC weren't up to doing their part of the procurement process, getting the requirements right, developing an understanding of the way the 'solution' should be used and figuring out whether the result is a useful visualisation and what the audience will make of it. Typical for an outsourcing process. Lose the in-house expertise, buy in something commercial, cross your fingers and hope.

Still, on the plus side the contract is apparently up for renewal, so stay tuned for whatever the BBC chooses next. If it involves 3D glasses and weather icons swooping out of the screen towards you I will be gloomily unsurprised.

Re:Half right

[2sheds]

It didn't 'decide' to do anything of the kind. The Beeb has always been far from perfect, but it was compelled to do all those things by successive governments obsessed with supposed free market policies that only ended up sacrificing the creative and technical integrity of the corporation for what ended up being the enrichment of a very privileged few who were in the right place at the right time.

Re:Half right

[gbjbaanb]

now that's true - accountancy breaks a lot of things.

Because each programme had to be accounted for independantly, you'd get the situation where top-end equipment would be bought for the engineers on the series, and once the series was complete would be chucked away. I recall hearing from sound engineers who had to throw perfectly good top-end headphones away because their 'accountancy values' was nothing.

Similarly for TV, I once bought a few rally high-end Dell monitors off a guy flogging them on ebay, turned out they were bought to make the animated Captain Scarlet series, and once done.. technically worthless. I paid £10 each for something that was worth hundreds.

Common sense got thrown out the window with the "feminisation" of these public sector services, where it was more important to be politically correct than actually do what you were supposed to, where it was more important to fill the place up with air-headed middle management than more working staff. Now, lets stop this bitching and all go on an ethnic diversity stress awareness course of the benefits of vegetarianism on workplace.effectiveness...

Re:Half right

[kaiidth]

That government pressure to change is perennial. It will always be there in one direction or another. One of the most important roles of senior staff in any such organisation is to handle that pressure.

Ultimately organisations are severely damaged not solely by pressure from above, as bad as that is, but by the opportunistic reactions from people looking to cash in on the situation. "Ooh, pick me! I've got no integrity at all and have no clue what this department technically does, but I'll fuck anybody over if there's something in it for me." What you get out of these privatisations is a perfect storm, a combination of externally catalysed and incoherent policy change, arsehole me-first management and slimy consultancy. Result: loss of decades of expertise, plus the enrichment of a large number of functionally irrelevant suits who probably have the phrase 'change management' on their linked-in profiles.

So while it's entirely reasonable to blame the asshats in government, also take the time to note the complicity of asshats in management. The government couldn't fuck up things up so badly if it couldn't count on a legion of supremely self-interested fifth-columnists.

Re:Half right

[Smauler]

it is indeed quite possible that they didn't recognise how much it sucked because of inner-M25 London myopia

One thing to consider is that many more people live inside the M25 than do in the entirety of Scotland...

Re:Half right

[Bazman]

Friend of mine was one of the 16,000 complaints. I think the gist of his argument was that if you read the weather wrong in London, you'll get wet walking between the bus stop and your house because you didn't take an umbrella. If you read the weather wrong in the Highlands of Scotland, you die.

Re:Half right

[kaiidth]

There's a cost-benefit argument that's very popular in Westminster right now. In a nutshell, it goes 'London has a large population, therefore focusing on London benefits more people, therefore sod everybody else'. Usually you hear it used about spending money on flood defences, libraries, arts funding and so on. This is the first time I've heard anybody use a variant on the above to justify the use of a clearly suboptimal weather visualisation.

Media companies focusing on the oh-so-many people who live inside the M25 are welcome to design local forecasts for that region in whatever way they please. But the BBC supposedly intended to produce something for use across the UK. To do this, it was necessary for them to design and evaluate this visualisation accordingly. Whether all the designers' mates happen to live in London, or even whether the designers believe that there aren't enough people in Scotland to make the exercise worthwhile, should have had no relevance to this process.

Singapore is much smaller

[the_B0fh]

If Scots think Scotland is a bit small to be functionally viable, then maybe they shouldn't be looking at independence then. These people are idiots.

Re:Singapore is much smaller

[SJHillman]

Scots don't think it. Scots think other people will think it, which they likely do.

Re:Singapore is much smaller

[Sesostris III]

Other people aren't voting in the referendum, only Scots. So what other people think doesn't matter.

Re:Singapore is much smaller

[ebno-10db]

There referendum will fail just like both Quebec's ones.

