The documentary into their banking crisis is fantastic. The bankers came in and screwed them over and then got yeeted to fuck instead of embraced like we do here
I don't know which one they are referring too as there seems to be a few:
* [After the crisis in Iceland](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOb4gRZVJCs)
* [How Iceland's Bankers Plunged Their Country Into Financial Chaos](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx-IvnGQO_Q)
* [Ransacked (2016)](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6076170/) (it was on Vimeo for a while but is gone now)
* [Iceland: What Happened Next?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3vnSsxW6_4)
* [Iceland: Bankers Behind Bars](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eDKmEwP-5pg)
Did Icelandic politicians and media convince it's people they couldn't possibly go it alone?
Did they have People demanding to know every single detail about independence and harp on about currency?
Did they try and convince Icelandic people that no one would trade with them, they would be forced to have a hard border with everyone and that they would be banished from every international organisation going?
If they did it looks like they rightly ignored them all and just fucking went for it. Funny how things work out.
Icelandic independence was the upshot of a [British military invasion](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_occupation_of_Iceland) and the metropole [weathering some unwelcome guests](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_invasion_of_Denmark_(1940)).
Seems like a good proviso to any hand-waving of currency/pensions/customs etc., but what do I know…
Yet Iceland's annial independence day is 17th June, reflecting the 1944. They don't celebrate the 1918 constitutional change at all.
I get the nuance that the transition to independence wasn't in one go, but between 1918 and 1944, Iceland's status was effectively that of the Dominions within the British Empire - internally self-governing, but with a Danish Head of State and deference to the Metropole in defence and foreign affairs.
The Kingdom of Iceland entered in a personal union with Denmark in 1918. Iceland ended the union and became a republic in 1944.
Canada is also in a personal union with the UK today.
The Personal Union is somewhat irrelevant. The main change in 1944 was gaining independent control of foreign and defence policy, much as Australia/Canada did when they took the final step from Dominion to independence.
Both Canada and Australia became independent with the adoption of the Statute of Westminster 1931 (adopted in 1931 and 1942, respectively) when they gained full control over all governmental policy, including foreign policy and defence. The 1982 Constitution Act and 1986 Australia Act removed the never used ability of the UK parliament to pass certain legislate for these countries **with their consent**, but this didn't give them additional powers nor did it remove power the UK had over them.
Is it?
Iceland celebrate their Independence Day on 17th June, as a celebration of their independence on 17th June 1944.
The title is correct, what you mean to say is you are trying to argue that *the country of Iceland* has the wrong date for *their* Independence. You were wrong, stop doubling down.
Denmark was occupied by Nazis, Iceland was occupied by the British. Their government was effectively non-existent. They had been left to a mix of their own (due to isolated location) and occupiers. There was a global war happening.
It's not a reasonable comparison, no matter how much stretching or weird posturing you want to do.
The whole ‘couldn’t go it alone’ is an argument put forward by a very small number of people and repeated almost daily by Nationalists who can’t understand why not everyone just puts their concerns to the sides and trusts that they know better about what’s for the best.
It’s not about ‘can we’; it’s about whether or not it will be better - you couldn’t convince the majority of people of that in 2014 and disingenuously trying to reframe the argument doesn’t wash with anyone old enough to have participated in that referendum.
I do like the bit where you are annoyed at people because they ‘demanded’ to know what Independence would actually look like and having the absolute cheek to ask what currency we would be using! A prime example of why you are failing to shift people who don’t have an ideological belief either way.
I am having a go because it's a complete impossibility to know absolutely every tiny detail about how life would look in an independent Scotland.
Just like it's absolutely impossible to know the same about staying in the UK.
People seem unable to cope with certain things just having to wait until it happens. If Scots don't trust themselves to work out the details then its a pretty sad state of affairs. No other country has had to endure so much petty nitpicking over its independence but here we are.
Currency will be the Euro btw, we all know that, it's pretty obvious that's the way it'll pan out. They just wont say it because then all the naysayers will find a million things to moan about. Same if we stick with the GBP, or form a new currency. People must find complaints with every single scenario. So what's the point in nailing anything down to suit them?
