NationStates Jolt Archive

Lot's of people are starting to say Scotland's about to become independant. Is it right?

http://www.gems.scot.info/graphics/braveheart.jpg

FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMblargdead.

They probably shouldn't, but they should be able to if they want to.

They probably shouldn't, but they should be able to if they want to.

What he said.

No, the Union Jack would look stupid without the Scottish flag.

Most likly yep, it will become independant. If it doesnt they will just keep changing there own laws (they have there own goverenment thing there now) to benifit themselves over british people so they might aswell be independant


personally i dont get it Scotland has been part of the UK for ages... next they will be saying they want to be part of Denmark or where ever as thats where a lot of there bloodlines come from

Relitivly recent colonising i can totally understand but Scotland i just dont get as its been in the UK yonks ... but that could be just because im part English and part welsh

In my eyes its just a vote winner for the scot independant party and if people are silly enough to vote for them on a wave of anti english (its not anti UK its anti English) feeling then meh let them be independant

Dunno about Scotland (or Wales come to that) but it's about time England became a sovereign nation once again (which it hasn't been since the land hungry Normans took over in 1066).

It's an appeal to nationalism for votes, and little else. If a serious debate on independence ever arose, everyone in Scotland would need to realise that for it to happen, they'd likely have to lose most forms of current government assistance, and that would include massive changes to the NHS and university system in Scotland, and I don't see the majority willing to do that for the sake of some nationalist appeal.

However, if the debate does advance, I do think it will have consequences for advocates of british republicanism, or british federalism. In my opinion, the independence thing won't work out, but they'll likely add their voices to other such causes to further scottish devolution and UK constitutional reform.

Lot's of people are starting to say Scotland's about to become independant. Is it right?
Is what right?

Is it correct to say that lots of people are talking about independence in the near future? Yes it is, because they are.

Would independence for Scotland be a 'good' thing? Maybe. I'm not 100% convinced, but I can certainly appreciate the arguments that have been made.

Should Scotland be independent if that is the democratically expressed will of the Scottish people? Definitely.

It's quite interesting to note how many of the arguments for independence can be equally applied to other areas of the UK (i.e. anywhere that isn't London/The Home Counties). Economically, an example is the cycle of housing booms that we have seen across the UK over recent years. These periodically cause a huge spike in house prices in the SouthEast of England and in order to control the economy the Government of the day, via the Bank of England, raise interest rates. This causes financial hardship for people anywhere outside the SE, since it only balances things for those within the 'London weighting' area, whose salaries are generally sufficient to cope with the increases.

Great play is always made by Unionists of the strength of the economy in the London area, and how this props up the rest of the country. Salaries and the cost of goods and services are significantly higher in the SE and this causes a shism between the financial wellbeing of those in and around the City and that of those living elsewhere. This is inevitable, but it is not good for the rest of the country. That having been said, similar situations exist in many other countries and they seem to get along just fine.

The SNP like to paint Scotland as being the missing link in a geographical chain of countries who are wealthy and prosperous in their own right. They point to the nations surrounding Scotland- Ireland (which they rate as the 4th most prosperous nation on Earth), Iceland (6th most prosperous) and Norway (2nd most propsperous) - and reason that Scotland, by dint of having access to a healthy dose of natural resources, could and should be able to develop a prosperous economy in its own right. I suppose it all boils down to how you measure prosperity. Statistics can be abused to 'prove' almost anything, after all.

Another argument against independence that I have often seen made is that we are too small a nation to stand alone. This one is, or should be, easily shot down and it is a pretty damning inditement on the intelligence of the average British citizen that they pay it any heed. Our population of a little over 5 million is low but it is comparable to many other successful nations, including several others within the EU, so this is simply not a viable argument against.

Ironically for the present UK Government a groundswell of support for the idea of an independent Scotland is currently being seen South of the border. By using the powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament to do such seemingly innocuous things as to limit prescription charges to lower than they are in England, or continuing to pay tuition fees for university students the SNP have created a situation wherein large parts of the English population see themselves as being treated less well than the Scots. There are many other examples. This has in turn led to numerous pieces in the English press calling for the Scots to be allowed to break away, and this has influenced some public opinion down there.

It's messy. As I said at the outset I'm not entirely convinced, but it's certainly an compelling debate to follow.

