NationStates Jolt Archive

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

So, What do you think?

Real talks and no silly fights!

I'm all for the break up of the UK. We need a modern-day heptarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heptarchy) - Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Up North, Middle England, London, and St. Piran's Land (Devon and Cornwall). *goes off to make map of proposed borders*

Those in favour of Scottish independence make me chuckle. A fine example of a group so blinded by nationalism they can't see the reality in front of their eyes.

But hey, the non-existent oil will save their non-existent economy. It's not as if they need the fact that the UK disproportionately props up their people and economy. They've got the EU to suck off of now instead, and a corrupt, inefficient, bureaucratic mess is a much better bed fellow.

Edinburagh and Glasgow are major international tading points and a large sector of the Scottish econamy is based in their capital, I really think the issue that their econamy is going to fall if they leave the union has no real value. Yes, it will be hard to move all of it to Scotland but I see no reason why they can not.

Edinburagh and Glasgow are major international tading points and a large sector of the Scottish econamy is based in their capital, I really think the issue that their econamy is going to fall if they leave the union has no real value. Yes, it will be hard to move all of it to Scotland but I see no reason why they can not.

I'm glad that you've decided that. It suddenly makes it true.

You are not Scottish. You're not even British. You're poking your nose in things you don't understand having just read a Wikipedia article on it. Seriously - I'll take advice on Scottish Independence and its economy from you as soon as you begin to grasp the basics, such as, I don't know, how to spell Edinburgh properly.

I'm glad that you've decided that. It suddenly makes it true.

Don't be a punk, I have not decided anything on this matter all I'm saying is I don't see why the economy issue is the top thing when people talk about this.

Don't be a punk, I have not decided anything on this matter all I'm saying is I don't see why the economy issue is the top thing when people talk about this.
Because Scotland's economy is dependent on oil, which is all but gone, and call centres, which serve the whole of the UK. It is way out on the periphery of Europe, and no where near anyway at all. It will simply never attract the investment it requires to survive on its own.

i think no. If they get it wales would want it, all it is is just pointless nationalism

Because Scotland's economy is dependent on oil, which is all but gone, and call centres, which serve the whole of the UK. It is way out on the periphery of Europe, and no where near anyway at all. It will simply never attract the investment it requires to survive on its own.

The tourism sector?

The tourism sector?
So it can become a banana republic, with its economy based on nothing but people coming for weekend hiking holidays? Yeah, I can see that working.

So it can become a banana republic, with its economy based on nothing but people coming for weekend hiking holidays? Yeah, I can see that working.

Sarcasm? I guessing Yes.

Billions can be made, it could be a transit point for Europe and a major hub for airlines.

Sarcasm? I guessing Yes.

Billions can be made, it could be a transit point for Europe and a major hub for airlines.

why not have tht happeening when they are within the UK?

why not have tht happeening when they are within the UK?
I don't know, it was more of an idea on my part because I know little about economy over there. But the reason would be independence, a lot of Scottish people want a Scottish republic.

Sarcasm? I guessing Yes.

Billions can be made, it could be a transit point for Europe and a major hub for airlines.
Europe already has many major hubs. Why does it need another?

It's also interesting that your latest idea is to base its economy on airports and airlines, an industry that has great potential to suffer in the coming years as Governments start to wallop the industry with the same standard of pollution taxes as cars and other forms of transport.

First you argue that it should be based on tourism. Then you argue that it should be based on people passing through, but not stopping. Perhaps you should next suggest they base it on fishing, because this is all you are currently doing.

Sarcasm? I guessing Yes.

Billions can be made, it could be a transit point for Europe and a major hub for airlines.
Billions? Please tell me you're joking. Over a decade they might make billions, but that's not enough to sustain the industry itself, let alone the entire economy. As for it being a transit point for Europe and a major hub for airlines, that's just ridiculous. It would need massive investment (which it can't afford by itself) to get anywhere along the road towards that, and then it would actually need to persuade the entire world transport system to bend to its iron will. Not going to happen.

I don't know, it was more of an idea on my part because I know little about economy over there. But the reason would be independence, a lot of Scottish people want a Scottish republic.
A lot of people believe in pixies and the tooth fairy; you wouldn't normally recommend they have a say in Government.

Scottish Nationalism is exactly that; nothing but blind nationalism, completely shutting out any sense of reality or the facts. If Scotland ever really, truly wanted to become independent than I would not stop them, but I would not expect them to last very long. But, it is a moot point, because the majority of Scot's think the same way as I.

I don't know, it was more of an idea on my part because I know little about economy over there. But the reason would be independence, a lot of Scottish people want a Scottish republic.
Yep, and the rest know that a Scottish republic would have a worse economy than Lesotho.

Scotland does not need or want Independence.

The fact is that over the past 299 years (I'm looking forward to the Tricentennial) the components of Britain have become completely interdependent. As much as how people argue that Scotland needs England I think it is equally true that England needs Scotland.

Britain's greatness comes from the merger of cultures, the archetype of these mergers is the merger that occured between the Celtic and 'English' cultures on this island that created an incredibly dynamic civilisation that was greater than its constituent parts.

However, I do think that the Union should be modernised so that instead of having a situation where anyone can accuse London of tyrannically ruling them, we have a fair system of federalism for the regions (not countries, England is not united enough to be ruled as one body), and we'll rename the state the Federal Kingdom of Great Britain (the FK Great Britain).

I should probably say (while I'm here) that I'm all for Scottish independence. If we'd done it a century ago, we'd be without quite a few politicians now - Blair, Brown, Cameron, Kennedy, Campbell...

Also, the proportion of the UK budget that is spent in Scotland is higher than should be expected for a country that makes up approximately one twelfth of the population of the UK.

Europe already has many major hubs. Why does it need another?

It's also interesting that your latest idea is to base its economy on airports and airlines, an industry that has great potential to suffer in the coming years as Governments start to wallop the industry with the same standard of pollution taxes as cars and other forms of transport.

First you argue that it should be based on tourism. Then you argue that it should be based on people passing through, but not stopping. Perhaps you should next suggest they base it on fishing, because this is all you are currently doing.

Your the know it all type man, so full of it.

I am not arguing anything here, these are IDEAS for what they COULD do. A nation can have many forms of income. It's not like America has one thing their enonomy is based on nor England for that matter or what ever part of the UK your from.

I'm glad that you've decided that. It suddenly makes it true.

You are not Scottish. You're not even British. You're poking your nose in things you don't understand having just read a Wikipedia article on it. Seriously - I'll take advice on Scottish Independence and its economy from you as soon as you begin to grasp the basics, such as, I don't know, how to spell Edinburgh properly.

and because I'm not british I can't have an opinion about this issue? :eek:
I'm pro independence, but that's because I am pro independence as a principle, it could well by that Scotland is better served with staying the union (as was with faraoe Island when their break from danmark was an issue)

and because I'm not british I can't have an opinion about this issue? :eek:
I'm pro independence, but that's because I am pro independence as a principle, it could well by that Scotland is better served with staying the union (as was with faraoe Island when their break from danmark was an issue)
Informed opinions are welcome. Telling people how to run a country having just read a Wikipedia article is not.

The point is that Scotland is not pro-independence. It is consistently shown to be committed to the Union.

And, as IV's point makes, it would be interesting to see just how many English people want to maintain Scotland in the UK. I wouldn't be that surprised to see that Scottish support for the Union is higher then English support for it.

Your the know it all type man, so full of it.

I am not arguing anything here, these are IDEAS for what they COULD do. A nation can have many forms of income. It's not like America has one thing their enonomy is based on nor England for that matter or what ever part of the UK your from.

You clearly are arguing something, that something being Scottish Independence, if you weren't arguing for that you would have supplied counter-arguments, you would have given the other side of the story, not just maddly clutch at straws trying to justify what is, clearly, an argument.

And in case you cannot understand why you are being met with such hostility it is because some British people see you coming here with no knowledge of British culture and little knowledge of the actual situation and then you try to argue for the disentegration of our state. Rationally, we realise we must respect your opinion, but emotionally, it sort of offends our sensibilities.

I'm all for the break up of the UK. We need a modern-day heptarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heptarchy) - Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Up North, Middle England, London, and St. Piran's Land (Devon and Cornwall). *goes off to make map of proposed borders*
*comes back with map of proposed borders*

http://www.safalra.com/temporary/heptarchy.png

*comes back with map of proposed borders*

http://www.safalra.com/temporary/heptarchy.png

You're an idiot.

Actually if you look at the decline of Jacobitism in history and the brutal attempted genocide of the Scotland Highlanders by red coats following the Battle of Culloden, I would say in today's modern times they deserve their independence, I am sure even today the Scots are still highly independent.

And even if the English dont give it too them, those catholic French could still invade:)

You're an idiot.
*runs off crying*

*comes back with crossbow*

*comes back with map of proposed borders*

http://www.safalra.com/temporary/heptarchy.png

Haha! That's great.

*knights Safalra*




(However, I don't want Birmingham in Middle England, can we give it some sort of Special City status?)

I'm all for it.........the South East has proped up most of the UK for long enough.

*comes back with map of proposed borders*

http://www.safalra.com/temporary/heptarchy.png
Just one or two changes.

Firstly, 'Up North' should be renamed 'Oop North'.