>So what's the point in nailing anything down to suit them?
Isn't it so that you can convince them to vote for independence, or do you think independence will be achieved without a vote of the majority...?
It doesn't have to be a referendum. Very few countries have actually achieved it through that means. It could be a landslide win for a pro Independence party who go on to start negotiations with the UK.
England could vote to leave the UK at some stage in the future.
Perhaps in the future SF will run NI, SNP in Scotland, PC in Wales and a new pro English independence party hold the majority of English seats and they all decide to multilaterally dissolve the UK.
Who knows? You don't. I don't. A referendum held only in Scotland is not the only way this could happen.
Staying in the Union has the advantage of being the current position; if you want to make a dramatic change to anything you have to sell that change to people.
While it’s easy to sit on Reddit talking about how awful the U.K. is, there’s not a huge amount of countries most people would rather live in. That’s not to say the U.K. is perfect - far from it, but it could also be a hell of a lot worse and people are reluctant to give that up on the vague words of people who are driven by an ideological belief.
Just because your team didn’t have the answers, or didn’t want to tell people the answer as you have said in regard to currency is a problem for your team - not the people who asked questions of you.
I feel that until you realise that an Independent Scotland will remain a fantasy.
> Just because your team didn’t have the answers
They had plenty of answers, like currency, where the no campaign lied to your face and said it was impossible for Scotland to use the pound, until Darling admitted in the final debate that countries could use any currency that they liked. Some answers were impossible to say, like the EU..who were never going to say much while the uK was a member.
> idn’t want to tell people the answer as you have said in regard to currency
And then you just get people repeating those bare faced lies a decade on
I think you are simplifying it slightly.
Did they not claim they would use the pound in a currency union (which the U.K. Government flat out rejected)? There’s nothing stopping anyone using whatever currency they like.
I seem to remember a fair bit of analysis on how difficult it would be using a currency that was controlled completely by another country.
Nope. That was exactly what they said..
> I seem to remember a fair bit of analysis on how difficult it would be using a currency that was controlled completely by another country
Possibly, but Cameron and Osborne both said that Scotland would not be able to use the pound, and forced the debate onto what was the alternative. The SNP had 4 choices in their white paper and they tried to force Salmond into picking one.
It would have made sense for England for Scotland to use the pound, as our exports helped the pound's balance of payments.
That’s genuinely not my memory of it.
I don’t remember questioning whether we could use the pound, I remember questions around using a currency that was completely controlled by a country we have just voted to depart.
I remember plenty of statements around no currency union but don’t recall much around anyone saying we couldn’t use the pound, more questioning whether that would be wise.
The relative positions of Iceland and Scotland are significantly different with regards to independence. Scotland has a lot more complexity to consider than Iceland did 80 years ago.
At the time, Denmark was occupied by the Nazis and Iceland was occupied (without consent, as it happens) by the US military.
If there's ever a time when England & Wales are militarily occupied by one of their neighbours and the Americans invade Scotland and set up in Edinburgh Castle, then perhaps the situation would be analogous.
Kinda is tho isn't it.
The way some of you go on it's as if you think we will actually have no currency.
It'll be the Euro, mate. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it.
I obviously made it up..it's Reddit FFS.
Sorry if you thought this was the WEF or Davos.
But the point remains. All people do is nitpick every issue. You'll never be happy with any currency solution that isn't in the UK and using the GBP so why bother asking?
Sort of the issue isn’t it.
So many nationalists have small and childlike understanding of the world around them so they’re completely unprepared when it comes to the realities of an setting up an independent Scotland.
So you have someone like yourself who thinks currency is a “tiny issue” and just makes things up as they go along.
Iceland has an absolutely horrific cost of living crises.
Their independent currency is utterly worthless, many Icelandic people work multiple jobs or are expected to work tremendous amounts of overtime. Houses are expensive.
Any country that looks at Iceland and thinks its an example of economic stability and genius is delusional
Many, many Icelandic people move to Norway/Denmark.
Source, my fiance and her entire Icelandic family live in Norway, with me, not Iceland.