Interesting times, as they say.
:)

Yes!!

No idea, honestly. I'd have prefered such an option on the poll. Oh, well.

As Longhaul said, the fact that the Scottish are getting a shedload more benefits than the English, especially the fact that they don't have to pay tuition fees and get maintainence grants, whilst I, as an English student, have to pay the tuition fee with a loan, which will leave me in more than £10,000 worth of debt when I graduate in a few years.

As one could imagine, that makes me rather pissed off.

I also find the First Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond, rather repulsive, especially as he once justified the amount of money the English pour into Scotland because of the "300 years of oppression", which is one of the biggest crocks of shite I've ever heard.

If Scotland holds a referendum for independence and 50%+1 of the voters say "yea", then yes, it should become independent.

Plain and simple.

As one could imagine, that makes me rather pissed off.
.

Why should that piss you off?

Make you jealous perhaps but piss you off?

I quite like the idea of a federal Europe made up of small countries like Scotland. As technology changes I think it is also economically viable should the majority of Scots wish to go that way.

every distinct culture has the same right to its own indiginous homeland as every other. i'm less certain that ANY concept of national soverignty needs to exist at all. but as long as it does, certainly scotland, hawaii, tibet, kurdistan, and every indipendent tribal sovergnty america was distructively, often genocidally super imposed upon, and any and every place else absolutely does.

i belive the divestiture of superpowerism that would resault, if such a more rational world could be brought about bloodlessly, would greatly bennifit the chances of humanity's survival over the next many decades, which under the current order, is severely threatened by it. by what it facilitates and helps to motivate.

=^^=
.../\...

Why should that piss you off?

Make you jealous perhaps but piss you off?
Because I don't particularly wish to have that much debt.

Because I don't particularly wish to have that much debt.

Yup but that's something to take up with those in charge of your tuition fees. I'm just curious as to how this is important in a discussion about Scotland

Where is this Sctoland?

Where is this Sctoland?

Just above Egnland and across the water from Ierland

Just above Egnland and across the water from Ierland
I AM SCTOLAND.

No. Bad idea.

Although if it does go ahead:
"Won't that just leave Britain with England and Wales?"
"Yes."
"So... why don't they just call it England?"

I AM SCTOLAND.

FRDEEOM!!!

Just above Egnland and across the water from Ierland
south of the Fearoe Islands?

If Scotland holds a referendum for independence and 50%+1 of the voters say "yea", then yes, it should become independent.

Plain and simple.
Yes, that's definitely the most important thing. I want Scotland to become independent for the direct effects of independence. Also, generally smaller and more numerous countries are better as they provide less concetrated power and more variety.

A lot of people go on about the economy as if 1. It's the most important thing when I definitely do not think so. 2. we're gonna end up like 3rd world country or something because of it despite there being so many counter examples. The best one would definitely be the Republic of Ireland cos it became independent from the same country just 80 years earlier and we can see that the effects on them have not been negative.

Lot's of people are starting to say Scotland's about to become independant. Is it right?No, the correct spelling would be "independent" :p

Independent?

What's still binding them together, Scotland & UK?

The have their own parliament, government, football team etc...

Oh well, Scotland will accept the Euro then, so it isn't that bad for me.

Another argument against independence that I have often seen made is that we are too small a nation to stand alone. This one is, or should be, easily shot down and it is a pretty damning inditement on the intelligence of the average British citizen that they pay it any heed. Our population of a little over 5 million is low but it is comparable to many other successful nations, including several others within the EU, so this is simply not a viable argument against.


Actually it is, because unlike Scotland, they have been standing alone for far longer. Scotland has been part of the UK for a very long time and as such, it has had English support for a very long while. The sudden lack of that will change things.

FRDEEOM!!!
That was part of our battle cry:

"WE WANT FRDEEOM,
DOWN WITH THE UNTIED KINDGOM!"

That was part of our battle cry:

"WE WANT FRDEEOM,
DOWN WITH THE UNTIED KINDGOM!"

Dyslexics of the wrold, untie!

Actually it is, because unlike Scotland, they have been standing alone for far longer. Scotland has been part of the UK for a very long time and as such, it has had English support for a very long while. The sudden lack of that will change things.

If they are in a need, Europe will support them.

