CIG can save cash as Union Jack gets to stay

| 19/09/2014

(CNS): The local government doesn’t have to worry about finding the budget to replace its Union Jacks as the flag has survived after Scottish voters elected to remain in the Union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The historic independence referendum was not quite as close as had been anticipated during the last few weeks of voting where the “Yes” campaign to independence appeared to have gathered pace. Nevertheless, over 1.6m Scots voted to leave the United Kingdom when the 32 council areas counted their votes through the night. The final result was split at 55.3% saying ‘No” to 44.7%. Twenty-eight out of the 32 council areas votedto remain in the union, leaving just four in favour of independence.

Following the poll result, Scotland’s first minister Alex Salmond conceded defeat but pointed out that the number of people who voted for independence showed the scale of support for change.

While David Cameron believed the result settled the issue for a generation he said there would be changes in the political union for both Scotland and England, including the possibility that MP’s sitting in Westminster will not be able to vote on tax and benefit issues directly impacting England.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: World News

About the Author ()

Comments (39)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Soldier Crab says:


    We could now proceed to hijack this whole thread into a discussion of the correct name for the national flag of the United Kingdom.

    There are a number of errors in the article referred by (a ubiquitous) 'Anonymous' at 0503.

     Noting that the source has no official standing whatsoever, but is merely an enthusiasts' club:

    1. The flag first appeared during the reign of King James VI of Scotland three years after he became James I of England.  At that time it was an amalgamation of the St. George's and St. Andrew's crosses.  St. Patrick's cross was not included until 1801.  As there was no political union of England and Scotland, but merely the same individual happened to be monarch of both countries, the combined flag was devised on James' personal instructions and so, as 'Jack' is sometimes used as a corruption or diminuitive of 'James', in common parlance it became known as 'Jack's flag' or the 'Union Jack';the 'union' only existing in Jack's (James') mind.  Full political union occurred in 1707 during the reign of Queen Anne.

    2. The Admiralty circular of 1902 was superceded by one in 1913 which specifically stated that only a flag flown on the jack-staff could be called a jack.

    3. Parliament in 1908 only defined the national flag of Great Britain and Ireland as being of the design pattern of the union flag flown as a jack; it did not bestow that name upon it, merely affirmed the shape, size, pattern and colours.


  2. Anonymous says:

    Apparently the majority of Scots think they gain something by being a part of the U. K. We have never got anything from them as far as I know. I take that back we were black listed and got some medicine after Ivan. Maybe we could get some concessions like the Scots if we threatened to go independent. Maybe the would release the Tempura report? Naa we dont have any oil or submarine bases. 

    • Anonymous says:

      Perhaps if McKeeva wasn't in denial during Ivan, the Royal Navy could have landed and supported local authorities, offered emergency supplies and widen the UK's public sympathy and charitable organisation. Instead, he imposed a virtual news blackout and denied the assistance that Cayman desperately needed.

      Dont blame the UK for your home grown stupidity, and if you want independence just ask, we won't stop you going down at your own hand. You already have more power than Scotland so get over yourself and stop whining.

  3. Soldier Crab says:

    Union FLAG.  A 'jack' is a small flag with a white border flown at the bow of a warship.

    • Anonymous says:

      23:51.Apparently the British Parliament in 1908 ruled that  “the Union Jack should be regarded as the National flag”                                            See

    • Anonymous says:

      Need to read your history of flags, the Royal Navy and Britain old chap. If that's too hard, try going on line to the Flag Institute.

      And whilst we're at it, why do CI government law enforcement vessels fly the red ensign and not the government regulation blue? Government vessels are not merchant vessels and should denote the official government ensign, or the official government agency standard. All UK government ensigns, (with the exception of the Royal Navy) are blue ie: police, customs, coastguard etc…..

    • Anonymous says:

      Every Cayman soldier crab understands (and respects) the Union Jack. This one needs a history lesson.

  4. Anonymous says:

    A lesson in loyalty and common sense from the Scots, a lesson that those in Cayman who long for independence should take note of.