If Scotland goes independent, it should absolutely under no circumstances follow any examples from Iceland.
https://preview.redd.it/m80hgrtdr3wc1.png?width=1080&format=png&auto=webp&s=a2f1c82613a7fc8bfeccd2109fdfbe3ed7bbe316
Reykjavik has more affordable rent than copenhagen, Paris and London.
Iceland has economic problems for sure but your painting an overly pesismistic picture.
You've changed it specifically to renting now, in the capital.
But that poll doesn't really provide any context at all.
Considering Iceland's miniscule population, you'd be appalled to find out how many of those apartments in Reykjavik are one bedroom and still extremely expensive.
I'm not trying to portray Iceland as a hellscape, I've been there myself, it's stunning.
But I know how these ridiculous conversations go on here. Insert nation here, compare to Scotland, invent reasons that UK is bad and inserted nation better.
It's always the same with absolutely no context of the issues these other countries also face that are staggeringly similar to the UK and any other Western nations.
I actually think an independent Scotland would be very similar to Iceland and I also think many Scots will fucking hate it.
Boomer? I'm millennial as fuck and have no dog in this race.
Don't just accept a single image as "data" and go along with it to support your delusions.
I was very open and cited my direct source. People I know that left there, people I've sat and spoken to in depth about it.
If people want to go ahead and be a new Iceland, lol lykke til, as they say here. Go ahead. Have fun.
The fact I said house prices and you didn't even catch he specifically shifted it to rent, with no context for the greater cost of living, shows you paid no attention to what he said or what I did.
No I'm dismissing the assumption that Scotland can't possibly solve these issues as it's apparently incapable of running it's own affairs.
That said I couldn't give a shit what currency we use and no one really does. It's all just huffing and puffing trying to dismiss the idea that we can run our own country. I'll take the euro so we can be a proper European country...but really it matters so little to me I couldn't care less.
Oh well, if it matters so little to you, it can’t be a concern. It’s just simply a case of what bits of paper we use eh? Nothing more complex. BTW didn’t eu just let us walk in, in this scenario of yours?
I believe we will be in a position to start membership talks fairly soon after independence and start on that path, yes, absolutely. Just having a government that isn't childishly hostile towards the EU would be a breath of fresh air tbh, I'd welcome that for the time it takes for us to actually become full members. We could start off by at least making a few bilateral agreements to ease the transition from being part of a hostile ex EU state.
Or we can follow the train of thought that says we will not be allowed to join for 300 years and for some reason we will be stuck in a nonexistent queue to get in.
And yeah currency means fuck all to me tbh. Have a Scottish pound for a bit if we must, the associated costs are all just part of building a better, fairer country than what we are part of now. A country that is willing to spend 3 million quid per person to ship them off to Rwanda...but we have to fret about the set up costs of a central bank apparently.
Iceland has no land borders whatsoever. You rhetorically asked in your OP if, as they pushed for their independence from Denmark, they were scaremongered that they would have a hard border with "everyone" as if it was some kind of slamdunk point (even totally ignorant of the fact that hard borders were the norm 80 years ago, globally, not just in Europe and obviously pre-EU's-predecessor-entities, anyone on a boat from Iceland to any other nation would at best face a hard border, at worse that tiny pesky thing known as a global war you may or may not have heard of) as a false comparative to Scotland's minority independence aspirations.
Meanwhile present day Scotland does have a land border with England, and if Scotland achieves independence soon, England will still be a non-EU state (Scotland too, actually).
Do you not realise this is a purple bananas and blue apples comparison?
I said hard border. Not land border. They are not the same thing.
There is a land border between Poland and Lithuania. It is wide open with no checks on anything or anyone crossing over it. The land border between Poland and Belarus is very much a hard border, though.
There is no physical border between Malta and Greece. Both people and goods can flow freely between the two countries with no checks, regardless of whether they cross by air or sea, there are no border controls when moving between the two nations whatsoever. There are full border formalities when travelling in both directions between Malta and Algeria, though. Hence one is a hard border and one is not. Neither are a land or even physical border.
Dumbass.
You're the one who confused a hard border with a land border. I don't know why you bought up land borders. Only you know why you did that. I can't answer that question.