The difference is that while Scotland would probably be fine as an EU member, Quebec independence would have been economic suicide, and result in the loss of much of Quebec's territory. The Cree always made it clear that they had no intention of leaving Canada, and they control much of Northern Quebec. Goodbye Hydro-Quebec. Several of the southern most counties are primarily English speaking. The Canadian government made it clear that they would retain any part of Quebec that didn't vote for independence, which is quite reasonable.

Re:Singapore is much smaller

[SJHillman]

Plus, people like the Scots. Nobody likes the Quebecois.

Re:Singapore is much smaller

[Half-pint HAL]

If Scots think Scotland is a bit small to be functionally viable, then maybe they shouldn't be looking at independence then. These people are idiots.

That's exactly the complaint -- they claim we've been conditioned into thinking Scotland is smaller than it actually is, and that this will make voters think we can't be independent. Currently, opinion polls still show a "no" vote as the most likely outcome of the referendum.

Re:Singapore is much smaller

[the_B0fh]

I think you are missing the point I'm trying to make.

Re:Singapore is much smaller

[SJHillman]

I don't like New York City, but I still want their tax revenue. You can have reasons for wanting to keep something other than liking it. Also, I don't think Quebecois counts as a race, but logic doesn't seem to be your strength.

Re:Singapore is much smaller

[Aighearach]

People like GSP.

Re:Singapore is much smaller

[Half-pint HAL]

Then I must conclude that your point is entirely irrational.

Re:Singapore is much smaller

[Half-pint HAL]

Anyone who thinks that more geographic area is a plus to independence is unlikely to be capable of marking the vote of their choice anyway. More population I could see as a plus, certainly more GNP but more area? That's ridiculous.

It's not about rational arguments, it's about unconscious preconceptions. BellaCaledonia, the blog that started this (I cannot believe that a blog post from a no-name blogger misrepresenting the views of another blogger made the Slashdot front page -- for pity's sake!) was talking about self-perception. We are presented as marginal, both in the sense of insignificant numbers and in the sense of being geographically on the fringes, and I know that I grew up with a vastly distorted view of the size and population of Scotland (and that was in the days when the BBC weather map was a flat projection). In September most of Scotland's population will be voting not based on logical, rational decisions, but based on their preconceptions, which are fuelled by such seemingly insignificant matters as the predominance given to English sport in the news, English news stories, weather maps, accents on TV etc etc.

Perhaps you would disagree with BellaCaledonia's argument if you read it in the original, but your knee-jerk reaction without even reading the argument does you no credit.

Re:Singapore is much smaller

[SJHillman]

How, exactly, does liking the Scottish make someone full of hatred? Hatred usually implies something along the opposite of liking someone.

Someone who is going to vote yes..

[Severus Snape]

The whole of the UK is enlarged on almost every map and thus is not in scale with the rest of Europe. My main point though is, who the hell cares?

Re:Someone who is going to vote yes..

[drinkypoo]

This is why I prefer American maps. We're massive and you're put in your proper place — anywhere so long as it's small

Re:Someone who is going to vote yes..

[Severus Snape]

Find a global map where the UK isn't enlarged. Land mass doesn't translate to economic power and in turn power in the world.

Re:Someone who is going to vote yes..

[beelsebob]

Those of us who want to know what the weather is in Scotland care. We're not talking about Merkator making the UK look a little big here, we're talking about the north of scotland being reduced in size by 40 times thanks to perspective, and hence making it very difficult to tell what's going on up there.

Re:Someone who is going to vote yes..

[ebno-10db]

Find a global map where the UK isn't enlarged. Land mass doesn't translate to economic power and in turn power in the world.

You're living in the past - the empire is dead.

Re:Someone who is going to vote yes..

[Severus Snape]

Haha, there is certainly no empire left, and while I'd like to put the last nail in the coffin with independence, the point still stands.

Re:Someone who is going to vote yes..

[dkf]

There are quite a few where there's no enlargement, such as the Gall–Peters projection and the Mollweide projection. (Assuming "no enlargement" means "equal area". No; you won't get zero distortion maps. A spherical - well, approximate spherical - surface can't be flattened perfectly.)

Mel Gibson

[SJHillman]

They can distort their maps, but they cannot take their FREEEDOM!

so british

[taikedz]

Just goes to show how British the whole affair is. *sips tea*

Like nails on a chalk board

[kruach aum]

This is the Scottish version of "black holes are racist" and the illogic of it makes my skin crawl.

Re:Like nails on a chalk board

[kruach aum]

The point is not that a certain type of projection does not change size ratios between countries (it does), but that not everything is a statement. The same map drastically deforms the coast line of the Netherlands. Should this be taken as a statement that therefore the bbc implies all Dutchmen are barely human mutant scum? No, but that's exactly what Scotland is doing.