    Scotland would have been devastated by a yes vote. Markets would have crashed, businesses  and inevitably some citizens would have relocated to England, interest rates would have risen sharply and they would have lost EU and NATO membership by default to name a few of the many negatives. Thousands would have been made unemployed by the relocation of banks, military establishments and suppliers, as would many thousands more who were employed by various UK government departments.

    If a proud industrial nation like Scotland has decided that it couldn't afford the cost or responsibility of separation such as an independent currency or central bank, diplomatic and security agencies, armed forces or a welfare state, then how the hell would Cayman?

    The Scots should be congratulated on their decision and in the manner that most people conducted a passionate and historic referendum. Never in UK democratic history have so many people turned out to vote, this was truly a remarkable sight to witness. People realised that their OMOV really mattered and the fate of the union couldn't be left to chance. They should also be congratulated on reinvigorating politics in the UK, demonstrating that citizens really do have a voice and an impact on their future.

    However, they have also kicked the sleeping lion, England will no longer support the obsertity of Scottish politicians voting on English matters or the payment of unfair subsides to support left wing ideology and spending plans. The Welsh have already expressed their dismay at the disparity in devolution between Scotland and the rest of the UK, the English won't be far behind now they've learnt the truth during this campaign. Scotland needs more devolved powers and they should get them, but not at the expense of others. If they can't afford freeuniversity education or medical prescriptions, then the rest of the UK shouldn't have to pay for it. 

    Hopefully the UK Labour Party will implode after this result, they hold 40+ Scottish MP's at Westminster and should not be allowed to use that influence over English regions. If this referendum has taught us anything, it is that the whole political system has to change and a written constitution put into place. The English need to now stand proud alongside their Scottish family and fight for fairer politics and an equal distribution of power.

    Better together, remember that Cayman.

    And finally, I would like to register my dissatisfaction with the lack of coverage by CNS and other local media. This referendum wasn't just about Scotland, it was about the future of the entire UK and it's status in the world. Cayman is a UK Territory, it's citizens are British as are many of her residents and workers, and her original founders were from all corners of Great Britain. It is a disgrace that local media coverage was so sparse, because if Scotland had chosen independence this country would have been plunged into a huge constitutional crisis, and not just the colour of the flag which you so banally refer. 

    CNS: You're behind the times. In pre-internet days it would have been very important for the local print news to cover leading world events but this is no longer necessary. It's called browsing. If you're on CNS, you're on the internet. One click and you're on the BBC or whatever site you choose, and the Scottish referendum was on every major news site. When we post world news we find things that are of local interest but may have been missed.

    • Anonymous says:

      A lesson in loyalty and common sense from the Scots and the person that wrote the comment . We need to look at all the smart Scots that said NO to pulling away England . I can see the samething been tryed in Cayan again like in the 60s when Jamica wanted us to pull away from England with them , but thank GOD we had politians with good common sense and loyalty . I am scard today by just reading this real good comment and seeing  2 readers likeing it , and 2 readers dont like it !    

      • Anonymous says:

        I agree with your sentiments. If I could be so bold, you appear to be using "England" for the United Kingdom. This is a widespread error here in Cayman. I hear politicians  talking of "England" when they should really be saying "the U.K." The United Kingdom is a country, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not, at least in the same sense of the term. You cannot obtain an English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Ireland passport or accurately describe, for example, "English" as your nationality on an immigration form. If you live in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland your nationality is "British". To add to things even further, "Britain" is an island separate to the island of Ireland, which comprises the Republic of Ireland (or Eire) and Northern Ireland or Ulster. (I believe all the above is accurate but welcome anyone's correction if I've got anything wrong!)

        But if anyone thinks that persons with Scottish, Welsh or Irish heritage is happy being referred to as being "English" they are sadly mistaken. Each has its own distinct history, culture and traditions (and in Wales they speak Welsh!)

        • Anonymous says:

          PS Apologies, meant "are happy being" The one (so far) thumbs downer : what exactly are you disagreeing with? LOL

        • anon says:

          Hardly a correction, but the main Island is called "Great Britain", no self modesty was left out of the name.