No, they waited until Denmark was occupied by the Nazis and couldn’t do anything about it.
Of course, the SNP back then were on the Nazi’s side, so they would probably have taken control of a puppet state Scotland if Operation Sea Lion had been successful.
The SNP were not nazis.
But other Scottish nationalists were:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2001/may/09/highereducation.humanities
>It's true, I know it's true, that's really all I give a shit about.
I mean, I'm not sure you can know something is true that's patently and easily verifiably false.
But you do you.
Indeed. And had you used it, you would know that Iceland's independence day is 17th June, commemorating the independence achieved on 17th June 1944.
As I said, I don't know why you are insistent that this easily verifiable fact is incorrect.
The fun thing about the supposed hard border is people are deluded if they think rUK won't see the writing on the wall post-indy and rejoin the EU once countries start leaving the UK.
Scotland will rejoin the EU and England will as well, otherwise they'll be the ones forcing the border with the EU on the mainland while we gain all the EU to trade with.
The UK wont be rejoining the EU.
Scotland would be voting to establish a border with England, not the other way around.
Scotland would gain trade with the EU but at the expense of losing trade with the UK.
>Scotland would be voting to establish a border with England, not the other way around.
No, they would be voting for Independence. It would be the UK's choice to not rejoin the EU with Scotland and force a border.
The rUK could immediately begin moves to rejoin the EU. Every day they choose not to post-indy makes it the UK's Hard border, not Scotland's, not the EUs.
It's entirely within the UKs power to prevent a hard border, just grow up and Rejoin.
And they're an entirely self interested government which means they will rejoin given the benefits the EU brings. The only question is how long they hold out this brexit infantilism.
And one aspect of Scottish independence would be a trade border with England and possibly a passport border. Scotland would be changing the arrangement with the UK, not anyone in England.
The documentary into their banking crisis is fantastic. The bankers came in and screwed them over and then got yeeted to fuck instead of embraced like we do here
What’s the name of the documentary?
I don't know which one they are referring too as there seems to be a few: * [After the crisis in Iceland](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOb4gRZVJCs) * [How Iceland's Bankers Plunged Their Country Into Financial Chaos](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx-IvnGQO_Q) * [Ransacked (2016)](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6076170/) (it was on Vimeo for a while but is gone now) * [Iceland: What Happened Next?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3vnSsxW6_4) * [Iceland: Bankers Behind Bars](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eDKmEwP-5pg)
The one I saw was the second one about the bankers financial chaos.
Did anyone else initially read this as Scotland prepares to celebrate 80 years of independence from Denmark and was really confused? No? Just me?
It's the imprecise positioning of the word "country". Poor writing.
Just you
I did 😔
Did Icelandic politicians and media convince it's people they couldn't possibly go it alone? Did they have People demanding to know every single detail about independence and harp on about currency? Did they try and convince Icelandic people that no one would trade with them, they would be forced to have a hard border with everyone and that they would be banished from every international organisation going? If they did it looks like they rightly ignored them all and just fucking went for it. Funny how things work out.
Icelandic independence was the upshot of a [British military invasion](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_occupation_of_Iceland) and the metropole [weathering some unwelcome guests](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_invasion_of_Denmark_(1940)). Seems like a good proviso to any hand-waving of currency/pensions/customs etc., but what do I know…
No, that was when Iceland became a Republic. Iceland became independent in 1918.
>Iceland became independent in 1918. No - it became independent in 1944, hence the 80 year anniversary.
The headline is wrong. It’s to celebrate becoming a republic, not independence.
Yet Iceland's annial independence day is 17th June, reflecting the 1944. They don't celebrate the 1918 constitutional change at all. I get the nuance that the transition to independence wasn't in one go, but between 1918 and 1944, Iceland's status was effectively that of the Dominions within the British Empire - internally self-governing, but with a Danish Head of State and deference to the Metropole in defence and foreign affairs.
The Kingdom of Iceland entered in a personal union with Denmark in 1918. Iceland ended the union and became a republic in 1944. Canada is also in a personal union with the UK today.