We are doing this with parts of France, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy and the former Eastern European countries.

And actually, Scotland is forced by England to respect the Alien Act in the beginning of 1700.

So most of the time, they are used to be on their own. And they did this pretty well.

Dyslexics of the wrold, untie!
*strips*

If the people want it to be...I guess.

Actually it is, because unlike Scotland, they have been standing alone for far longer. Scotland has been part of the UK for a very long time and as such, it has had English support for a very long while. The sudden lack of that will change things.
Well, Scotland was an independent state for nearly a thousand years before the Act of Union. I think that's evidence of standing alone enough...

Of course, that's an argument that can be put against any secessionist state. Montenegro, though, seems to be succeding without Serbia despite being a part of a previosuly centralised union and having a population about one tenth of Scotland's. And while England has (undountedly) been dominant in the Union, Scotland now has the institutions it can use in order to become a successful state, including a government and legal system.

The only obstacle would be Scotland's economy, but that's something that a new Scottish government could sort out.

I don't feel this should be decided by a referendum or a "the majority think it should it should/shouldn't be done" style decision. The Parliament and the Monarchy should both sit with the leaders calling for Scottish independence and negotiate a settlement between them. There are a lot of things people haven’t thought through properly, which is why this can't be a simple referendum.

* How would the energy security of the United Kingdom be guaranteed?
* What would become of UK military assets in Scotland, and defence of the North Sea - Atlantic passage around Scotland?
* How would this affect the status of the Royal Family in Scotland?
* What would be the status of people in Scotland born elsewhere in the UK?
* What of state assets in Scotland?

I do not think independence for Scotland would be good for the United Kingdom as a whole, however a review of the powers of the Scottish Parliament is needed, and would be a more productive focus than dismembering the UK.

And actually, Scotland is forced by England to respect the Alien Act in the beginning of 1700.The Scots had no one but themselves to blame for that, as William would not have been on throne had it not been for the Stuarts. And King Charles I, himself, consented to the marriage between Mary and William.

And then it was another Stuart who assented to the Act of Union. But the then Scottish Parliament and the Estates were in favour of the Act of Union as well.

And do not think for second that the Scottish parliament never forced the hand of the English parliament. Both played the game of politics which eventually ended up with the Act of Union.

* How would this affect the status of the Royal Family in Scotland?


That's a rather interesting question. Would they go off looking for descendants of James VII?

Anyway... As a British citizen of English and Welsh descent, I don't really care either way. I suppose it should be left up to the Scots. Although if a large minority of Scots want to stay in the UK but are forced into independence by a slim majority, there might be a bit of a problem.

Although if a large minority of Scots want to stay in the UK but are forced into independence by a slim majority, there might be a bit of a problem.
That's why stuff like that usually requires a two thirds majority.

And King Charles I, himself, consented to the marriage between Mary and William.


I strongly doubt that, since Charles died in 1649 and Mary was born in 1662.

Yes. In fact, when can they become independant? Tomorrow sounds good for me.

That's a rather interesting question. Would they go off looking for descendants of James VII?


Now wouldn't that be interesting...

As Longhaul said, the fact that the Scottish are getting a shedload more benefits than the English, especially the fact that they don’t have to pay tuition fees and get maintainence grants, whilst I, as an English student, have to pay the tuition fee with a loan, which will leave me in more than £10,000 worth of debt when I graduate in a few years.
Woah there, cowboy!

First off, we don’t get maintenance grants, we get maintenance loans; big difference. Us Scottish students still pay money for Higher Education, we just pay it after University/College, once we’re in a certain pay bracket. Students from poorer backgrounds can be eligible for some bursaries and grants, but AFAIK that's the same as in England, Wales, NI.

So the idea that Scottish students get a free ride is utter bunk.

Secondly, if us north of the border are getting a better deal (which I agree in some respects we are), shouldn’t you be demanding you get the same status, rather than complaining as if the Scottish people are doing you a disservice? (If in fact you are stating this. If not, I apologise; but I’ve heard similar tales of woe from many a person.)

That’s why I support independence; for the fact it decentralises and localises government. I’d also support a devolved parliament for England.

Moreover, I think that devolved or more independent government doesn’t mean isolationist government; if Scotland was to become independent, I’d be very disappointed if Holyrood cut off all ties with Westminster, Brussels, et al.