Secondly, as an Essexian (fuck knows if that's right) myself, I object to being dumped in with London. I think Kent, Surrey and Sussex may object as well.

I think London should be separate, and there should be East Anglia, Dahn Sarf, Oop North, Midlands, St Piran's (if you must), and Scotland and Wales can be independent as well. I know that's 8, but I'd put Devon and Cornwall in Dahn Sarf.

I'm all for it.........the South East has proped up most of the UK for long enough.
Propped up? It's taken our taxes and spent them on building more bloody tourist attractions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Dome) in the most-visited part of the country.

I think London should be separate, and there should be East Anglia, Dahn Sarf, Oop North, Midlands, St Piran's (if you must), and Scotland and Wales can be independent as well. I know that's 8, but I'd put Devon and Cornwall in Dahn Sarf.
Damn you, we don't want to be associated with those Easterners. :-)

Propped up? It's taken our taxes and spent them on building more bloody tourist attractions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Dome) in the most-visited part of the country.
It's easier to convince people to go see something where they already are than convince them to go somewhere they're not to see something. However crap it is.

It's easier to convince people to go see something where they already are than convince them to go somewhere they're not to see something. However crap it is.

Exactly - compare visitor numbers at the 'successful' Eden Project to those at the 'failed' Millennium Dome.

Scottish independence? Pointless, completely pointless.

I'm all for a federal Britain, preferably a federal republic, but I don't see the advantage in cleaving up England to do it. It is as much a historical country as the other home nations. For economic balance, London should be removed from the English regional jurisdiction. And maybe Cornwall, if there is enough support there for self governance.

They aspire to nationalism and autonomy, yet lack the means to do so. England, or, more correctly, middle Engalnd, subsidises that deplorable group of malcontents, and affords them public services, and yet, at present, the relationship is not reciprocal. Labour only reatin any semblance of power due to the fact that Welsh and Scottish constituencies are able to vote in the commons, and thus influence English legislation, however this is not reciprocated.

If the Scots want independence then they there should be a referendum about it.a purely Scottish referendum just in Scotland not including england or Wales (although Wales should do it too seperatley) to decide it, maybe they do have seperate referendums anyway i don't know.Then if a majority wants independence (as i'm sure they do, i mean who the hell wants to be part of the U.K.?) they should get it.Isn't britain meant to be democratic?They want independence they get it they don't want it they don't get it.Simple as that.Remember what happened in Ireland?We had to kill a few thousand black and tans,auxileries and soldiers before we got limited freedom.We eventually got complete freedom but it just shows how stubborn the brits can be about holding on to what left of the empire even if it is only a rock,some islands,the north of a big island,two dominion countries and two countries that want to break away.I'm not saying the scots will revolt but my point is that in this day and age people should have the right to choose for themselves without a load of foreign (that's right i said foreign) politicians in London dismissing them as a few irritating malcontents. By the way someone said because Scotland is on the periphery of Europe it won't survive.I can speak first hand about Ireland being Irish as I am,it's as peripheral as you can get and our economy is one of the best in Europe, and seeing as how the guy who said that was obviously english Irelands more peripheral than england yet our economy's growth far outstrips the english one so whats to stop an independent Scotland having an economic boom once the drag factor of england has been removed?Besides its not a question of economy it's a question of pride and natioal identity.So bring on the referendum.Sorry this is a bit long but it had to be said.

Sorry this is a bit long but it had to be said.
What had to be said? "I'm going to compare this to Ireland because I'm Irish even though the two situations are in no way similar"?

No...I think you could have stayed silent.

carving up uk is a good idea.
safer for europe. thier army would be smaller and we wouldnt have worry as much about them provoking terrorist attacks.

Informed opinions are welcome. Telling people how to run a country having just read a Wikipedia article is not.

The point is that Scotland is not pro-independence. It is consistently shown to be committed to the Union.

And, as IV's point makes, it would be interesting to see just how many English people want to maintain Scotland in the UK. I wouldn't be that surprised to see that Scottish support for the Union is higher then English support for it.

well I'm the first to admit that my opinion is based on principle and not as wellinformed as I would like, but I have not, nor will I ever form an opinion based solely and wiki-article. I hope You weren't implying that I had.

and if the scottish people have no interest in independence thats fine.

I think each culture should have its own nation. Scots deserve one, if they want it.

What had to be said? "I'm going to compare this to Ireland because I'm Irish even though the two situations are in no way similar"?

No...I think you could have stayed silent.



Actually i didnt compare the two situations I used Ireland's struggle for independence to highlight the fact that now that in the western world we've abandoned the use of force in politics independence should be granted as soon as a majority asks for it not argued over by people who invaded the country and subjugated the unwilling populace in the first place.Neither did I compare the economical question I just used Ireland as an example of what a small,independent and peripheral country can do economically speaking. I used Ireland because i am irish and i was talking about what I know.

Actually i didnt compare the two situations I used Ireland's struggle for independence to highlight the fact that now that in the western world we've abandoned the use of force in politics independence should be granted as soon as a majority asks for it not argued over by people who invaded the country and subjugated the unwilling populace in the first place.Neither did I compare the economical question I just used Ireland as an example of what a small,independent and peripheral country can do economically speaking. I used Ireland because i am irish and i was talking about what I know.

Really? You don't give the impression of someone who knows what they're talking about.

Scotland is not a 'subjected country'. As long as you argue it is, I'm not sure why you expect anyone to take you seriously.

people thought ireland couldnt survive on its own.
"the irish are too drunk to rule themselves."
but we now have higher standard of living than england. high average pay. most importantly, giganticly more educated.
the point is, scottland could do better on its own.

Really? You don't give the impression of someone who knows what they're talking about.

Scotland is not a 'subjected country'. As long as you argue it is, I'm not sure why you expect anyone to take you seriously.

When you put something in inverted commas like 'subjected country' (by the way i think you meant subjugated?)it means you're quoting from what the opther person said. I did not say Scotland was a subjugated country I said it was originally subjugated when it was invaded which is true.Of course its not subjugated now but all the same they want independence whether a majority do or not remains to be seen. Besides all that the main issue is not why or how I said what I said it's whether people are for or against Scottish indepedence what you're saying is completly off the topic and you just trying to make yourself feel good by insulting people.

people thought ireland couldnt survive on its own.
"the irish are too drunk to rule themselves."
but we now have higher standard of living than england. high average pay. most importantly, giganticly more educated.
the point is, scottland could do better on its own.
Ireland didn't survive on its own. Ireland survived by being massively propped up by taxpayers of the EU.

Blind nationalism is so sad; you're willing to sell your soul to foreigners, just as long as they're not English.

Balkanization makes states weaker, not stronger. What would independence give Scotland that it does not already have, other than the right to say it is isn't own country?

Consider Germany, Czechoslovakia, or Jugoslavia. In all cases, the larger state is richer, stronger, and more stable than the successor states. (Though with Germany they've re-merged).

The *only* reason why I can see it being a reasonable idea is to finally make is OK that Scotland gets a team in world cup competition.

When you put something in inverted commas like 'subjugated country' it means you're quoting from what the opther person said. I did not say Scotland was a subjugated country I said it was originally subjugated when it was invaded which is true.Of course its not subjugated now but all the same they want independence whether a majority do or not remains to be seen. Besides all that the main issue is not why or how I said what I said it's whether people are for or against Scottish indepedence what you're saying is completly off the topic and you just trying to make yourself feel good by insulting people.
Scotland was never a 'subjugated country'; I am simply rebutting your contining claim that it was.

And as for 'the people want it'; I'm so glad that you, a lone Irishman, hold the collective knowledge of every Scot who lives today. It's such a shame that this great power of yours bears no relation to the reality whatsoever.

Ireland didn't survive on its own. Ireland survived by being massively propped up by taxpayers of the EU.

Blind nationalism is so sad; you're willing to sell your soul to foreigners, just as long as they're not English.

what the hell are you talking about?
english boy talking about selling soul to foreigners, how about taking it in ass for the americans? how do they repay you lap dogs? by shooting at you via "friendly fire". what did you gain by doing thier biding? ah yes you got those lovely new terrorist to worry about.

i honestly can't see the point in scottish independence. the only thing that's driving it is blind nationalism. half the people i know who vote for the snp and are pro-independence are decended from minor english 'nobility' and are as scottish as french toast (my mum's cousins). the other half are just idiots who hate anyone who hasn't got a scottish accent and some that do.

what the hell are you talking about?
english boy talking about selling soul to foreigners, how about taking it in ass for the americans? how do they repay you lap dogs? by shooting at you via "friendly fire". what did you gain by doing thier biding? ah yes you got those lovely new terrorist to worry about.
Makes a change from those boring old Irish terrorists, eh?

Scotland was never a 'subjugated country'; I am simply rebutting your contining claim that it was.

And as for 'the people want it'; I'm so glad that you, a lone Irishman, hold the collective knowledge of every Scot who lives today. It's such a shame that this great power of yours bears no relation to the reality whatsoever.

another english gobshite, grumpy about the fall of the empire.
thanks germany.

Ireland didn't survive on its own. Ireland survived by being massively propped up by taxpayers of the EU.

Blind nationalism is so sad; you're willing to sell your soul to foreigners, just as long as they're not English.