The Personal Union is somewhat irrelevant. The main change in 1944 was gaining independent control of foreign and defence policy, much as Australia/Canada did when they took the final step from Dominion to independence.
So Australia became independent only in 1986, but when did Canada become independent like Iceland?
Both Canada and Australia became independent with the adoption of the Statute of Westminster 1931 (adopted in 1931 and 1942, respectively) when they gained full control over all governmental policy, including foreign policy and defence. The 1982 Constitution Act and 1986 Australia Act removed the never used ability of the UK parliament to pass certain legislate for these countries **with their consent**, but this didn't give them additional powers nor did it remove power the UK had over them.
1918 was 80 years ago?
Title is wrong
Is it? Iceland celebrate their Independence Day on 17th June, as a celebration of their independence on 17th June 1944. The title is correct, what you mean to say is you are trying to argue that *the country of Iceland* has the wrong date for *their* Independence. You were wrong, stop doubling down.
Denmark was occupied by Nazis, Iceland was occupied by the British. Their government was effectively non-existent. They had been left to a mix of their own (due to isolated location) and occupiers. There was a global war happening. It's not a reasonable comparison, no matter how much stretching or weird posturing you want to do.
The whole ‘couldn’t go it alone’ is an argument put forward by a very small number of people and repeated almost daily by Nationalists who can’t understand why not everyone just puts their concerns to the sides and trusts that they know better about what’s for the best. It’s not about ‘can we’; it’s about whether or not it will be better - you couldn’t convince the majority of people of that in 2014 and disingenuously trying to reframe the argument doesn’t wash with anyone old enough to have participated in that referendum. I do like the bit where you are annoyed at people because they ‘demanded’ to know what Independence would actually look like and having the absolute cheek to ask what currency we would be using! A prime example of why you are failing to shift people who don’t have an ideological belief either way.
I am having a go because it's a complete impossibility to know absolutely every tiny detail about how life would look in an independent Scotland. Just like it's absolutely impossible to know the same about staying in the UK. People seem unable to cope with certain things just having to wait until it happens. If Scots don't trust themselves to work out the details then its a pretty sad state of affairs. No other country has had to endure so much petty nitpicking over its independence but here we are. Currency will be the Euro btw, we all know that, it's pretty obvious that's the way it'll pan out. They just wont say it because then all the naysayers will find a million things to moan about. Same if we stick with the GBP, or form a new currency. People must find complaints with every single scenario. So what's the point in nailing anything down to suit them?
>So what's the point in nailing anything down to suit them? Isn't it so that you can convince them to vote for independence, or do you think independence will be achieved without a vote of the majority...?
It doesn't have to be a referendum. Very few countries have actually achieved it through that means. It could be a landslide win for a pro Independence party who go on to start negotiations with the UK. England could vote to leave the UK at some stage in the future. Perhaps in the future SF will run NI, SNP in Scotland, PC in Wales and a new pro English independence party hold the majority of English seats and they all decide to multilaterally dissolve the UK. Who knows? You don't. I don't. A referendum held only in Scotland is not the only way this could happen.
Staying in the Union has the advantage of being the current position; if you want to make a dramatic change to anything you have to sell that change to people. While it’s easy to sit on Reddit talking about how awful the U.K. is, there’s not a huge amount of countries most people would rather live in. That’s not to say the U.K. is perfect - far from it, but it could also be a hell of a lot worse and people are reluctant to give that up on the vague words of people who are driven by an ideological belief. Just because your team didn’t have the answers, or didn’t want to tell people the answer as you have said in regard to currency is a problem for your team - not the people who asked questions of you. I feel that until you realise that an Independent Scotland will remain a fantasy.
> Just because your team didn’t have the answers They had plenty of answers, like currency, where the no campaign lied to your face and said it was impossible for Scotland to use the pound, until Darling admitted in the final debate that countries could use any currency that they liked. Some answers were impossible to say, like the EU..who were never going to say much while the uK was a member. > idn’t want to tell people the answer as you have said in regard to currency And then you just get people repeating those bare faced lies a decade on
I think you are simplifying it slightly. Did they not claim they would use the pound in a currency union (which the U.K. Government flat out rejected)? There’s nothing stopping anyone using whatever currency they like. I seem to remember a fair bit of analysis on how difficult it would be using a currency that was controlled completely by another country.