Re:Like nails on a chalk board

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if the BBC are being subtly biased with their weather map, it is a trivial issue compared with the bias in their reporting. Any news item which can be given an anti-independence spin is given prominence, while other news favourable to independence is not reported or mentioned only briefly. When pro-independence politicians are interviewed, they are questioned aggressively and often interrupted before they can complete an answer, while unionist politicians are not asked awkward questions and listened to politely.

Needless to say, when an academic study of this bias was published, the BBC did not report on it. When an Irish government minister complained that her remarks in an interview had been misrepresented by the BBC, they refused to report this.

Re:Like nails on a chalk board

[rossdee]

The Dutch don't pay the British TV licence Fee that funds the BBC, so they can't complain.

Re:Like nails on a chalk board

[beelsebob]

No, the point is that this map is meant to be useful. It is meant to accurately show what the weather is doing in various places. If someone chooses to make the representation of that 40 times smaller (yes, that really is how much smaller shetland ends up with this projection) for some people, than for others, then it's a very clearly biased map.

The point re independence is that while the weather map is clearly a subtle and tiny issue, these things add up. Every time a decision is made, it's made with first thought to London, and 1/40th of the thought to the north of Scotland. As such, decisions are made that are not in the best interest of Scotland, and hence... We should go independent.

Re:Like nails on a chalk board

[Half-pint HAL]

Indeed. Interviews start with heavily editorialised leading questions like "just how bad is this for the independence campaign?" The deck has definitely been stacked in favour of the "better together" side, and when a university called them on this, the BBC basically ignored the study.

Re:Like nails on a chalk board

[malkavian]

Subtle does not have the biggest effect on a person's view of the world. Obvious does.
Subtle is if I try to get your attention by tapping you on the shoulder gently.
Obvious is if I whack you round the head with a cricket bat to gain your attention.
There are points when subtle does not matter one jot. It's used for delicacy and very minute adjustments (thus, subtle).

Re:Like nails on a chalk board

[bill_mcgonigle]

The Dutch don't pay the British TV licence Fee that funds the BBC, so they can't complain.

This is a reasonable complaint. Given a limited resolution, condensing a geographic area will result in a less detailed weather report/forecast for that region. Why should one region get preference?

The irony is that if the Scottish are successful they won't need the BBC's forecast for very long.

Re:Like nails on a chalk board

[nogginthenog]

Yet (as a Brit) when I lived in the Netherlands as a student 20+ years ago I had BBC on the local cable TV. Regular BBC, not that world crap.

Re:Like nails on a chalk board

[jrumney]

Every time a decision is made, it's made with first thought to London, and 1/40th of the thought to the north of Scotland.

Given the relative populations of London and the North of Scotland, I'd say that Scotland is getting more than its fair share of attention there.

Of Course.....

[segedunum]

When it comes to national forecasts London isn't interested in anything north of Watford.

In perspective

[ChunderDownunder]

Scotland is a tiny country smaller in area than South Carolina or French Guiana.

Re:In perspective

[rossdee]

I thought the Danes abandoned their Greenland colony in the 13th century, and the settlers all died.

Re:In perspective

[Aighearach]

Scotland is slightly smaller than South Carolina in land area, but has a higher population. So "smaller" without a dimension is wrong-ish.

Re:In perspective

[ChunderDownunder]

which is why I wrote "smaller in area"

Last week at the SNP strategy meeting

[Anonymous Coward]

Och, Alex, I've got it at last! We can win this thing. Those English bastards think we're a wee bit nuts right? So all we need to do is make them thing we're as mad as a nessie with a haggis on its head, and they'll pop over the border from Carlisle to Gretna Green to vote us independent. Och, we're Scotland after all; where the men wear nothing under their kilts and the fields are thick with thistles. They'll fall for it in no time.

Re:Last week at the SNP strategy meeting

[rossdee]

I can understand what most Scots are saying, since I was brought up in a Commonwealth country that showed British TV shows.
Plus I have some Scottish ancestry if you go back 300 years.

Not the first time

[duckintheface]

This would not be the first time distorted maps have been used for a political purpose. There is no reason use the Mercator projection on world maps except to make the northern hemisphere countries look much larger than those in Africa and South America near the equator. (Hint: Africa is enormous but is often shown as smaller than North America)

Re:Not the first time

[Sique]

The problem is that any projection of a map onto a flat surface is distorted. There are no un-distorted maps. A map contains serveral classes of important data on a map, and projections mainly affect distances, areas and angles. It is mathematically impossible to have a plane projection of the Earth's surface which correctly displays distances, but you can have a map that preserves angles and a map that preserves areas. You can't have a preservation of both area and angle in the same map though. But both angle-preserving and area-preserving maps are absolutely bad at displaying distances, so most projections in use today try to compromise between areas and angles and still have not too large distortions of distances. Northpole and Southpole, because they are uninhabited, are cut off most maps, which gives larger playroom for compromise-maps.