We didnt survive by being propped up by the tax-payers of the EU we survived by giving tax breaks to huge multi-nationals who brought their factories here and that kick started the celtic tiger.It was an Irish idea not an EU one.And again what does tyhat have to do with Scottish independence?I just corrected you because of national pride and because you had your facts wrong your just doing it because you think youre the only one who's opinion matters.

A lot of people believe in pixies and the tooth fairy; you wouldn't normally recommend they have a say in Government.
And yet you have, in the past, suggested that people who believe in gods are ideal for the job. Hmm... ;)


Anyway, Scotland and independence. I think it would be very funny to give them it if they really want it, and I suspect that everyone would soon change their minds.
Same as you'd soon persuade people that "kicking out the forners stealing our jobs" wasn't such a good idea if every first- and second-generation immigrant in the country took a month off work at the same time.

Sure, if they want to, let them have their precious

FREEDOM!

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Highlander.gif

another english gobshite, grumpy about the fall of the empire.
thanks germany.
Your complete and total lack of knowledge about this topic is highly amusing. :p

Tell me, don't these 'higher advanced' Irish schools of yours show you how to learn about topics before you try sitting the exams in them?

Makes a change from those boring old Irish terrorists, eh?

yep. but you never know they might come back. it would be funny if the irish and muslims teamed up. its not like they have meetings with eah other. oh wait ......

We didnt survive by being propped up by the tax-payers of the EU we survived by giving tax breaks to huge multi-nationals who brought their factories here and that kick started the celtic tiger.It was an Irish idea not an EU one.And again what does tyhat have to do with Scottish independence?I just corrected you because of national pride and because you had your facts wrong your just doing it because you think youre the only one who's opinion matters.

I.D.A. baby. pretty sure that was before the e.u.

We didnt survive by being propped up by the tax-payers of the EU we survived by giving tax breaks to huge multi-nationals who brought their factories here and that kick started the celtic tiger.It was an Irish idea not an EU one.And again what does tyhat have to do with Scottish independence?I just corrected you because of national pride and because you had your facts wrong your just doing it because you think youre the only one who's opinion matters.
You came into this thread, start ranting about 'Scottish Subjection' and how it's so similar to the Irish situation; if you're going to do that, and claim that Ireland is so rosy and Scotland can be too, then talking about why Ireland isn't rosy is perfectly justified.

Your complete and total lack of knowledge about this topic is highly amusing. :p

Tell me, don't these 'higher advanced' Irish schools of yours show you how to learn about topics before you try sitting the exams in them?

yeah whats your point? most schools teach how to learn more and faster.

Scotland was never a 'subjugated country'; I am simply rebutting your contining claim that it was.

And as for 'the people want it'; I'm so glad that you, a lone Irishman, hold the collective knowledge of every Scot who lives today. It's such a shame that this great power of yours bears no relation to the reality whatsoever.

Your comments continue to give me a good laugh at your expense.You say Scotland was never subjugated?So when england invaded,said their king was now king of Scotland,slaughtered all opposition,disarmed the Scots and gave various lords free reign (e.g. the law about brides in Braveheart) they weren't subjugated?Are you saying they were ok with that?How can you say they weren't subjugated when they repeatedly rebelled?And i don't claim the knowledge of the Scots today which is why I said there should be a referendum.If they don't want independence then that's up to them I just say they should have the choice.

Your comments continue to give me a good laugh at your expense.You say Scotland was never subjugated?So when england invaded,said their king was now king of Scotland,slaughtered all opposition,disarmed the Scots and gave various lords free reign (e.g. the law about brides in Braveheart) they weren't subjugated?Are you saying they were ok with that?How can you say they weren't subjugated when they repeatedly rebelled?

basing your knowledge of scottish history on braveheart is a classic error. even scottish nationalists laugh at the contents of that film.

Your comments continue to give me a good laugh at your expense.You say Scotland was never subjugated?So when england invaded,said their king was now king of Scotland,slaughtered all opposition,disarmed the Scots and gave various lords free reign (e.g. the law about brides in Braveheart) they weren't subjugated?Are you saying they were ok with that?How can you say they weren't subjugated when they repeatedly rebelled?
The fact that you have just used Braveheart as the foundations for your historical knowledge says everything anyone needs to know about the intellectual basis of your arguments.

The fact that you have just used Braveheart as the foundations for your historical knowledge says everything anyone needs to know about the intellectual basis of your arguments.

I didn't base any of my arguement on Braveheart knowing that it's disturbingly historically inaccurate but not knowing the name of that law which I know for a fact existed and was used I had to mention it.And by the way i didn't say you weren't justified in saying why Ireland isn't so rosy in fact the only thing like that i remember is you getting the reason for the celtic tiger wrong.

if more people used films to base their opinions the world would be a far more interesting place.

If more people used films to base their opinions the world would be a far more interesting place.

If more people used films to base their opinions the world would be a far more dangerous place.

If more people used films to base their opinions the world would be a far more dangerous place.
Same thing.

Same thing.
You equate interesting with dangerous? Hmm.

As fun as that squabble with philosophy was I'm leaving now and It'll probably be the usual few months before i bother with the forums again.I just want to say what I was saying at the start.They should hold a referendum to solve the Scotland question.If a majority want independence then give them independence if they don't well then don't.Of course if they don't then people will still keep trying for it whereas if they get it the unionists will probably gradually get quieter since democratically broken unions are very very rarely reunified but you can't keep everyone happy.Thats how democracy works.

There are a number of reasons why Scotland ought to have its independence.
For one, there are around 20 years of oil left in the North Sea, which is currently being used to fuel an English dominated UK economy. Scotland needs to have control over this resource in order to bring the country competitively into the 21st century. Also at the moment the Westminster govenrment chooses to tax business more in scotland than in England, a tad unfair don't you agree? Scotland must have the right to choose to tax business less (like the Irish did) to encourage economic growth rather than recession that the UK will drive us towards. Also Scotland needs to have a say on the world stage and control over her own soldiers (whom at the moment are dying over disputes that the Scottish people did not support, ever, with the exception of Afganhistan). Furthermore the Scottish parties would not renew the Trident missile program...which would then save us £9 billion. Plenty to give a nation a decent start. I'm not saying it would be easy, but Scotland could manage her affairs much better than the UK is currently doing. We should certainly take the same road as the Irish to encourage our economy.
Phew, that was long but i felt it was important

Before I start, let me make it clear that I’m a Scot who opposses independence.

I’d also like to point out that we already have a fairly independent health service, education sysytem, kirk, and legal system, albeit with some restrictions imposed by Westminster.

And it’s no small point that the Union utterly transformed 18th century Scotland, changing it from a subsisdence-based economy into a major political and economical player in Europe. As well as this, post-Union Scotland produced such seminal figures as Davd Hume, Adam Smith, Francis Hutchison and Dugald Stewart, playing a massive role in the Enlightenment.

None of this would have been possible without the Union.

I’m no economist, so I couldn’t say whether an independent Scotland would survive economically or not, but I would wager that without major EU subsidies, we’d be a lot worse off.

However, that doesn’t mean I’m in any way oppossed to devolution; in Scotland’s specific case, or in general. As long as we move away from the parliament building fiasco.

As a note of interest, Philosophy: are you Scottish?

As a note of interest, Philosophy: are you Scottish?
Nope.

BLOODY SEPERATISTS!! ARGH


Right.

Do any of you speak scottish?
What language do you speak?
Is it english?
If you awnsered the above question yes, vote against seperation, if not carry on.

Are you a member of the anglican church?
(Your out too)

Do you enjoy the nhs
(Go away and vote against on the way out)

Why is it your population is declining?
BECAUSE EVERYONES MOVING TO ENGLAND AND WALES DAMMIT!

Arrghh.

Not to mention, you already have a damn good deal going on, includign the fact that your constituencies need only 30,000 people to have an mp, english peoples need 50,000-60,000, also you get to decide a load of your own policies, you have bastard all resources and your only major industry is tourism.

Therefore, dont blow up the bridge your driving on and vote against seperation.

Any questions?
Half-Cooked rebuttles?

GOOD.

And while im at it, ireland you bloody ungrateful country, you christian?

You were British-Christian longer than Irish-Christian and you will be for another 200 years.
YOUR BRITISH GODDAMMIT

Your comments continue to give me a good laugh at your expense.You say Scotland was never subjugated?So when england invaded,said their king was now king of Scotland,slaughtered all opposition,disarmed the Scots and gave various lords free reign (e.g. the law about brides in Braveheart) they weren't subjugated?Are you saying they were ok with that?How can you say they weren't subjugated when they repeatedly rebelled?And i don't claim the knowledge of the Scots today which is why I said there should be a referendum.If they don't want independence then that's up to them I just say they should have the choice.

So your source on Scottish history is Braveheart, the Mel Gibson movie? The movie that is utterly inaccurate and is little more than history-flavoured fiction?

The invasion and conquest of Scotland by Edward I in the latter half of the 13th Century was subjugation. However the Scots rebelled and defeated Edward II conclusively in the early part of the 14th Century. Scotland remained a seperate kingdom after that until 1603 when things got slightly more complicated.

Queen Elizabeth I, the last Tudor monarch, died without issue. The legitimate heir to the throne was the great great grandson of Henry VII, James VI of Scotland. Upon Elizabeth's death, James became King of both England (James I) and Scotland through dynastical right, not by conquest. The two kingdoms were still treated seperately however: although both James and his son Charles desired England and Scotland to merge into one nation, they remained seperate. Scotland kept its own parliament.