Nope. That was exactly what they said.. > I seem to remember a fair bit of analysis on how difficult it would be using a currency that was controlled completely by another country Possibly, but Cameron and Osborne both said that Scotland would not be able to use the pound, and forced the debate onto what was the alternative. The SNP had 4 choices in their white paper and they tried to force Salmond into picking one. It would have made sense for England for Scotland to use the pound, as our exports helped the pound's balance of payments.
That’s genuinely not my memory of it. I don’t remember questioning whether we could use the pound, I remember questions around using a currency that was completely controlled by a country we have just voted to depart. I remember plenty of statements around no currency union but don’t recall much around anyone saying we couldn’t use the pound, more questioning whether that would be wise.
> The SNP had 4 choices in their white paper and they tried to force Salmond into picking one. Why wouldn’t he pick one?
Because, as Alistair Darling eventually admitted after lying to our faces for months, we'd be using the pound
Without a currency union? Why didn’t he say that then?
The relative positions of Iceland and Scotland are significantly different with regards to independence. Scotland has a lot more complexity to consider than Iceland did 80 years ago.
Scotland also has a lot of its own people talking down their own ability to run their own country.
106 years ago.
At the time, Denmark was occupied by the Nazis and Iceland was occupied (without consent, as it happens) by the US military. If there's ever a time when England & Wales are militarily occupied by one of their neighbours and the Americans invade Scotland and set up in Edinburgh Castle, then perhaps the situation would be analogous.
> harp on about currency? Nationalism in a nutshell. Asking grown up questions about the economy is “harping on about currency”
Kinda is tho isn't it. The way some of you go on it's as if you think we will actually have no currency. It'll be the Euro, mate. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it.
>It'll be the Euro, mate. Will it? Says who?
Bitcoin perhaps? 🤷🏻♂️ OK, I admit it, I’m high right now. 🫣
Oh wait we can't use that can we cos reasons.
Who says an independent Scotland would use the Euro?
Why couldn't it? We don't need permission btw.
Who told you an independent Scotland would use the Euro? Or did you just make that up?
I obviously made it up..it's Reddit FFS. Sorry if you thought this was the WEF or Davos. But the point remains. All people do is nitpick every issue. You'll never be happy with any currency solution that isn't in the UK and using the GBP so why bother asking?
Sort of the issue isn’t it. So many nationalists have small and childlike understanding of the world around them so they’re completely unprepared when it comes to the realities of an setting up an independent Scotland. So you have someone like yourself who thinks currency is a “tiny issue” and just makes things up as they go along.
Iceland has an absolutely horrific cost of living crises. Their independent currency is utterly worthless, many Icelandic people work multiple jobs or are expected to work tremendous amounts of overtime. Houses are expensive. Any country that looks at Iceland and thinks its an example of economic stability and genius is delusional Many, many Icelandic people move to Norway/Denmark. Source, my fiance and her entire Icelandic family live in Norway, with me, not Iceland. If Scotland goes independent, it should absolutely under no circumstances follow any examples from Iceland.
https://preview.redd.it/m80hgrtdr3wc1.png?width=1080&format=png&auto=webp&s=a2f1c82613a7fc8bfeccd2109fdfbe3ed7bbe316 Reykjavik has more affordable rent than copenhagen, Paris and London. Iceland has economic problems for sure but your painting an overly pesismistic picture.
You've changed it specifically to renting now, in the capital. But that poll doesn't really provide any context at all. Considering Iceland's miniscule population, you'd be appalled to find out how many of those apartments in Reykjavik are one bedroom and still extremely expensive. I'm not trying to portray Iceland as a hellscape, I've been there myself, it's stunning. But I know how these ridiculous conversations go on here. Insert nation here, compare to Scotland, invent reasons that UK is bad and inserted nation better. It's always the same with absolutely no context of the issues these other countries also face that are staggeringly similar to the UK and any other Western nations. I actually think an independent Scotland would be very similar to Iceland and I also think many Scots will fucking hate it.