But if you have a map, which tries a compromise between angle preservation and area preservation, and which does not show North- and Southpole, you will always have the areas of the northern and southern regions displayed larger than they are compared to those near the Equator. This is a pure mathematical necessity and not limited to the Mercator projection. The only way to not have this distortion is not to have the Equator being horizontal on your map.

Re:Not the first time

[websitebroke]

You must be one of those Gall-Peters "lets make Africa look like a limp dong" map proponents.

Mercator was not made and is not used for political purposes. When it's used in publishing, it's because the square format of the projection fits nicely on a single vertical-formatted book page. If the publisher is opting for something across 2 pages, they'll typically use a reference map such as Robinson or Winkel-Tripel.

Mercator IS used in places like Google maps, because it's great for navigation.

Re:Not the first time

[angel'o'sphere]

Your post is only half correct.
To make it better you could explicitely mention: world map.

Ofc. there are plenty of distance true projections. Acimute projection comes to mind, or Gauss - Krueger coordinate systems.

The point is: those projections or coordinate systems only work (properly) on a local scale.

For those interested, GK coordinate systems are 3 degrees wide stripes (latitude) projected on a cylinder. That means the same location has different coordinates depending on which cylinder it is referenced. The coordinates are in meters, right value and up value (X and Y is not really used as it swithced meaning several times in history). Those coordinate systems are often specilaized further so that the zero point for a certain map is in the lower left corner. E.g. germany (not officially) has a special map with the zero point down left in france.
For realy local measurement, like a town, that town has its own zero point and hence its own coordinate system. That is important for exact measurement of property and taxes.

Re:Not the first time

[Half-pint HAL]

The problem is that any projection of a map onto a flat surface is distorted. There are no un-distorted maps. A map contains serveral classes of important data on a map, and projections mainly affect distances, areas and angles. It is mathematically impossible to have a plane projection of the Earth's surface which correctly displays distances, but you can have a map that preserves angles and a map that preserves areas.

The BBC weathermap is not a true planar projection, though. It's a 3D projection rendered onto 2D, emulating the view of the UK from orbit. Neither ground-level angles, nor latitudinal distance, nor longitudinal distance, nor surface area are preserved. All distances and all areas are reduced. This is because the projection is seemingly taken from somewhere above France, so the south of England is close to the camera, and the north of Scotland is not only further away (hence smaller) but also reduced in height due to the curvature of the Earth included in the projection.

When this first came in (years ago now), the justification of this was that it is more "natural" to look at, and easier to understand... but only a handful of people have ever had the opportunity to see the UK from such an angle, so I can't see what's so natural about it. Furthermore, the BBC initially refused to allow any regional opt-out from the standard projection, so the Scottish weather was on a zoomed subsection of the map, which had practically zero north/south resolution compared to exaggerated east/west.

After a lot of complaints, the BBC tweaked the angles slightly, but the problem still remains. It is particularly irritating that the Gaelic weather forecasts, half of whose target audience are in the Highlands and Islands, is forced to use the same map, where their part of Scotland is so drastically shrunken that a single weather symbol blocks out over a hundred miles on the map.

Re:Not the first time

[budgenator]

In this day and age, there is no excuse for the news media to not transform any satellite imagery so that the topical area is projected as if the satellites was at the areas zenith; and people, buy a globe.

Re:Not the first time

[mrchaotica]

Well that is stupid, then... if they're going to use a "photograph of the UK as seen from space" projection, then they ought to set the point of view directly above the centroid of the country (or indeed, the centroid of the relevant area, in the zoomed-in cases).

Re:Not the first time

[pipingguy]

As you can tell from my sig, I'm a flat-earther. What is this magical spherical world you speak of?

Re:Not the first time

[DrSkwid]

Agreed - map - the clue is in the name.

Re:Not the first time

[Sique]

The acimute projection is not distance true. It has the advantage that it is angles true, and that projections of circles are circles. On a local scale, the abberation from an hypothetical distance true projection is very small though. Also the Gauss-Krueger-Projection is not distance true, and it you use wider stripes (e.g. 6 degrees instead of 3 degrees for your cylinders), the difference to a distance true projection widens.

Re: Not the first time

[thsths]

You call it style, but it also be the fact that the UK is quite tall, but the TV screen is very wide. Unless we want to turn the TV around (or the map), that is going to be a problem any which way you look at it.