During the course of the 17th Century, England and Scotland remained almost entirely seperate, apart from the fact that they were ruled by the same monarch. This state of affairs was ended by mutal agreement with the Act of Union in 1707, which formally merged England and Scotland together into one nation, Britain. By 1707, Scotland was in a bad way. They had lost most of their capital in the disasterous New Caledonia expedition and were one of the weakest states in Europe, if not the weakest. England, on the other hand, had everything to look forward to: profitable colonial prospects in America and India, a financial system that was the envy of Europe and armed forces which were trashing Louis XIV's previously invincible armies. Such persuaded Scottish leaders to pass the Union. Within 50 years, Scotland was infinitely more prosperous than it had ever been before: Edinburgh was a cultural centre for the Enlightenment and Scottish ports were making lots of money from ship building and receiving trade from colonies.

Far from a history of exploitation, the Union between England and Scotland has been one of mutal benefit.

Nope.
Aye. Quite a strong unionist for a non-Scot!

Oh, another point about economic unions: without them, Scotland probably wouldn’t be able to support the rise and rise of ‘Silicon Glen’ an area between Edinburgh and Glasgow that’s full of computer companies. Including Rockstar North, who made a wee gamw some of you might know called GTA 3. My old flat backed onto Rockstar North’s old offices, and there is loads of Scottish references in the game, as well as in Vice City and San Andreas.

So your source on Scottish history is Braveheart, the Mel Gibson movie? The movie that is utterly inaccurate and is little more than history-flavoured fiction?

The invasion and conquest of Scotland by Edward I in the latter half of the 13th Century was subjugation. However the Scots rebelled and defeated Edward II conclusively in the early part of the 14th Century. Scotland remained a seperate kingdom after that until 1603 when things get slightly more complicated.

It is, of course, also worth noting that the Scots have done their fair share of invading and subjugating England. Neither country has ever successfully conquered the other, and both came to a peaceful union in the way you go on to describe.

It's also worth noting that Scotland was subjugated by the English, at many different occaisions- The original wars for Scottish independence after the English king Edward proclaimed himself King of Scotland.
The Scottish covenanters, who were crucial in helping Oliver Cromwell win the English civil war, were then duly slaughtered by Cromwell and that entire branch Scottish church was outlawed and forced to meet in secret.
And also after the jacobite rebellion the Scottish national dress (tartan) was also outlawed for a time. To me all of this certainly seems to constittute being subjugated. After all our lords were forced to sign a document saying they were subject to the English king, our religion was outlawed, as was our national dress.

Aye. Quite a strong unionist for a non-Scot!

Oh, another point about economic unions: without them, Scotland probably wouldn’t be able to support the rise and rise of ‘Silicon Glen’ an area between Edinburgh and Glasgow that’s full of computer companies. Including Rockstar North, who made a wee gamw some of you might know called GTA 3. My old flat backed onto Rockstar North’s old offices, and there is loads of Scottish references in the game, as well as in Vice City and San Andreas.

I strongly believe that the people of the UK have far more in common than they have differences, and that we are ultimately all much better served as a unified nation.

It is, of course, also worth noting that the Scots have done their fair share of invading and subjugating England. Neither country has ever successfully conquered the other, and both came to a peaceful union in the way you go on to describe.
We have done our fair share of invading, but apart from the Border Reivers, we’re not that good on the whole subjugating business. Bonnie Prince Charlie hardly succeded, and was about as Scottish as Morris dancing to boot.

We have done our fair share of invading, but apart from the Border Reivers, we’re not that good on the whole subjugating business. Bonnie Prince Charlie hardly succeded, and was about as Scottish as Morris dancing to boot.
Simply pointing out to those who complain about the poor, innocent Scots being invaded that actually the Middle Ages were just a generally messy time.

I strongly believe that the people of the UK have far more in common than they have differences, and that we are ultimately all much better served as a unified nation.

Exactly.

I am for all secessions regardless of time and place. So I vote for this. Now, whether or not the majority of Scots want to secede is another matter - maybe those that do should do so and form their own mini-country/city-state. It's perfectly possible within the EU. :)

The United Kingdom was an Economic Union, which served all of the countries in it during the industrial age. Certainly Scotland benefited greatly as our once great shipping industry proved. But the failure of that industry marked the end of the United Kingdom as a profitable union. Now the union means that Scotland is ruled by people on the world stage, who are not willing to stand up for Scotland. Any Scottish fisherman would tell you that.
The industrial age and the British Empire are in the past - the sun has set. It's time for us to move on. All of the countries in the British isles share a special relationship through our shared language and history, but for Scotland freedom from an outdated Union would be beneficial. It's the only way we can build on the success of areas such as the silicon glen.

And also after the jacobite rebellion the Scottish national dress (tartan) was also outlawed for a time. To me all of this certainly seems to constittute being subjugated. After all our lords were forced to sign a document saying they were subject to the English king, our religion was outlawed, as was our national dress.
Um, the national dress? You mean the clothing of the Highlanders? You make the assumption that the clansmen were the only social group in Scotland at the time. Lowlanders didn’t wear the tartan, and spoke Scots rather than Gaelic. The clan system was a backward, brutal feudal system. Much of the romanticism about Scotland, including the kilt, was invented by English Victorians.

I am for all secessions regardless of time and place. So I vote for this. Now, whether or not the majority of Scots want to secede is another matter - maybe those that do should do so and form their own mini-country/city-state. It's perfectly possible within the EU. :)

That'll matter far less once the EU goes for a Federal structure sometime in the next 25-50 years.

The Scottish covenanters, who were crucial in helping Oliver Cromwell win the English civil war, were then duly slaughtered by Cromwell and that entire branch Scottish church was outlawed and forced to meet in secret.

Cromwell's inter-regnum lasted barely 10 years. Upon the restoration of Charles II, Scotland's status as an independent nation was restored and remained so until the (mutal) Act of Union in 1707.

And also after the jacobite rebellion the Scottish national dress (tartan) was also outlawed for a time.

The Jacobite rebellion was just that: a rebellion. The first occured in 1714, after the mutal Act of Union had been signed. The Jacobite rebels were not only fighting the will of the English leaders but also the will of Scottish leaders as well. The second Jacobite rebellion in 1745 was not particularly even a Scottish affair: indeed, more Scots actually helped supress the 1745 rebellion than actually fought for it. The rebels were a motley band of foreign mercenaries, financed by the French crown. I think that proves that Scots were definitely on the side of the Union, even only after 40 years.

our religion was outlawed,

Presbyterianism was not the only religion to have been banned (or discriminated against) in 18th Century England. Every denomination apart from the established Anglican Church was discriminated against. This was not unique to England: France rigorously persecuted their Protestants and Poland happily supressed the rights of Orthodox Christians in their territories. It has little to do with nationality: 18th Century states used religion as a method of social control and as such they required that everyone subscribe to the state religion because it was the state religion that the government had the most influence over.

Exactly.

exactly seconded

Um, the national dress? You mean the clothing of the Highlanders? You make the assumption that the clansmen were the only social group in Scotland at the time. Lowlanders didn’t wear the tartan, and spoke Scots rather than Gaelic. The clan system was a backward, brutal feudal system. Much of the romanticism about Scotland, including the kilt, was invented by English Victorians.

Yep, thats true to an extent, also I know that Scot's lowlanders didn't support and in fact many fought against the jacobite's. But Tartan is generally accepted as the national dress, which many Scot's, regardless of region, wear at special occasions such as weddings. It was really an example of Scot's being subject to England. But since it wasn't typically from the Highlands, i'll concede that one

Presbyterianism was not the only religion to have been banned (or discriminated against) in 18th Century England. Every denomination apart from the established Anglican Church was discriminated against. This was not unique to England: France rigorously persecuted their Protestants and Poland happily supressed the rights of Orthodox Christians in their territories.

I know Presbyterianism was not the only religion to be banned, and it was also not the only religion in Scotland. But just because other countries and discriminated against religious groups - should the same then happen the world over?

That'll matter far less once the EU goes for a Federal structure sometime in the next 25-50 years.
Eh, then I will be fighting for it to be dismantled. If it goes confederal a-la-Switzerland though, then it will be easy for secessionary nations to survive within it - they can still trade and ally together for mutual self-defence.

A federal EU is very much against the EU population's desires.

But Tartan is generally accepted as the national dress, which many Scot’s, regardless of region, wear at special occasions such as weddings. It was really an example of Scot’s being subject to England. But since it wasn’t typically from the Highlands, i’ll concede that one
I don’t dispute that the tartan kilt is our national dress now, but its a mostly fictional romanticism. The Victorians invented most of the tartans 100 years after the end of the clan system. Poor crofters in the 18th century couldn’t afford a brightly coloured plaid, or go to the bother of colouring their clothes differently when on a hunt or when at home.

Nevertheless, a kilt is fun to wear, epecially at a ceilidh. I just don’t imagine my ancestors walking about with a wee kilt, some flimsy shoes and a bloody heavy jacket!

As a Scotsman myself I believe that we, as a culture and long standing part of British history, should be independent in such but to tear ourselves from Britain itself would do us not good.

I do not say this out of view that Scotland would not be able to survive without England but that it would be a social disaster.
I've lived here in Scotland all my life and I have seen the violence that insure on our streets. There's a stabbing nearly every 3 hours on average. A gang fight every week and a people injured or killed in gang violence everyday and that's just in Scotland alone.