That’s a rather interesting question. Would they go off looking for descendants of James VII?
I doubt it.

There’s not much of a monarchist tradition up here; I think it’d be safe to say most Scots are republicans, or don’t give two hoots either way.

However, the British aristocracy owns vast tracts of land in Scotland. That’d have to be resolved. Though I suppose there’s nothing preventing ‘foreigners’ from owning land in most countries.

I'm not that fussed for independence. I would like the Scottish parliament to get tax-adjusting powers, so that we can finance more of the apparent luxuries we are getting at the expense of the English.

they should be independent, by the thing were they pick their own king before the union

by the thing were they pick their own king before the union

What?

Do I favor full Scottish Separation? No.

On the other hand, I do think there should be more of a separation. And above all, a British Parliament should not be housed solely in the capital of only one of the constituent countries that compose it. Other than having Parliament meet in multiple places throughout the UK, I think the best idea would be to set up a devolved English Assembly meeting in London and then make Parliament meet on somewhat more neutral territory. Like, say, Berwick.

Oh, and make it a requirement that all future claimants to the throne be fluent in Gaelic.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/05_01/marsbarMS1205_468x272.jpg

and

http://www.peter-stott.co.uk/images/fryers/df66_electric_fryers.jpg

=

http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Ss/0295178/austin3_7612.jpg

I don't know terribly much about Scottish Independence, seeing as I'm American.

But the Scots have fought with the English in god knows how many wars, became a globe spanning empire with the English, unionized as equal partners with the English, created laws and a government with the English, and speak the same language as the English. They have probably one of the closest ties of any two nations ever. Why would they want to break apart?

And what does this say about the durability of the European Union, if two nations locked in a Union for 300 years break away for the most trivial reasons?

I'm fully in favour of Scottish independence. I propose launching a giant laser into space to cut along the Scottish border, detaching it from England. Then, using tug boats, move it somewhere far away (near Australia, maybe?). That way, Scotland gets independence, loses its crappy weather, and England still gets the oil that an independent Scotland would normally lay claim on. And Australia gets a neighbour that hates the English as much as they do

I'm fully in favour of Scottish independence. I propose launching a giant laser into space to cut along the Scottish border, detaching it from England. Then, using tug boats, move it somewhere far away (near Australia, maybe?). That way, Scotland gets independence, loses its crappy weather, and England still gets the oil that an independent Scotland would normally lay claim on. And Australia gets a neighbour that hates the English as much as they do

That seems mightily unfair on the Aussies I feel.

I'm all in favour of Scotch independance. Not only would it fuck Labour off royally, which is, really, the whole point, but frankly I see no good reason to perpetuate a relationship so mired in mutual dislike.

Yes, and I think Wales should go independent, too!

Oh, and make it a requirement that all future claimants to the throne be fluent in Gaelic.

you forgot to add Anglo-Saxon, Old norse , Cornish, Welsh, Manx and Norman

No, the Union Jack would look even more stupid without the Scottish flag.
Fixed.

Incidentally, would the ANZAC nations have to change their own flags to match the new Union Jack?

Should Sctoland be independant?

Shpuld Scotland become independantIf that's their way of writing English, then surely.

Sure. I'm sure they'd still work very closely with England and be a member of the EU. They will just have more say in their domestic affairs, and get out of England's domestic affairs entirely.

Yes, and I think Wales should go independent, too!

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y107/TP4CCCC/Caribbean.jpg

In some seriousness I'd like to see the UK stay together, and I don't think there's a genuine will in either Wales or Scotland to become independant.

There’s not much of a monarchist tradition up here; I think it’d be safe to say most Scots are republicans, or don’t give two hoots either way.


The Scot's for most part don't, it's true, but it would be a matter of concern for the Royal Family themselves, no doubt, and also the effect such changes would have on the system of the rest of the UK. This is why I think the politicians from all sides and the Royals theemselves all need to work it out between them. It's a minefield that most of the public don't really like to consider in too much depth.


However, the British aristocracy owns vast tracts of land in Scotland. That’d have to be resolved. Though I suppose there’s nothing preventing ‘foreigners’ from owning land in most countries.