Re: Not the first time

[Half-pint HAL]

We've had TV weather for decades -- it was never a problem in the past.

Re:Not the first time

[Solandri]

The problem is that any projection of a map onto a flat surface is distorted. There are no un-distorted maps. A map contains serveral classes of important data on a map, and projections mainly affect distances, areas and angles. It is mathematically impossible to have a plane projection of the Earth's surface which correctly displays distances, but you can have a map that preserves angles and a map that preserves areas. You can't have a preservation of both area and angle in the same map though. But both angle-preserving and area-preserving maps are absolutely bad at displaying distances, so most projections in use today try to compromise between areas and angles and still have not too large distortions of distances.

While that's true for maps of large areas of the Earth, the distortions become near-zero for small swaths like the UK. All you need to do is pick a viewpoint directly overhead and at a sufficient distance, which is what the Scottish Independence group is advocating.

This whole thing probably stems from the geometry of geostationary weather satellites. To always generate the same viewpoint from orbit, the satellites have to be located over the equator at 35,786 km in altitude. That means countries further north in latitude are distorted in the weather photos. From the 1960s to 1990s, this was just the way it was. You couldn't do anything about it. So everyone who lived in extreme northern (or southern) latitudes had to live with distorted satellite weather photos of their country.

Starting around the mid 1990s, computers became fast enough to correct this distortion in photos in a reasonable amount of time. You could now generate undistorted weather maps of reasonably small countries like the UK. But over the previous 3 decades, people had gotten used to the distorted view from geostationary satellites. When you see a flat undistorted map of your country with weather on it, you think "Oh, that's just a graphic someone drew." When you see a distorted map of your country with weather on it, you think "Oh, that's satellite imagery."

People innately trust satellite imagery more. It's a picture, taken from space. No manipulation, no airburshing (photoshopping for those of you too young to know what airbrushing is), right? Of course not; you can manipulate satellite photos as easily as you can manipulate photos from your phone camera. But that's not people's instinctive reaction. It's a satellite picture, so that must be what the weather really looks like from space. I think that's what the BBC was trying to go for with their perspective-foreshortened view of the UK for their weather forecasts. It gives it a greater sense of authenticity.

Eventually, as people lose this pro-satellite viewpoint bias, the overhead viewpoint maps are going to become the norm. But for the time being, it's a quick and silent way to tell the viewer "this is satellite imagery" vs "this is radar or an animated graphic."

Re:Not the first time

[angel'o'sphere]

Well, both projections are considered "distance true" , because they are "distance true enough".

Ofc, if you want to go down to a mm, they are not. Same for the angel and area true projections, if you narrow down to a small enough measurement unit: they are true to neither.

Re:Not the first time

[TapeCutter]

As an Aussie the first thing I thought when reading TFS is that most world maps make Scotland look much larger than it is and Australia smaller than it actually is. I went to school in the 60's and this was explained quite clearly to 12 year olds. You cannot get around the mathematical fact that it's impossible to project a sphere onto a square without some distortion, so the question becomes - which projection is the least objectionable?

Choosing the Mercator projection was never intended to be some sort of political insult to the south, there is indeed a practical reason for choosing the Mercator projection in that the N hemisphere has a lot more land, countries, states, cities, and towns, than the south. Choosing a projection that inflates the north allows the north to be seen in finer detail, which makes sense since there is more detail to see.. But hey, they will be independent soon so they can put up their own national weather service and go back to distorting Scotland with the traditional projection they know and love.

Disclaimer: I have a late 1960's era globe in my study, a surprising number of the country labels (USSR, Ceylon, W Germany, W Pakistan, etc) are now "wrong", but the relative sizes of Scotland and Australia are still accurate.

Re:Not the first time

[mikael]

The flat projection of the UK as used from the 1970's is what everyone is happy with, especially if the land is green, and sea is blue.

But that isn't as technically sophisticated as having a nice curvy sphere terrain map with digitally animated rain clouds and snow-storms that you can whizz around.

Re:Not the first time

[mikael]

A lot of people in the South of the UK travel to other parts of Europe by ferry, airplane and chunnel train. So the "relevant areas" become most of Europe.

Imagine if the argument were over a weather map of the USA . You have your regional channels producing a local weather report, but the national channels have to provide a whole map of the USA.

What, Behind The Rabbit?

[pipingguy]

Manky scots git!

Re:If they don't like it...

[Spad]

Oh totally, the Beeb would be so much better if it produced the same level of lowest-common-denominator shite as ITV and Channel 5.