In Scotland there are groups of people that hate each other (namely Neds) but if there's one thing that would unite them it would be a common hatred of England. If the Scottish Parliament announces that Scotland was gaining indecency it would like asking the Neds themselves to attack any Englishmen out of Nationalism. There have already been examples of such attacks. For instance during the World Cup for football (or as you yanks would call it soccer) because people who were English in Scotland (or Scots that supported England) they were attacked by Neds if they even left their houses wearing an England strip.

The point I'm putting forth is the fact that if we sought Independence from England it would strain what is already a fragile social relationship between the two cultures.
It's not because of political or economic reason that we should not gain Impedance but for a social reason that we should remain as one Great Britain and try to sort out or problems rather they elevate them.

I don’t dispute that the tartan kilt is our national dress now, but its a mostly fictional romanticism. The Victorians invented most of the tartans 100 years after the end of the clan system. Poor crofters in the 18th century couldn’t afford a brightly coloured plaid, or go to the bother of colouring their clothes differently when on a hunt or when at home.

Nevertheless, a kilt is fun to wear, epecially at a ceilidh. I just don’t imagine my ancestors walking about with a wee kilt, some flimsy shoes and a bloody heavy jacket!

Yeah you're absolutely right about everything there. I guess the Jacobite's was a pretty poor example all round really, since they failed to gain popular support and were a French backed rebellion. Also it's drawn away from the more up to date issue of independence.

And kilts are definitely fun to wear, ceilidh's are a great laugh.

<snip>
Where the bloody hell do you live? Scotghettoland? I’ve lived in Leith in Edinburgh and now I’m in Maryhill, Glasgow–suppossedly two of the most violent places in Scotland, and I’ve never had trouble. At the very least, you’re exagerating the violence in Scotland. ‘Neds’, or as most people are reluctant to say, working-class Scots, don’t rule the streets like some sort of gang militia. Like all humans, if you treat them with a bit of respect, you’ll find they’re just the same as you and me. Some of my best friends are Neds :D

And kilts are definitely fun to wear, ceilidh’s are a great laugh.
*dances the Gay Gordons*

Where the bloody hell do you live? Scotghettoland? I’ve lived in Leith in Edinburgh and now I’m in Maryhill, Glasgow–suppossedly two of the most violent places in Scotland, and I’ve never had trouble. At the very least, you’re exagerating the violence in Scotland. ‘Neds’, or as most people are reluctant to say, working-class Scots, don’t rule the streets like some sort of gang militia. Like all humans, if you treat them with a bit of respect, you’ll find they’re just the same as you and me. Some of my best friends are Neds :D
Are these...Neds, the equivalent of the English chav?

it would like asking the Neds themselves to attack any Englishmen out of Nationalism. There have already been examples of such attacks.

This is true, but Ned's attack anyone who's different from them. Almost every old firm game leads to stabbings and assaults. The problem of Neds and Chavs is one which exists across much of Scotland and England as far as i'm aware. But we can't allow the violent element in society to prevent us from moving forwards. Scotland and England have remained tense rivals even though we've been on the same side for so long, the Union has not smoothed out those tensions.

Are these...Neds, the equivalent of the English chav?
Yup, just a different regional name for a snobbish attitude towards the poorer people of the country.

Yup, just a different regional name for a snobbish attitude towards the poorer people of the country.
Erm, they actually call themselves Chavs over here - it's not just a pejorative term. And they do usually live up to their reputation, and are not necessarily poorer - just wiggers.

Yup, just a different regional name for a snobbish attitude towards the poorer people of the country.

Ha! Most chavs are quite wealthy where I live.

Ha! Most chavs are quite wealthy where I live.
Exactly. As I said, they're just wiggers.

Exactly. As I said, they’re just wiggers.
Well, up here those who are called ‘Neds’ are generally from poorer backgrounds. Disregarding their economic background, it’s still idiotic to assume someone is a violent thug because of their accent or style of clothes.

Well, up here those who are called ‘Neds’ are generally from poorer backgrounds. Disregarding their economic background, it’s still idiotic to assume someone is a violent thug because of their accent or style of clothes.
It is rather, but some of them do act the part. What makes it doubly funny is that these people are imitating American ghetto styles, yet they are blatantly racist - guess who a lot of the BNP's supporters are.

It is rather, but some of them do act the part.
Some Scottish people are stingy and like fried pizzas, some Americans are fat and obnoxious. Doesn’t mean we have to tar all with the same brush.

Those in favour of Scottish independence make me chuckle. A fine example of a group so blinded by nationalism they can't see the reality in front of their eyes.

But hey, the non-existent oil will save their non-existent economy. It's not as if they need the fact that the UK disproportionately props up their people and economy. They've got the EU to suck off of now instead, and a corrupt, inefficient, bureaucratic mess is a much better bed fellow.
Sadly it is true. The historic bonds of comradeship that have held Scotland and England together since the 18th century are broken by the courage of post-modernism. The United Kingdom only exists today due to political inertia - things have been this way for so long it takes time to unmake them. The Scottish Parliament, however, spells the eventual end of the United Kingdom. With a constitutional inconsistency that can be solved only by re-uniting into a true unitary state (something that is politically unviable) or creating a Federal Kingdom, eventually Scotland will see no need to remain part of the UK with the European Union in place to force us to continue to give our money to subsidise its continental-style state socialist system regardless.

Some Scottish people are stingy and like fried pizzas, some Americans are fat and obnoxious. Doesn’t mean we have to tar all with the same brush.
Oh lighten up for Christ's sake. I am not saying they are all that way...

why not have tht happeening when they are within the UK?

arrogant brits said all this about ireland leaving. and guess what, we are richer than you now.

dont be such a pompus prick of a stereotype. you are reinforcing what they are trying to escape from

So your source on Scottish history is Braveheart, the Mel Gibson movie? The movie that is utterly inaccurate and is little more than history-flavoured fiction?

The invasion and conquest of Scotland by Edward I in the latter half of the 13th Century was subjugation. However the Scots rebelled and defeated Edward II conclusively in the early part of the 14th Century. Scotland remained a seperate kingdom after that until 1603 when things got slightly more complicated.

Queen Elizabeth I, the last Tudor monarch, died without issue. The legitimate heir to the throne was the great great grandson of Henry VII, James VI of Scotland. Upon Elizabeth's death, James became King of both England (James I) and Scotland through dynastical right, not by conquest. The two kingdoms were still treated seperately however: although both James and his son Charles desired England and Scotland to merge into one nation, they remained seperate. Scotland kept its own parliament.

During the course of the 17th Century, England and Scotland remained almost entirely seperate, apart from the fact that they were ruled by the same monarch. This state of affairs was ended by mutal agreement with the Act of Union in 1707, which formally merged England and Scotland together into one nation, Britain. By 1707, Scotland was in a bad way. They had lost most of their capital in the disasterous New Caledonia expedition and were one of the weakest states in Europe, if not the weakest. England, on the other hand, had everything to look forward to: profitable colonial prospects in America and India, a financial system that was the envy of Europe and armed forces which were trashing Louis XIV's previously invincible armies. Such persuaded Scottish leaders to pass the Union. Within 50 years, Scotland was infinitely more prosperous than it had ever been before: Edinburgh was a cultural centre for the Enlightenment and Scottish ports were making lots of money from ship building and receiving trade from colonies.

Far from a history of exploitation, the Union between England and Scotland has been one of mutal benefit.

My source on Scottish history is definetly not Braveheart I only mentioned it because I didn't no the name of that law about the first night with the bride which as far as i know existed. I know that Braveheart was very inaccurate and I said this in another post after the one you quoted.By the way DAMN you know your stuff,either that or you just checked all that before you wrote it.And one last thing before I go to mess with everyone's heads.At the time of the fall of the Roman empire Scotland wasn't called Scotland.Ireland was called Scotia which is Latin for Scotland.The Irish were the Scoti.When the Romans pulled out the Irish invaded Scotland and settled there(the picts were already there).Then the Angles,Jutes and some other tribe from Germany invaded england and drove the english into wales where they fought back and still live today.So as a result.....The Scots are Irish,the Welsh are english and the english are German.Anyone disagree then look it up theres lots of evidence for instance look at the languages.Someone said something about a Scottish ceilidh in Ireland we have a ceili and also in Ireland there was Irish tartan I think or at least there was such a thing as an Irish kilt.By the way i know that all that is different now with mass migrations and wars and so on but basically it's true to some extent.

Oh lighten up for Christ’s sake. I am not saying they are all that way...
Sorry, wasn’t aiming the point at you specifically, I just feel it’s something that needs to be pointed out.

Yes, I think the people of Scotland should liberate themselves from the English empire, and at the same time the cruel partitioning of Ireland could end.

If thats what the Scottish want, so be it.

Sadly it is true. The historic bonds of comradeship that have held Scotland and England together since the 18th century are broken by the courage of post-modernism.
Couldn't agree more. However, I would argue that the problem has been augmented by our current constitutional quagmire.

The United Kingdom only exists today due to political inertia - things have been this way for so long it takes time to unmake them.
That and a complete lack of democracy.