Exactly. EU membership would also be an issue tied with this, since EU membership also covers issues of property and residency rights relating to citizens of EU countries in other EU nations. I think the issue would become even more complex if Scotland wishes to leave the EU, though from what I understand most Scottish Independence supports seem to favour EU membership.

Vivat edwardvs primvs scottorvm mallevs

Ulster (Northern Ireland) should be an independent state as well, free from both the Crown and the Irish Republic. 800+ years is too long.

On the other hand, I do think there should be more of a separation. And above all, a British Parliament should not be housed solely in the capital of only one of the constituent countries that compose it. Other than having Parliament meet in multiple places throughout the UK, I think the best idea would be to set up a devolved English Assembly meeting in London and then make Parliament meet on somewhat more neutral territory. Like, say, Berwick.
Or better yet, have Parliament convene in an airship that stops over the Irish sea at a relatively equal distance between all four home nations. You could even have the airship pick up the MPs by flying to their homes and dropping a rope ladder!

My, that would be fun! :fluffle:

That seems mightily unfair on the Aussies I feel.

I'm all in favour of Scotch independance. Not only would it fuck Labour off royally, which is, really, the whole point, but frankly I see no good reason to perpetuate a relationship so mired in mutual dislike.

I think you will find theres not a mutual dislike ... most UK people like the Scots and that includes the english) ... i know the nearest i am to disliking the Scots is when i see people like Ewan Mcgregor riding his bike with the Scot flag on it ... my reason for that is because its making more anti Scot feelings(Hes from the UK right?) ... You only used to see the Union Jack's around (barr football matches) ... now there are St Georges crosses appearing everywhere and people are caring less about Scotland.

Scots wanting independance are starting to fuel dislike against them and who ever it is leading them as he seems to be making laws just to annoy the English not the Welsh Irish etc (Rasict imo).

(Im not a football fan but im led to believe the English fans support all the UK teams in matches and stuff like that ... but apprently a large part of the Scotish population supports who ever is playing against England on principle... there is definatly more anti English stuff reported by the paper by Scots etc than there is anti Scot stuff said by the English as far as im aware)
(As a Brit i see the SNP going for the same votes etc as the BNP ... and if they do that that means the BNP has more success)
And yes i see myself as a Brit not an English man



Another thing that made me laugh today ... Scotland is celebrating getting to host the commonwealth games .... now i dont know my commonwealth history to well but i thought it was something the UK did back in the day .... so on one hand it wants nothing to do with the UK... yet on the other its now celebrating being part of the the UK and what it once achieved (if it can be called achievement)
(pretty sure i heard something about the Scots not wanting a UK team there aswell or something like that .. go figure that one out lol)

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13203608']Or better yet, have Parliament convene in an airship that stops over the Irish sea at a relatively equal distance between all four home nations. You could even have the airship pick up the MPs by flying to their homes and dropping a rope ladder!

My, that would be fun! :fluffle:


you know we as tax payers would all have to pay for there taxi fare still as they would be bound to claim them even when on the airship lol

I strongly doubt that, since Charles died in 1649 and Mary was born in 1662.Sorry, silly typo. Add an extra I.

That's a rather interesting question. Would they go off looking for descendants of James VII?
Now wouldn't that be interesting...Probably not. Teh wiki says the House of Stuart was dissolved in 1714, and through direct descendancy of this woman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_of_Bohemia) (eldest daughter of James I/James VI) the House of Hanover succeeded the House of Stuart.

Meaning that the current monarch of the UK has the biggest claim to the throne of Scotland were it to be restored (unlikely - Salmond is quite the republican)... Ooh, this is interesting - http://politics.guardian.co.uk/scotland/story/0,,2087532,00.html.

It says Salmond does not want to see the back of Elizabeth, and has even referred to her as Elizabeth, Queen of Scots.

Sctoland wants no king.

(Im not a football fan but im led to believe the English fans support all the UK teams in matches and stuff like that ... but apprently a large part of the Scotish population supports who ever is playing against England on principle... there is definatly more anti English stuff reported by the paper by Scots etc than there is anti Scot stuff said by the English as far as im aware)

This is sporting fans, they all do this in the UK. Traditional and generally just fun and banter.


(As a Brit i see the SNP going for the same votes etc as the BNP ... and if they do that that means the BNP has more success)
And yes i see myself as a Brit not an English man

I think the SNP is a fair bit less racist than the BNP.