Re:If they don't like it...

[Froggels]

I sense derision in your comment. If you are so fond of the BBC then YOU can give them money, but as for the rest of us we shouldn't be FORCED to pay for a license for the simple act of owning a television set. We no longer live in the 1950s. If the BBC is so worried that people will receive their signal without paying then they should encrypt the bloody thing and make it only available to subscribers.

What do they use as the starting point?

[houghi]

I am aware that no matter what, this is NOT a technical problem. It is a social one. Even if they somehow found a way, the people moaning now will find something else. They will keep moaning even after they would get what they asked for.

That said, looking at the technical side, what do they use as starting point from where the UKandNI are vieuwed from? Is this the equator as many maps are made that way? What if they would use the middle of UKandNI as a point from where people look. That would mean much less distortion and equal distortion to the north as to the south.

If they are already are doing that, it just shows that it is a social problem and not a technical one.

Re:What do they use as the starting point?

[rossdee]

Surely they should use Greenwich as the centre point, Thats where the Time Zone originated.
(Except that the US military prefers to think of it as being centered in Natal St Africa

Re:What do they use as the starting point?

[Half-pint HAL]

How about, you know, a map? Just a nice, ordinary, flat map? The satellite's-eye-view does nothing to improve the quality or understandability of the weather report. "It's more natural," they tell us. But I've never seen the Earth from that altitude, and I doubt any of them have, so there ain't nothing natural about it.

Re:What do they use as the starting point?

[bill_mcgonigle]

The obvious thing to do is to take the screen space, assign the top of the region to the top coordinate, the bottom of the region to the top coordinate, and use an equal measure for each unit of distance between the two.

Is there some reason the obvious thing is the naive thing? I mean, aside from the obvious difficulty of accurately re-projecting those satellite images. Before that can be contemplated, the resultant projection has to be determined.

Re:What do they use as the starting point?

[bill_mcgonigle]

the bottom of the region to the bottom coordinate,

Doh!

Makes sense

[DrXym]

An independent Scotland might be a colossal economic fuckup as all the jobs & money from insurance, banking, service and support industries flee south but dammit the map projections will be correct. Vote Yes in the referendum!

Re:Makes sense

[ebno-10db]

Why would it head south? If they wanted to be south, they could have moved already. Scotland will still be part of the EU, so who cares? One major question though is what currency they'd use.

Re:Makes sense

[DrXym]

That's the problem - the currency. The UK government (and all political parties) has said in no uncertain terms that there is no way that Scotland will share currency if they become independent. So any bank, insurance company, pensions investment firm, or even regular business / investor that has accounts in sterling is going to move them south and a big chunk of their infrastructure to mitigate the risk. Perhaps Scotland could join the Euro but those sort of things won't happen over night and it still wouldn't stop the flight of currency. Over the long term it might not matter, but it might in the short and medium term when people discover their savings or their pensions are bolloxed from the move.

Re:Makes sense

[SEE]

Scotland will still be part of the EU,

No, it won't still be a part of the EU. As a newly-independent state, it does not inherit membership in any limited-membership treaties. Scotland will have to petition for admission to any such it wishes to join, including the EU. It will then, under EU rules, have to get the unanimous consent of all EU members to join the EU.

I know the SNP says otherwise; the SNP is spouting nonsense.

Now, it's highly likely that the EU will be willing to let it in. However, there's no way it'll be let in without satisfying the rest of Europe on entry conditions.

This is why, in fact, there's no major question on what currency Scotland will use at all. It will either use the Euro from day one or use a local currency locked in the ERM II with the auto-glidepath to joining the Euro, because agreeing to do that will be a condition of joining the EU (nobody has any reason to give the Scots a way to take the Swedish dodge).

Scotland will not get any of the Thatcher-negotiated rebate, because none of the members of the EU have any reason to give it any part; the real wrangling will be between UK-EWNI and France on how much of the Scottish-proportional portion the UK keeps and how much is eliminated.

Scotland will at the same time assume a proportional portion of the British debt, because every EU member looking at its own separatist movement and its own debt will want to make the point to their separatists that independence won't mean escape.

Re:Makes sense

[DrXym]

Er what? It would be economic suicide to use a currency that some other country controls and would run totally counter to the point of independence in the first place. Why bother being independent if you have even less control or input to the currency that drives your economy than you had before?

Blame Mercator!

[Applehu Akbar]

In New Zealand's national museum, I saw a plane world map with the standard viewpoint shifted to directly above the country. There was no distortion of the standard projection, just a shift in viewpoint that made New Zealand look much bigger and more important. On every other map, it's a tiny sliver scrunched into one corner.