The Scottish Parliament, however, spells the eventual end of the United Kingdom. With a constitutional inconsistency that can be solved only by re-uniting into a true unitary state (something that is politically unviable) or creating a Federal Kingdom,
I'd support the latter.

eventually Scotland will see no need to remain part of the UK with the European Union in place to force us to continue to give our money to subsidise its continental-style state socialist system regardless.
Europe? Socialist? And I'm the King of France, I assume...

Yes, I think the people of Scotland should liberate themselves from the English empire, and at the same time the cruel partitioning of Ireland could end.
Despite the fact that neither Scotland or Northern Ireland want it.

And while im at it, ireland you bloody ungrateful country, you christian?

You were British-Christian longer than Irish-Christian and you will be for another 200 years.
YOUR BRITISH GODDAMMIT

the fact i wasnt born in britian, and dont live in britian, makes me not british.

My source on Scottish history is definetly not Braveheart I only mentioned it because I didn't no the name of that law about the first night with the bride which as far as i know existed. I know that Braveheart was very inaccurate and I said this in another post after the one you quoted.By the way DAMN you know your stuff,either that or you just checked all that before you wrote it.And one last thing before I go to mess with everyone's heads.At the time of the fall of the Roman empire Scotland wasn't called Scotland.Ireland was called Scotia which is Latin for Scotland.The Irish were the Scoti.When the Romans pulled out the Irish invaded Scotland and settled there(the picts were already there).Then the Angles,Jutes and some other tribe from Germany invaded england and drove the english into wales where they fought back and still live today.So as a result.....The Scots are Irish,the Welsh are english and the english are German.Anyone disagree then look it up theres lots of evidence for instance look at the languages.Someone said something about a Scottish ceilidh in Ireland we have a ceili and also in Ireland there was Irish tartan I think or at least there was such a thing as an Irish kilt.By the way i know that all that is different now with mass migrations and wars and so on but basically it's true to some extent.

That's mostly correct, but on the point about the Welsh being English and the English being German, that's not quite true. If you use genetic analysis the Welsh and English are exactly the same (I think it was on a Time Watch programme, but I could be mistaken...) so there is no genetic disparity, but when compared to the Germans or French (for example) there is a genetic difference. So the Welsh and English are actually the same race.
The point about the Irish invading Scotland is true though, which I think is quite funny.:D

http://www.safalra.com/temporary/heptarchy.png

Just looked at that picture. No, no, no, no, no. I am not living in Cornwall, or St. Pirans Land. The Cornish can keep that little corner bit, but they ain't having Plymouth!:mad:

http://www.thesonsofscotland.co.uk/images/braveheart%20cast/Braveheart%202.jpg

http://www.thesonsofscotland.co.uk/images/braveheart%20cast/Braveheart%202.jpg

What, a Jew hating American?

What, a Jew hating American?
FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOM!!!!!!

http://www.thesonsofscotland.co.uk/images/braveheart%20cast/Braveheart%202.jpg
Sexy.

scotland can get independence for all i care. then the rest of the uk can laugh as their economy fails and half the population jumps over the border. the only thing more amusing would be welsh independence, or maybe the Republic of Essex.

the Republic of Essex.

Now that would be funny!

Now that would be funny!

I hope we dont fire up Essex nationalists.

Yes, Scotland should get independence. Everyone knows that us English are evil oppressors. :rolleyes:

Yes, Scotland should get independence. Everyone knows that us English are evil oppressors. :rolleyes:

Historically, that’s a really funny thing to say.

I hope we dont fire up Essex nationalists.

You just wait 'til those Chelmsford nationalists turn up!

Historically, that’s a really funny thing to say.

Oh yeah, I forgot that things which happened long before living memory are still so important...

Oh yeah, I forgot that things which happened long before living memory are still so important...
Well, they are.

Well, they are.
Think of how privileged you are. You Americans get to keep the tradition alive qua modern oppressors of the world -- you just call it "spreading freedom." ;)

Well, they are.

So long as you don't hold the current incumbants responsible for the actions of those who came before.

Well, they are.

Are you happy living in the past?

Historically, that’s a really funny thing to say.
Well, you Americans better start with the reparations to the decendents of the slave trade.

America has just as many historical black spots as any other nation. The difference between our two countries is that we gave up Empire 50 years ago.

I really don't see what history has got to do with modern politics. The majority of people living in Scotland are content with how things are now. What's the problem?

:confused:

Scotland should get its independence. Of course, it'll cost them. Maybe they should all become mercenaries. But thats probably not gonna happen. Therefore, Scotland is screwed if they get their independance.

speaking of hilarious "struggles" for independence, how come no american states are at it? or are they?

Eh, then I will be fighting for it to be dismantled. If it goes confederal a-la-Switzerland though, then it will be easy for secessionary nations to survive within it - they can still trade and ally together for mutual self-defence.

A federal EU is very much against the EU population's desires.

That'll change in a generation or three, same as it happened in the US. The colonists that were for the Articles of Confederation before 1775 were not to a man for the Constitution. The small state/big state debate, the free/slave state debate, etc all had to be sorted out. Modern Europe is going down the same road, but it likewise will take take time, but it ultimately will happen.

That'll change in a generation or three, same as it happened in the US. The colonists that were for the Articles of Confederation before 1775 were not to a man for the Constitution. The small state/big state debate, the free/slave state debate, etc all had to be sorted out. Modern Europe is going down the same road, but it likewise will take take time, but it ultimately will happen.
We'll see - man makes History ultimately. It does not write itself.

the Republic of Essex

Now that would be funny!

I hope we dont fire up Essex nationalists.

You just wait 'til those Chelmsford nationalists turn up!

*fires up*
:D

We can't let Scotland leave the UK. Wouldn't we have to change the Union flag? It wouldn't look as cool without the blue. :(

http://www.childrenscancermalawi.ncl.ac.uk/images/union%20jack.jpg

We can't let Scotland leave the UK. Wouldn't we have to change the Union flag? It wouldn't look as cool without the blue. :(

http://www.childrenscancermalawi.ncl.ac.uk/images/union%20jack.jpg

despite living in england my whole life i never figured this one out: how do wales and northern ireland fit in? seriously, i cant figure it out. surely it would just look like the england flag? ok i checked wikipedia but what the hell?

despite living in england my whole life i never figured this one out: how do wales and northern ireland fit in? seriously, i cant figure it out. surely it would just look like the england flag? ok i checked wikipedia but what the hell?
Ireland is the red diagonal cross. Wales is technically part of England, and so is represented by the Cross of St George.

despite living in england my whole life i never figured this one out: how do wales and northern ireland fit in? seriously, i cant figure it out. surely it would just look like the england flag? ok i checked wikipedia but what the hell?

Northern Ireland make the diagonal red lines

Northern Ireland make the diagonal red lines

Well, it is technically Ireland; that was their flag at the time of the Act of Union, and so the one that was incorporated into the original design. Northern Ireland's current flag is different.

Northern Ireland make the diagonal red lines

but the red X comes from ireland (the whole of it) which hasnt been part of england for however long. without scotland it should really be just a st georges cross. and if that happens we should just trade with georgia.

Well, it is technically Ireland; that was their flag at the time of the Act of Union, and so the one that was incorporated into the original designn. Northern Ireland's current flag is different.

Yeah dont worry I know. Just thought it would be simpler to term it that way.

Yeah dont worry I know. Just thought it would be simpler to term it that way.

lol, ok. :p

but the red X comes from ireland (the whole of it) which hasnt been part of england for however long. without scotland it should really be just a st georges cross. and if that happens we should just trade with georgia.

Don't you mean the UK?

I'm still waiting for the Welsh Independence thread. You can't forget about Wales, they'll start to feel left out. :(

I'm still waiting for the Welsh Independence thread. You can't forget about Wales, they'll start to feel left out. :(
I think it's high time Stratford-upon-Avon got some backbone and declared its independence. <.< Screw Wales.

I'm still waiting for the Welsh Independence thread. You can't forget about Wales, they'll start to feel left out. :(

I've never met a Welsh person therefore I deny their existance

I've never met a Welsh person therefore I deny their existance
Wow, you're well versed in how to treat people from non-countries. :D

I think it's high time Stratford-upon-Avon got some backbone and declared its independence. <.< Screw Wales.

I think it's time for an independent Bermuda - Falklands - Manx - Hebrides- Orkney - Shetlands - Channel Islands - Isle of Wight Confederation!! Minor islands of the Empire unite!! :D

(Yes, I'm sure I forgot some of the islands... there's so darn many!)

I think it's time for an independent Bermuda - Falklands - Manx - Hebrides- Orkney - Shetlands - Channel Islands - Isle of Wight Confederation!! Minor islands of the Empire unite!! :D

(Yes, I'm sure I forgot some of the islands... there's so darn many!)
The possibilities are endless! :eek: Heck, I secede! I'm my own glorious state now! :D

Out of curiosity, have we any Transnistrians-to-be on NS?

I'm still waiting for the Welsh Independence thread. You can't forget about Wales, they'll start to feel left out. :(

dont be silly welse people dont have the internet.


/joking.

I'd probably support independence and yes, I am Welsh and living in Wales.

I know, it's way too late in the thread for this, but didn't Scotty die?

I know, it's way too late in the thread for this, but didn't Scotty die?

i think he died last summer.

I'd probably support independence and yes, I am Welsh and living in Wales.

What are your reasons?