        • Anonymous says:

          Don't be pedantic. We are all aware of the distinction between England and the United Kingdom, but the reality is that "England" calls the shots in the United Kingdom. That is why the Scots are p*ssed off.

          P.S. In Wales relatively few people speak Welsh.  

          • Anonymous says:

            They say ignorance is bliss and your post is a case in point. I guess you'd be happy describing Cayman as "an English overseas territory", presumably. I mean, what's the difference? And who cares, right? Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. You're every teacher's nightmare! You ever been to Wales? I mean outside of the holiday season? Ever wondered why all the signposts are in Welsh (and English) and Welsh is spoken on TV and radio? I don't think you know what the dickens you're talking about, and you clearlly couldn't care less. "The reality is that 'Englnd' calls the shots in the United Kingdom". Oh, so that makes the United Kindom and England the same thing does it? You brave enough to tell a Scotsman he's "from England" are you? Tell you what, tell him he's being "pedantic" if he objects, that should go down very well! Get real, pal, and stop being lazy.

          • Anonymous says:

            The Scots are always p***** off, and so would you be if you lived in Scotland.

        • Anonymous says:

          Wrong, England Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are countries in their own right. It is the union of these distinctive countries that make up the United Kingdom, but not Great Britain. 

          It is the union between Great Britain and Northern Island that makes up the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

          In fact, the individual countries make up the collective nation, but also provides for the collective state, the UK, (which in itself is not a country, it's a nation state). This ensures that the mechanisms of state function for all of the unions countries in unison, such as diplomacy, defence etc….

          You are also wrong in regard to the Welsh, they are indeed a small, distinctive country with their own Welsh language minority, (English being the main stream language in the majority of areas). You will also note that whilst every other union flags is represented on the Union flag, the Welsh flag is not. Much to Welsh indignation, the flag of Wales is England's St George's cross.

          Best we all keep out of Ireland's politics and loyalties. 

          • Anonymous says:

            Thanks for this. But surely it remains inaccurate to use "England" and "the U.K." interchangeably does it not?

    • Blitzkrieg Democracy says:

      Yes Anon 20:30 We remember exactly What happen here in IVAN What you conveniently fail to mention was the flagrant level intimidation, coercion, threats misleading deliberate  misinformation some in your wonderful country apparently used in Scotland and that is the measures we could see i dare not wonder what other methods may have been used to influence and sway voters. Its funny you now are on here complaining about coverage when your supposed unbaised news media seems to have taken a side in the referendum with their coverage. Oh but anything goes in the protection of the realm? You sir wreak of the very arrogance and typical British attitude that cause this referendum to take place in the first place. You like many of your country men should for once  put yourself in the other person's position and wonder what that outcome would be before you go around parading and displaying contempt and blatant disregard for others who dare question your authority over them! The sad part is with others you would be nothing. Appreciation instead of contempt Old Boy!

      • anonymous says:

        Somehow, somewhere, you are going to need a comma or two.

        Maybe some syntax tweaking and only then, will I attempt to read this.

      • Anonymous says:

        I'm a scot, moron.

      • Anonymous says:

        A little grasp of history, reality and the news for you sir. The only intimidation came from the nationalists who used the same bullying, isolationist BS that you have made clear in your piece. But the truth is that it didn't work in Scotland, and it doesn't work here. 2 million people voted to remain in the union, that's not a small vote when over 85% of the voting public went to the polls. And the real truth is that Scotland never really wanted to be independent anyway as a Yes vote would have triggered an immediate request for membership of the EU, the biggest centralised union of unelected beaurocrats outside of China. Oh yes, and a failed currency, a union in total recession and disparity between the wealthy north and poor south. Just what the Germans needed, another new member to prop up with billions of euros. What could possibly have gone wrong, I wouldn't call that independence, would you?

        Falling oil revenues, no central bank, no currency, businesses and banks relocating, UK govt jobs returning to the UK, defence force migration, stock market jitters, falling share prices, a share of UK debt and no answers. How did you think Scotland was going to pay for all this, it's not a scare tactic or conspiracy, just the simple truth.