Re:Blame Mercator!

[Applehu Akbar]

Self-correct: that should be "projectionists," not Mercator. We don't use Mercator any more and if we did, New Zealand would be exaggerated, not shrimpified.

My kingdom for an Edit function. I hope the dreaded Beta has one.

Re:Blame Mercator!

[rossdee]

The Wizard of Christchurch used to sell upside down maps to show NZ's proper position at the top of the world

What did they expect

[Livius]

...with all those Scots running around for hundreds of years achieving great scientific and economic advances leading to the greatness of the British Empire?

Surely

[symes]

Any 2 dimensional representation of a 3 dimensional object will be distorted in some shape or form. Anyhow - if they are that bothered perhaps they should pop a satellite into orbit and make their own weather forecast.

Re:Surely

[Half-pint HAL]

This is a 3D graphic simulating a satellite view. There is no technical reason whatsoever to do it that way, purely aesthetic ones. The result is distorted information, and a large portion of the UK landmass that is so badly shrunken that it typically only gets two weather symbols. The information given is next to useless. "But... 3D! Shiny shiny!"...

The West Wing had a great segment on map projectio

[chriswaco]

This clip from The West Wing sums up map projection issues nicely: http://youtu.be/n8zBC2dvERM

Size matters

[angel'o'sphere]

Well,
it mit look like a joke or pretty braindead.
However lots of americans are convinced their country is bigger than the rest of the world together.
I guess that happens if you don't know anything about maps and the rest of the world.

Re:If they don't like it...

[rossdee]

The BBC should have a subscription for people in the rest of the world, so that we can watch the quality programmes they make online. I am sure this would be very popular, we wouldn't have to pay the cable companies for the higher monthly cost necessary to get BBC America.

Or maybe Amazon can do a deal with the Beeb so we can get more British programs on Amazon Prime

Re:If they don't like it...

[beelsebob]

You miss the point of the license.

If you could choose not to pay the license, then the BBC must produce shows specifically with the interest of getting as many subscribers as possible. The result of this is that they must appeal to everyone. The result of this is that they must produce lowest-common-denominator shite, like ITV and channel 5.

The entire point of the license is to avoid them having to produce this bollocks.

Their flag has horizontal stripes

[Hognoxious]

They don't pay anything if they can get away with it.

Scottish Independence and the BBC weather map

[Arbroath 1320]

I think that this best describes how the people of Scotland feel about the BBC and their weather map. http://www.youtube.com/watch?f...

Re:Scottish Independence and the BBC weather map

[sjames]

That actually makes it fairly clear.

I really have no idea if there is anything political in it or if it represents a slight (intentional or otherwise) against anyone, but it does show a very poor use of technology.

Unlike a printed map, they have the opportunity to change the apparent POV and re-do the projection for each frame of the animation. Instead, they take a fixed projection and stretch it.

British Rail

[DrSkwid]

It has always amused me that in England the railways were known as British Rail, in Scotland they were known as ScotRail.

Since privatisation they are known as National Rail - http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/

And ScotRail - http://www.scotrail.co.uk/

Re:British Rail

[Half-pint HAL]

Since privatisation they are known as National Rail - http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/

And ScotRail - http://www.scotrail.co.uk/

Bzzt -- wrong. "National Rail" doesn't exist -- "National Rail Enquiries" is the company responsible for centrally managing and communicating train running information to the public. Network Rail is the state-owned company that operates the entire UK rail network, including Scotland. Meanwhile, ScotRail is the operating name of the rail franchise that operates trains.

Re:British Rail

[DrSkwid]

NICE TRY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

Gerbils skiing

[cjellibebi]

The world is flat
and that is that
To think of it as spherical
Is frankly quite hysterical.

Re:Scottish Immigrants

[Half-pint HAL]

Scotish have not really thought this through have they, they will not get Spains support to join the EU, because that risks seperatists movements in Spain getting more legitimacy.

I didn't realise it was that simple. I'd thought that Spain might have bigger fish to fry... such as access to Scottish waters for their fishing boats. Fishing is about the only thing of any value to their economy right now, and they're in a serious financial funk, but they'll just throw away the access they get to Scottish waters on a whim, will they?

Scots abroad will require visas and risk being deported (including other UK regions that they will now become immegrants along with other eastern european countries).

Nope. Standard practice when countries split is that their citizens automatically become citizens of the part of the country they live in, unless they choose otherwise. A Scottish born resident of Kent would therefore not become an "immegrant"[sic -- you know there are dictionaries online these days, right?]

Economics

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems the opposite to me. Economics says stay in the UK,

A few points of information to counter London's propaganda.