What are your reasons?

probably simular to ours, celtic solidarity?

They would be nuts to quit really.

At the moment they:

- Get a huge cash input from wealth redistribution from England.
- Control most of their own laws.
- Hold the controling seats in the British Parliament (Labour would not have a majority with just the English seats.
- Will likely have a Scottish Prime Minister in the British Parliament


So - they profit a lot from their membership, and have a huge sway in the goings on of England while England has no sway in what goes on with them.

Why would they want to quit?

Scotland is already a nation within the United Kingdom, isn't it? I'm not sure if becoming truly independent is necessary. But if thats what the Scottish people want, so be it.

Scotland is already a nation within the United Kingdom, isn't it? I'm not sure if becoming truly independent is necessary. But if thats what the Scottish people want, so be it.

the main benifit for scotland would be no longer being tied to a country that still gets involved with wars.
personally myself i dislike the idea of a person fighting in a land that is not thiers.

So - they profit a lot from their membership, and have a huge sway in the goings on of England while England has no sway in what goes on with them.

Why would they want to quit?

Watching braveheart too many times

the main benifit for scotland would be no longer being tied to a country that still gets involved with wars.
Well, Scotland generally votes Labour. And Labour declared war on..?

the main benifit for scotland would be no longer being tied to a country that still gets involved with wars.
personally myself i dislike the idea of a person fighting in a land that is not thiers.

Not tied to but part of. They voted just like everyone else for the current government

Because Scotland's economy is dependent on oil, which is all but gone, and call centres, which serve the whole of the UK. It is way out on the periphery of Europe, and no where near anyway at all. It will simply never attract the investment it requires to survive on its own.

Might I just point out the Irish example to you? Peripheral Europe, nowhere near at all... and it attracts quite a bunch of investors.

And, by the way, wouldn't you just be happy that the English taxpayer could save some money?

Scottish Independence is ridiculous.

I am Scottish, my family is Scottish, I am proud of Scotland and believe it to have one of the most beautiful landscapes in the world. The culture is vast and hilarious at the same time (talking of neds, the glasgae banter and the jaykies) It is a nation, with a deep identity.

However, if it wisnae for the english tax payer, oor alchies wouldnae get a' the free drink, and a' oor folks on the incapacity benefit would be made to work. in the call centres or local goverment.

We would have to go on the waiting list to re-join the EU which would be years away due to the waiting lists (the EU cant be seen to give preferentail treatment), most Scots are anti EU (and wrongly so).

Our politicians have already messed up lots of legislation (thank god they don't have control over the really important things). What would happen if the did get full control

The SNP are a bunch of looppy idiots that are either alchies or just plain nuts with a romantic image of Scotland as a nation that invented the television/telephone/ Clark Marshall, Hume, Burns and the whole bunch of fabulous minds that have come from Scotland (thats is mostly in the past, we don't invest in our kids now - not where it counts).

If we become an independent nation, i'm climbing up a lovely big hill and living as a hermit until things get really bad and then i'll move Berlin.

Thing is i feel usless and unable to stop this disaster from eventually happening.

must start campaign to educate the dafties that will vote for independence.

Independence is a pipe dream. It may happen, but if it does, it'll ultimately result in Scotland becoming dependent upon the EU rather than the UK.

Whoa, who the hell dug this thread up? I remember from months ago...

Scottish Independence is ridiculous.

I am Scottish, my family is Scottish, I am proud of Scotland and believe it to have one of the most beautiful landscapes in the world. The culture is vast and hilarious at the same time (talking of neds, the glasgae banter and the jaykies) It is a nation, with a deep identity.

However, if it wisnae for the english tax payer, oor alchies wouldnae get a' the free drink, and a' oor folks on the incapacity benefit would be made to work. in the call centres or local goverment.

We would have to go on the waiting list to re-join the EU which would be years away due to the waiting lists (the EU cant be seen to give preferentail treatment), most Scots are anti EU (and wrongly so).

Our politicians have already messed up lots of legislation (thank god they don't have control over the really important things). What would happen if the did get full control

The SNP are a bunch of looppy idiots that are either alchies or just plain nuts with a romantic image of Scotland as a nation that invented the television/telephone/ Clark Marshall, Hume, Burns and the whole bunch of fabulous minds that have come from Scotland (thats is mostly in the past, we don't invest in our kids now - not where it counts).

If we become an independent nation, i'm climbing up a lovely big hill and living as a hermit until things get really bad and then i'll move Berlin.

Thing is i feel usless and unable to stop this disaster from eventually happening.

must start campaign to educate the dafties that will vote for independence.

Better hope the SNP doesn't do too well in the Holyrood elections next May. If the Scottish Labour Party is anywhere near as awful as the UK wide Labour party, I can see them making some significant gains, although the independence vote will be reduced slightly by the SSP/Solidarity split.

Perhaps even a 'grand coalition' might be on the cards. Who knows?

What are your reasons?

For Wales or Scotland?

For Wales or Scotland?

Wales

To make decisions of our own. To make something of ourselves to the world and the ability to shed the image of us being wholly dependent on England, surviving on "handouts". The ability of making Welsh the official language of Wales, the ability to make and pass laws in a Welsh parliament, instead of heading 250 miles in the opposite direction, in another nation, to pass laws that concern Wales.

I would of course be open to an inner-commonwealth or further devolution as, I think as a union, we are stronger together than apart but, that wholly depends on all nations within the union being treated as equally as possible. Sadly, as history can verify, Wales for one has had it's fair share of raw deals within the UK.

To make decisions of our own. To make something of ourselves to the world and the ability to shed the image of us being wholly dependent on England, surviving on "handouts". The ability of making Welsh the official language of Wales, the ability to make and pass laws in a Welsh parliament, instead of heading 250 miles in the opposite direction, in another nation, to pass laws that concern Wales.

I would of course be open to an inner-commonwealth or further devolution as, I think as a union, we are stronger together than apart but, that wholly depends on all nations within the union being treated as equally as possible. Sadly, as history can verify, Wales for one has had it's fair share of raw deals within the UK.

Wales IS totally dependent on England. No offence meant, but it is true.

It's all down to Wales geography, the impassable mountains in the middle of Wales have meant that Welsh culture has never been able to fully interact with itself, in the brief periods when Wales was independent it quickly failed to operate as the people in the North became suspicious of those in the South and vice versa.

Instead, from time immemorial Welsh villages were more likely to interact with English villages to the east than with villages from the other side of Wales. In fact, if you look at the pre-modern trade routes of the British Isles you will see that all Welsh trade went east-west, and not north-south, (and indeed, this is still true today, if someone in North Wales wants to visit a large city they are more likely to visit Manchester or Birmingham than Cardiff), in short, the Welsh did not trust the Welsh to govern the Welsh.

Conversely, the Welsh did begin to develope strong cultural links with the English, mainly through trade, but also through feudal intermarriages. The systems that the Anglo-Welsh lords brought into practice were very popular and further ingratiated the English ways of doing things to the Welsh.

When in the 1400s the original Act of Union was signed, Wales was annexed by the English Crown. This Act has since been interpretted as an imperialist conquest, but that could not be further from the truth. There was no dissent in Wales towards the Act, the Welsh were happy to have the protection of the English crown in what were quite dangerous times. Suspicions of the Welsh from the other side continued to grow strong, which made it convenient that Wales was governed from London, as all Welsh trusted London more than they would have trusted Cardiff for example.

Wales IS totally dependent on England. No offence meant, but it is true.

Well, to begin with, I don't think we are "totally" dependant on England at all. If anything we have a symbiotic relationship, especially with resources such as water. We pump absolutely millions of units of water into England (principally the midlands and Liverpool areas respectively) much more than Wales and the Welsh people themselves need, since our entire population is just under 3 million. If, by some oddity Wales would have the power to stop it's water being pumped into England, Those regions would be in dire need of an essential requirement of human settlement.

Additionally, is your statement actually supported by factual data or an impression of the Welsh people that has been consistently drummed into the ears of Brits since Edward 1st?

It's all down to Wales geography, the impassable mountains in the middle of Wales have meant that Welsh culture has never been able to fully interact with itself, in the brief periods when Wales was independent it quickly failed to operate as the people in the North became suspicious of those in the South and vice versa.

Actually, when Owain Glyndŵr regained independence for Wales he set up the Welsh Parliament in Machynlleth, which geographically speaking is in North Wales. I think your comment about the Welsh culture not being able to interact with itself is rather misleading, since the Eisteddod, Europes oldest cultural festival (which shifted locations throughout Wales each year) had quite an effect on uniting Welsh people, at least culturally.

Secondly, I assume you mean Brecon Beacons in the South and Snowdon principally? There are still many possibilities of linking North and South transport (rail at least), via the west coast. However, this requires investment.

The only real reason why and how a divide in South and North Wales came to be is due to two reasons:

1) The gentry classes (i.e English settlements) in the South, that did not largely occur in the North West. That displaced the native Welsh from their settlements as the English became predominant important that resulted in the South East becoming "anglacised". Thus the Welsh in the South (whether through resistance or co-operation) became "Anglacised". That's where the distrust trully stems from.

2) At the climax of Owain Glyndŵrs revolution, Wales had become united. Prior to this point, Wales was divided into many small "shires" or areas. It wasn't really anything about North vs South, but competing princes and Welsh Royals of many small shires.