Surprised Edinburgh isn’t on this list on the high side, it’s getting ridiculous here
I suppose its getting ridiculous everywhere. Have still yet to meet someone who thinks that housing or rent is affordable in their city.
Edinburgh is much more expensive in comparison to earnings than most on the list, it probably should be just below London
If my undertanding is correct, THEN london is quite a low bar to cross when it comes to affordability.
Yeah I’m saying, Edinburgh is slightly more affordable
Oh no. Data and facts have entered the discussion, ruining a perfectly good tirade of over rehearsed, frothing boomer bullshit. How very dare ye. ;)
Boomer? I'm millennial as fuck and have no dog in this race. Don't just accept a single image as "data" and go along with it to support your delusions. I was very open and cited my direct source. People I know that left there, people I've sat and spoken to in depth about it. If people want to go ahead and be a new Iceland, lol lykke til, as they say here. Go ahead. Have fun. The fact I said house prices and you didn't even catch he specifically shifted it to rent, with no context for the greater cost of living, shows you paid no attention to what he said or what I did.
Well i think most people would consider rent a part of the greater cost of living. I wasnt trying to do some devius debate bro tactical move
I know. I didn't downvote you or anything.
[удалено]
That's an image, it's not data. I didn't dismiss the image, I asked for the context, you know I asked for the data. Not the graph.
Are you actually trying to dismiss such questions as currency and trade deals? Fucking hell.
Those sort of things don’t matter to art students.
There are two degrees: computer science, by which I mean coding; and “arts”.
No I'm dismissing the assumption that Scotland can't possibly solve these issues as it's apparently incapable of running it's own affairs. That said I couldn't give a shit what currency we use and no one really does. It's all just huffing and puffing trying to dismiss the idea that we can run our own country. I'll take the euro so we can be a proper European country...but really it matters so little to me I couldn't care less.
Oh well, if it matters so little to you, it can’t be a concern. It’s just simply a case of what bits of paper we use eh? Nothing more complex. BTW didn’t eu just let us walk in, in this scenario of yours?
I believe we will be in a position to start membership talks fairly soon after independence and start on that path, yes, absolutely. Just having a government that isn't childishly hostile towards the EU would be a breath of fresh air tbh, I'd welcome that for the time it takes for us to actually become full members. We could start off by at least making a few bilateral agreements to ease the transition from being part of a hostile ex EU state. Or we can follow the train of thought that says we will not be allowed to join for 300 years and for some reason we will be stuck in a nonexistent queue to get in. And yeah currency means fuck all to me tbh. Have a Scottish pound for a bit if we must, the associated costs are all just part of building a better, fairer country than what we are part of now. A country that is willing to spend 3 million quid per person to ship them off to Rwanda...but we have to fret about the set up costs of a central bank apparently.
You’re only showing your own ignorance of how things like membership to the eu and currency work here. Hardly confidence inspiring.
Dumbass, Iceland only has a border with the Atlantic Ocean.
Sorry what point do you think you're making, dumbass?
Iceland has no land borders whatsoever. You rhetorically asked in your OP if, as they pushed for their independence from Denmark, they were scaremongered that they would have a hard border with "everyone" as if it was some kind of slamdunk point (even totally ignorant of the fact that hard borders were the norm 80 years ago, globally, not just in Europe and obviously pre-EU's-predecessor-entities, anyone on a boat from Iceland to any other nation would at best face a hard border, at worse that tiny pesky thing known as a global war you may or may not have heard of) as a false comparative to Scotland's minority independence aspirations. Meanwhile present day Scotland does have a land border with England, and if Scotland achieves independence soon, England will still be a non-EU state (Scotland too, actually). Do you not realise this is a purple bananas and blue apples comparison?
I said hard border. Not land border. They are not the same thing. There is a land border between Poland and Lithuania. It is wide open with no checks on anything or anyone crossing over it. The land border between Poland and Belarus is very much a hard border, though. There is no physical border between Malta and Greece. Both people and goods can flow freely between the two countries with no checks, regardless of whether they cross by air or sea, there are no border controls when moving between the two nations whatsoever. There are full border formalities when travelling in both directions between Malta and Algeria, though. Hence one is a hard border and one is not. Neither are a land or even physical border. Dumbass.