1. Scotland's per capita GDP is roughly similar to the rest of the UK's when you exclude oil and gas £20.5k v £20.8k. When you include oil and gas, it's £26.4k v £22.3k in Scotland's favour. This puts Scotland as the 6th richest country in the world in GDP/head terms, between Hong Kong and Switzerland
2. Scotland contributes 10.5% of the UK's tax revenues, on 8.5% of the population (higher GDP is certainly a part of that)
3. We wouldn't be splaffing our revenue on fripperies like CrossRail (a national project with zero benefit to Scotland), HS2 (similar), Olympic Games (we got 2 no-one cares football games) or Nuclear Weapons (Dear Bad Guys, please set your targeting scopes for Glasgow).
4. S&P announced this week that they'd happily rate Scotland as AAA, even without oil. Current UK rating is AA.
5. Westminster's insistence that only the rump UK would have rights to UK's non-geographic assets. It has also stated that only it is responsible for UK's debt. Now while I'm convinced that this is a negotiating strategy (a stupid one if so), then Independent Scotland will be born debt free. Scotland will only need to accept a share of debt as a freely entered negotiation outcome.
6. Scotland's territorial waters contain 50% of Europe's exploitable renewable energy, and most of its fish. Plus all the strategic shipping routes into Northern European ports. The EU (which is explicitly expansionist in policy) is gagging for Scotland to join. It already meets all the EU convergence criteria, and (like Sweden) cannot be forced into the Euro. There are no experts anywhere arguing that Scotland's entry into the EU could not be easily negotiated in the period between the referendum and Independence day.

If you compare Scotland with Norway, a similar sized country, with similar natural resources, we see the scale of mismanagement by HM Treasury. I'm particularly incensed that the UK is just about the only Oil rich country without a Sovereign Wealth Fund, whereas Norway (who only started theirs in 1990) has $1trn of assets, and 1.3% of all global market capitalisation. And all that economic goodness without even being in the EU.

and the independence movement is most driven by emotion.

Actually, quite the contrary. If you see any flag wrapping going on, it'll be the Union Flag, not the Saltire. And if you hear 'braveheart' mentioned, it'll be a British Nationalist trying to create the illusion you have fallen for. It's Cameron who is trying to whip up British sentiment. Last year it was the Olympics and the Jubilee and the Royal Wedding. This year, it's celebrating (yes, celebrating. Makes me sick) the start of WWI and holding every possible military event in Scotland. Thing is, he hasn't realised that we've noticed that he's closing Scottish bases and merging regiments at the same time. I forecast a massive backfire.

The independence movement as a whole is that oddest of things: a non-nationalist independence movement.

Re:Might want to avoid looking like kooks

[Cederic]

Fine. Have the pound, have the Bank of England, and have all the debt. The UK can set up a new currency instead.

Happy now?

If you don't want the debt, why should we let you take the oil? That's shared at the moment too.

If you want to use the pound without currency union then go right ahead. It's your economy that'll be out of your control, but if that's what you call independence then be my guest. ..oh look. Fucking Scottish Nationalists living in cloud fucking cuckoo land. If you want independence, vote for it - but don't be thinking you can pick and choose which bits you want. The rest of the UK will be looking out for itself post-separation and if that means fucking over the nascent Scottish state then that will happen.

(And before you fucking bleat like a member of the SNP, no, that's not bullying. It's cold hard logic - something the SNP lack)

Re:Scottish Immigrants

[dkf]

I'd thought that Spain might have bigger fish to fry... such as access to Scottish waters for their fishing boats. Fishing is about the only thing of any value to their economy right now, and they're in a serious financial funk, but they'll just throw away the access they get to Scottish waters on a whim, will they?

You overestimate the importance of that, and the number of people employed in fishing in Spain, and underestimate the number of other places that they can go fish (e.g., off western Africa). If you think that fishing will save your asses, whereas there's the counter-example of the trouble caused by the separatist movement would trigger in Catalonia, I suggest you should visit reality sometime. The government in Madrid does not want Scotland to go independent, and doesn't want things to go easily for Scotland if they do go independent, and this is entirely for their own selfish domestic political reasons.

What about us in Alaska

[aklinux]

They're always distorting the way Alaska looks as well.

Many maps still show Alaska as an island in the Pacific, just North of Hawaii. The ones that don't, show us in a way have an exaggerated "foreshortening" the likes of which Scottland can't even dream of.

If a proportional map of Alaska were overlaid on one of the contiguous 48 states, it would overlay about 1/4 the landmass with arms protruding from Los Angeles to new York City..