        The point of my piece was to appreciate the majority who wanted to stay in a great union, I will not apologise to those who wanted to destroy that union, history or my nation. Is it arrogance to defend the most successful union in history and honour the sacrifice that so many loyal scots made defending that union against tyranny? But little people like you wouldn't understand a nation who's history is more than a collection of old stories and myths, whose blood has been spilt together on hundreds of foreign battlefields and who's family histories share ancestral roots. Whilst I appreciate that a significant number wanted change, I don't think that many really wanted independence, or genuinely thought they'd get it. I suggest that many Labour voters, disillusioned with the duplicity of their party over the past few years, voted with the SNP as a protest and to send a message to Westminster. It is also untrue that all SNP voters wanted independence, many just want Scottish representatives, involved in Scottish politics, in Scotland and are fed up with the metropolitan elite that rule the Labour Party, and I applaud that notion, why shouldn't they.

        And just for kicks, this typical British arrogance was shared by more than just 2 million no voters, it was shared by the vast majority of the UK population, the EU, NATO, UN, US and most of the rest of the damn world. But of course, to those who cannot see common sense and fiscal responsibility before them, a good old conspiracy theory will do instead. A jolly old Brit bashing session always makes the impotent feel good about their own lack of fortitude, or spine.

         Oh yes, and it's even funnier that CNS have informed us of the possibility of 'browsing' to discover news from outside of these islands. But according to your argument the news is biased, so that's okay then, it's all clear now. The only interest CNS thought was of local interest was the colour of the flag, so it obviously doesn't have a very high opinion of your capacity to deal with information that inevitably would have had a major impact on all UK territories. And from your post, I can see why.

      • Anonymous says:

        Apart from the obvious errors in your argument and its layout, I would like to point out a few of the more stupid ones. 

        1. Scotland is also British, as were those who voted No.


        2. The British Prime Minister gave the Scots the opportunity to decide for themselves.

        So sir, please explain, (in legible English) how this was vote was a consequence of British arrogance, and why you think that Scotland's majority decided to remain British. When you've finished tying yourself in knots and revealing your total lack of subject knowledge and bigotry, please submit incontrovertible proof that the media was biased and that the facts placed before the Scottish people by the no campaign were in anyway untrue.

        I'll help you out a little.

        Scotland has no independent currency or central bank, fact. Scotland's oil revenues are declining, fact. Scotland's major banks would relocate on independence, fact.Scotland would be liable for a percentage of existing UK debt, fact. Not one allied country supported Scottish independence and NATO membership was impossible, fact. EU membership was virtually impossible, Spain would have vetoed any application and the rest of the EU supported the union, fact.

        So please enlighten us all with your expansive knowledge on this British conspiracy. The fact is there is no proof, just the bigoted view of a lost cause.


    • Anonymous says:

          20:30.You talk of "a lesson in loyalty common sense from the Scots ".However after further reading it is clear that you are only referring to those who voted No.Are you say that 1.6 million Scots who voted Yes failed to display common sense.You pretend that you care about the Scots when you say "The English need to now stand proud alongside their Scottish family and fight for fairer politics and an equal distribution of power" but only after chastising them by saying that  " If they can't afford free university education or medical prescriptions, then the rest of the UK shouldn't have to pay for it. "   In fact the use of such language seems aimed at dividing rather than at uniting.

      • Anonymous says:

        But with 2 million saying no, sorry pal, democracy rules and 1.6 isn't enough to cut it. Voting yes is a democratic right, not necessarily a vote for right or wrong. When all is considered and the evidence scrutinised, the common sense and indeed right path to continuing prosperity, (not the road to bankruptcy) was indeed chosen by a clear majority. And sorry, but the simple truth is that if you can't afford it, you can't have it. That's not devisive, it's basic maths, oh, and common sense.