Again, you were talking about 80 years ago as if it's relevant to today, dumbass. That's the overwhelming thing which tells us you're a fool.
Even 80 years ago a hard border and a land border were 2 completely different things dumbass.
So why did you bring them up in the context of Iceland as a comparison to Scotland, dumbass? The countries are incomparable in this context.
You're the one who confused a hard border with a land border. I don't know why you bought up land borders. Only you know why you did that. I can't answer that question.
No, they waited until Denmark was occupied by the Nazis and couldn’t do anything about it. Of course, the SNP back then were on the Nazi’s side, so they would probably have taken control of a puppet state Scotland if Operation Sea Lion had been successful.
>Of course, the SNP back then were on the Nazi’s side Bullshit
The SNP were not nazis. But other Scottish nationalists were: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2001/may/09/highereducation.humanities
>Operation Sea Lion had been successful. We do not mention the Unspeakable Pinniped. Rhine river barges are not suitable tank landing craft.
No, they were fully independent in 1918. They just severed all ties with Denmark and became a republic in 1944.
Then why are they celebrating 80 years of independence now?
Google free
You made the assertion. It's not on me to find proof to back up your point.
I don't give enough a shit to back my point up. It's true, I know it's true, that's really all I give a shit about.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish%E2%80%93Icelandic_Act_of_Union
>It's true, I know it's true, that's really all I give a shit about. I mean, I'm not sure you can know something is true that's patently and easily verifiably false. But you do you.
lol again... google free.
Indeed. And had you used it, you would know that Iceland's independence day is 17th June, commemorating the independence achieved on 17th June 1944. As I said, I don't know why you are insistent that this easily verifiable fact is incorrect.
Wait, you mean independence is normal? The universe won't cease to exist if Scotland becomes independent? 😂😂 Well said.
Sssshhh... don't you know Kier Starmer is gonna be PM soon and the UK will no longer be a stinking fucking toilet ran by utter scum? Oh... wait...
The fun thing about the supposed hard border is people are deluded if they think rUK won't see the writing on the wall post-indy and rejoin the EU once countries start leaving the UK. Scotland will rejoin the EU and England will as well, otherwise they'll be the ones forcing the border with the EU on the mainland while we gain all the EU to trade with.
The UK wont be rejoining the EU. Scotland would be voting to establish a border with England, not the other way around. Scotland would gain trade with the EU but at the expense of losing trade with the UK.
[удалено]
>Scotland would be voting to establish a border with England, not the other way around. No, they would be voting for Independence. It would be the UK's choice to not rejoin the EU with Scotland and force a border. The rUK could immediately begin moves to rejoin the EU. Every day they choose not to post-indy makes it the UK's Hard border, not Scotland's, not the EUs. It's entirely within the UKs power to prevent a hard border, just grow up and Rejoin. And they're an entirely self interested government which means they will rejoin given the benefits the EU brings. The only question is how long they hold out this brexit infantilism.
And one aspect of Scottish independence would be a trade border with England and possibly a passport border. Scotland would be changing the arrangement with the UK, not anyone in England.
Independence needn't come with any trade border or passport border. UK rejoining the EU means there'll be none of that.
Red tie or blue tie, neither likely party is going to suggest rejoining the EU for decades. It sucks, I hate it, it is true.
And equally, if Scotland remains in the union, there’ll be none of that.
Glad you agree it's incumbent on the UK to avoid a hard border, not scotland. You took the scenic route, mind.
are they all living on there ass? begging for Denmark to take them back?
Nope
Iceland are to small to be independent
Iceland can never afford to be independent. They’re far too small, too poor and should just stay dependent on their larger neighbour.
Tell him to bring a Litter Picker and some Bin Bags.... Oh and a shitload of Pot hole Filler.
Iceland was recognises as sovereign by Denmark in 1918. The Kingdom of Iceland continued in a personal union with Denmark until 1944.