Instead, from time immemorial Welsh villages were more likely to interact with English villages to the east than with villages from the other side of Wales. In fact, if you look at the pre-modern trade routes of the British Isles you will see that all Welsh trade went east-west, and not north-south, (and indeed, this is still true today, if someone in North Wales wants to visit a large city they are more likely to visit Manchester or Birmingham than Cardiff), in short, the Welsh did not trust the Welsh to govern the Welsh.

No, if you take at a look there is no option to travel North to South in Wales. The only viable option to get from say, Bangor to Caerdydd, is to travel into England by rail (the fastest public form of transport realistically speaking) and back into Wales again.

It really has nothing to do with choice because, evidently there isn't one. Thus people in the North are likely to travel to Liverpool or Birmingham, not only because it's convienient, quick and cheaper but, because there is no link today between North and South.

For example, it's faster for me to travel to London than it is for me to travel to Wrecsam which is much more closer to me than London!

When in the 1400s the original Act of Union was signed, Wales was annexed by the English Crown. This Act has since been interpretted as an imperialist conquest, but that could not be further from the truth. There was no dissent in Wales towards the Act, the Welsh were happy to have the protection of the English crown in what were quite dangerous times.

Up until 1485, the Welsh on many occasions revolted against English rule in an attempt to gain independence. In 1400, one such nobleman Owain Glyndŵr led the last greatest revolt in Welsh history that, for a short time, secured Welsh indpendence with the formation of a parliament. He noegotiated and was assisted by the French quite a few times as an "alliance" of sorts. His noteriety was so powerful that Welsh scholars, businessman, tradesman etc left their posts in England to join the last great revolt.

If that's not dissent in Wales against the English King, i don't know what is. Additionally, the "Act of Union" came much later (1542). This was at a time when the gentry classes were firmly in place in the south and that there now conquered country, post Owain Glyndŵr, would offer the Welsh people equality with England and the English. This wasn't unpopular no, but definately understandable. Before this point Welsh people were not afforded the rights and privledges of their English counterparts in Wales. It wasn't until later that some of the Welsh began to feel:

"That the privileges of citizenship were only given to the Welsh on condition that they forgot their own particular past and personality, denied their Welshness, and merged with England." - A.O.H Jarman

Suspicions of the Welsh from the other side continued to grow strong, which made it convenient that Wales was governed from London, as all Welsh trusted London more than they would have trusted Cardiff for example.

I counter-stated this comment earlier via historical points of the gentry classes and the anglacisation of the south.

Well, Scotland generally votes Labour. And Labour declared war on..?

i said that would be the main benifit, not the main reason why some(i dont know how many) scotts want independance.

Wales IS totally dependent on England. No offence meant, but it is true.

It's all down to Wales geography, the impassable mountains in the middle of Wales have meant that Welsh culture has never been able to fully interact with itself, in the brief periods when Wales was independent it quickly failed to operate as the people in the North became suspicious of those in the South and vice versa.

Instead, from time immemorial Welsh villages were more likely to interact with English villages to the east than with villages from the other side of Wales. In fact, if you look at the pre-modern trade routes of the British Isles you will see that all Welsh trade went east-west, and not north-south, (and indeed, this is still true today, if someone in North Wales wants to visit a large city they are more likely to visit Manchester or Birmingham than Cardiff), in short, the Welsh did not trust the Welsh to govern the Welsh.

Conversely, the Welsh did begin to develope strong cultural links with the English, mainly through trade, but also through feudal intermarriages. The systems that the Anglo-Welsh lords brought into practice were very popular and further ingratiated the English ways of doing things to the Welsh.

When in the 1400s the original Act of Union was signed, Wales was annexed by the English Crown. This Act has since been interpretted as an imperialist conquest, but that could not be further from the truth. There was no dissent in Wales towards the Act, the Welsh were happy to have the protection of the English crown in what were quite dangerous times. Suspicions of the Welsh from the other side continued to grow strong, which made it convenient that Wales was governed from London, as all Welsh trusted London more than they would have trusted Cardiff for example.

wow you have completely changed my view on wales. i thought it was a first world country. you make it sound like its just full of huts.

OF course!

i said that would be the main benifit, not the main reason why some(i dont know how many) scotts want independance.
Fair enough, but I wouldn't really count that as a good enough reason for independence.

Fair enough, but I wouldn't really count that as a good enough reason for independence.

dont know much about scotlands economy to say it will benifit that way. so i gave a reason that i thought was a good enough reason.

wow you have completely changed my view on wales. i thought it was a first world country. you make it sound like its just full of huts.

I was described what Wales WAS like, since the invention of rail, the motorcar, broadcast media and the internet it is now a much more united country. Indeed, this technological factors are a prime reason as to why Welsh Nationalism has enjoyed a renaissance in the past century (specifically the last few decades).

And Rhodesia Newedd, I accept your factual corrections. But I stand by my claim that the revolution of Owain Glyndwyr (I'm not going to put a diacratic on a 'w'... that's just weird) was a failure. The aim was to create an independent and united Wales, which was utterly impossible in that historical climate, for many reasons other than those I laid out in my last post.

You are incorrect when you say there is NO way of travelling through Wales, there are many ways to travel from North to South: by tank, by yak caravan, by hot-air balloon, and many other ways. What you perhaps meant was that there is no practical way of travelling from North to South, which is true today, and was even more true in pre-industrial times. But it was possible, but as it was not easy, it was very rare.

In fact, I think it is a testimony to the strength of the Welsh people that they as a nation were able to survive the bad hand that history and geography had dealt them. Even through their most disunited of times they still shared a certain level of shared culture... although, a shared culture was, and is not enough to allow a stable independent nation to exist. The Anglo-Welsh links were and are equally as strong as the inter-Welsh links, and for that reason, Wales is an inextricable member of the British Union.

I think that Scotland should not become seperate from the UK. I dont see what the SNP is complaining about, they are nearly independant in all but name. If it did become independant, it would be all but ignored by England and the EU, simply because it has nothing to offer them, except tourism. The economy there would collapse, im not an economist but I dont see any industry it can rely on. If the economy collapses, then they cant pay Europe any money, so they wont accept them, and England won't help bail them out. If our government had any sense. ;)

I like the idea of a (unified) federal heptarcy, although I can't see your map. Something along the lines Jonathan Freedland lays out in Bring Home The Revolution, if you've read it?

That said, I think pulling the entire Union out of the EU would be the only way to make a federal UK work.

Indeed, this technological factors are a prime reason as to why Welsh Nationalism has enjoyed a renaissance in the past century (specifically the last few decades).

A good point but, it's not a prerequisite. Before the last revolution of Owain Glyndŵr, some 450 years had passed under English governance. Thus, even in 1400, nationalism and a drive to self-autonomy had been progressively building throughout Wales, without the aid of high-speed rail, rapid communication, internet etc. The point i make is though, undoubteldy technological factors have contributed towards Welsh nationalism, the same could also be said about the spread of democracy, the republic, the enlightenment etc.. If enough people are unhappy, people will revolt, whether that's with sticks or stones or AK47's.

But I stand by my claim that the revolution of Owain Glyndwyr (I'm not going to put a diacratic on a 'w'... that's just weird) was a failure. well, of course the goal was a failure. If he had succeeded and maintained Welsh Sovereignty, we wouldn't be discussing this. However he is still held in high regard by many as an historical icon of Welsh independence.

So, even in his failure, he's still regarded as a hero.

which was utterly impossible in that historical climate, for many reasons other than those I laid out in my last post.

But of course, England would never have allowed Wales to keep her sovereignty.

You are incorrect when you say there is NO way of travelling through Wales, there are many ways to travel from North to South: by tank, by yak caravan, by hot-air balloon, and many other ways. What you perhaps meant was that there is no practical way of travelling from North to South, which is true today, and was even more true in pre-industrial times. But it was possible, but as it was not easy, it was very rare.

I think that was pretty much a given in my post, since i corrected your comment earlier that implied that a mountain range existing in mid-wales prevented an effective link between North and South.

The only reason i mentioned it was because you seemed to imply that distrust between the gogs and the hwntw's dictated that their choice to trade/shop etc was always going to be England. Wheras, it was an impractability to travel between North and South:

Instead, from time immemorial Welsh villages were more likely to interact with English villages to the east than with villages from the other side of Wales. In fact, if you look at the pre-modern trade routes of the British Isles you will see that all Welsh trade went east-west, and not north-south, (and indeed, this is still true today, if someone in North Wales wants to visit a large city they are more likely to visit Manchester or Birmingham than Cardiff), in short, the Welsh did not trust the Welsh to govern the Welsh.

In fact, I think it is a testimony to the strength of the Welsh people that they as a nation were able to survive the bad hand that history and geography had dealt them.

By clinging onto the very edge of an island!

although, a shared culture was, and is not enough to allow a stable independent nation to exist.

Wales does have and has had more than just "culture", we just either havent been able to use our own resources, or have been completely outnumbered and outmanned by a very large neighbour next door.

The Anglo-Welsh links were and are equally as strong as the inter-Welsh links, and for that reason, Wales is an inextricable member of the British Union.

It's funny you mention that actually, i saw a poll recently that announced 52% of Welsh people would support independence. It seems that, at least in Wales, the drive for self-autonomy seems to be gaining. Although i dont think the unitarian's would allow it, ever.