        And for the record, there is nothing more devisive than a nationalist independence movement, as the disgusting displays of intolerance and abuse verified. The point about the lack lustre no campaign is that it didn't need to get aggressive and vocal, people just applied common sense to the arguments, and they just didn't add up for the yes campaign. The people were being asked to risk their country, jobs, mortgages and savings all on a promise that could not be fulfilled. No currency and no central bank was a simple step too far, and yes, common sense did make the right decision.

    • Diogenes says:

      If they can't afford free university education or medical prescriptions, then the rest of the UK shouldn't have to pay for it. 

      The whole point was that of the Scots were prepared to pay for a decent health service or tertiary education available to all who deserved it rather than those that could pay, and prepared to pay higher taxes to get one, they could.  As for the rest of the UK paying for Scottish services, lets not forget how much Westminster spends on a nuclear "deterrent" that Scotland does not want, or for that matter how theNorth Sea oil has been gaily spent by English politicians for decades.  If your beef is that Scots should pay their own way and theBarnett formula is wrong, then you should be a supporter of independence, not an opponent.  Your post has no logical consistency. On the one hand you say that the Scots and the rest of the UK are a common family and everyone is in it together, but then  that the Scots should not get to vote on English matters.  If that is so important to you, then perhaps they should be separate and the English would have absolute dominion over their own affairs. 

      • Anonymous says:

        Yes but 2 million agree with me, oops. Oh yes, and the majority of the rest of the UK, oh, and most of the world. Doesn't democracy suck when you lose, especially when every single argument put forward was found wanting by all major Scottish banks and the majority of Scottish businesses. Add to the mix the whole of the EU, the ECB, the IMF and almost every other western power, the sums just didn't add up and the promises found hollow. I feel you bitterness, God knows we've had it rammed down our throats enough over the last 2 years, but the quiet majority have spoken. Only the left wing socialists, disenfranchised, unemployed, anti everything leagues and the Labour Party protest votes won 3 councils in the whole country, Salmond even lost in his own back yard. Speaks volumes really, but I suppose the whining and whinging will go on until their real aim is satisfied, and that's devo max. Salmond knew he couldn't win and he probably didn't want to because he knew that his policies were a sham. He also knew that he would be tested to destruction, along with his party.

    • Fred the Piemaker says:

      And if the SNP had followed through on their proposal to lower corporation tax in Scotland, and "dollarised" the Scottish pound if the English refused to allow them to retain the UK pound, relying on the consequent lack of a share of the UK national debt to cover the currency?  Would that have led to a catastrophic  business relocation?  Sounds awfully like the offshore model to me.  Lessons in loyalty indeed.  Sounds like you would be happier whipping the slaves to keep them in line.  

  5. Anonymous says:

    I wish we could leave the UK so Dart could speed up his plan to have his own county. 

    • Anonymous says:

      I would be with you if I was not convinced that without the UK we would become a literal extension of Jamaica within a decade.

    • Anonymous says:

      Every now and then this fool at 16:57 pops up!

      • Anonymous says:

        Sounds like you are able to recognise 16.57's style pretty accurately and track him across CNS on an ongoing basis. Are you a detective by any chance?

    • Anonymous says:

      Oh I thought he already had….its called Cayman Islands.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Thanks to all the Scotts who voted no. They saved themselves and they preserved our flag – a design masterpiece.  What would it look like without the blue!  

  7. Anonymous says:

    I fear the news that we ourselves have saved money will be of cold comfort to those who spent their time and money (fuel, bus fares, wear on footwear etc) in Scotland to vote YES.. And then there's the local crew who paid out of their own pockets for that dinner at Pappagallo, of course. I do wish CNS exercised a bit more cultural sensitivity at times.

    • Anonymous says:

      Joking about the Scot's worldwide reputation for frugality aside, it is the people of the UK living in England, Wales (and Northern Ireland?) who are in need of comforting. In Scotland there are no tuition fees for university. Contrast that to the rest of the U.K. who are being charged up to GB9K per year, saddling hundreds of thousands of students with debt. Which means less disposable income and a generally lousy outcome for the business community wouldn't you agree? I'm with the Scots, who clearly are not prepared to be treated like mugs, unlike the rest of the U.K.