(pretty sure i heard something about the Scots not wanting a UK team there aswell or something like that .. go figure that one out lol)
[/quote]
I think you're referring to Scotland (and Wales) not wanting a UK wide football team to compete at the Olympics, mainly because Wales, Scotland, England, N Ireland; are in the odd position of being non-sovereign nations with their own international teams, and FIFA have been making suggestive noises about ending that, which would probably affect the England set up very little and the Welsh/Scottish/N Irish effectively being shut down. Self preservation really.

They probably shouldn't, but they should be able to if they want to.

yar, it'd be a giggle if we were though.

It says Salmond does not want to see the back of Elizabeth, and has even referred to her as Elizabeth, Queen of Scots.
Does this mean it'd be in the same position as some of the Commonwealth countries, with Queen Elizabeth being their monarch too?

Hmm, and would Scotland be part of the Commonwealth? I know Glasgow's got the 2014 Commonwealth Games...

Another thing that made me laugh today ... Scotland is celebrating getting to host the commonwealth games .... now i dont know my commonwealth history to well but i thought it was something the UK did back in the day .... so on one hand it wants nothing to do with the UK... yet on the other its now celebrating being part of the the UK and what it once achieved (if it can be called achievement)

India and numerous African nations take part in the Commonwealth Games yet they suffered far more than Scotland during the empire and had far more violent independence movements. The purpose of the Commonwealth is not to celebrate the UK and what it once achieved, but to promote the principles of the Singapore Declaration in former British imperial nations and the UK itself.

Probably not. Teh wiki says the House of Stuart was dissolved in 1714, and through direct descendancy of this woman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_of_Bohemia) (eldest daughter of James I/James VI) the House of Hanover succeeded the House of Stuart.


No. You're thinking of what happened on the British throne. James II of England (James VII of Scotland) was kicked out during the Glorious Revolution, and replaced by his (Stuart) daughter Mary. A new law in 1701 ensured that Catholics were barred from the English throne, and six years later England and Scotland were merged into a single State, ensuring that James's Catholic Stuart descent couldn't legally claim the British throne.

What happened in 1714 is that Queen Anne, James' other Protestant daughter, died without an heir, and the other Stuart claimants to the throne (notably James' son James, who would have become King James VIII of Scotland and James III of England) were Catholic. So that was the end of the Stuart dynasty on the throne, and the beginning of the Hanoverians (the throne was handed over to a German prince who barely spoke a word of English but had the virtue of being Protestant).

It was not the end of the Stuart family; merely the end of their dynasty's reign. The Jacobites continued trying to put a Stuart back on the throne.

Apparently, the Jacobites today currently recognise "Francis II" as legitimate King of Scotland (and England):

http://www.defendersofscotland.org/monarch.htm
http://www.jacobite.ca/kings/francis2.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz%2C_Duke_of_Bavaria

Fixed.

Incidentally, would the ANZAC nations have to change their own flags to match the new Union Jack?

No to mention Tuvalu and Fiji.

I doubt it. The flag indicates their past heritage rather than contemporary ties. The Queen in Australia is Queen of Australia, for example, not Queen of the United Kingdom. And Fiji's a republic, but has kept the Union Jack on its flag.

I may be wrong, but doesn't the state flag of Hawaii also have the Union Flag on it?

Lot's of people are starting to say Scotland's about to become independant. Is it right?

Lots of people have been saying that for a long, long, time. And yes, it is right. England wouldn't be holding onto us so ferociously if they weren't gaining something. I voted for the Scottish National Party last election and I'm proud that they won.

(As a Brit i see the SNP going for the same votes etc as the BNP ... and if they do that that means the BNP has more success)


No. The SNP is nothing like the BNP. The BNP is a party of illiterate loons whose manifesto includes making it compulsory for each household to own a shotgun, and kicking out all British people whose skin isn't white. Their platform is based explicitly on racism, and their leaders are notoriously anti-Semitic and Islamophobic. It's a fascist party by any definition.

The SNP is a left-wing, socialist-leaning party which has never defined Scottishness on the basis of "race", and welcomes people of all kin and creed.


And yes i see myself as a Brit not an English man


I see myself as both. (I see it a little more difficult to define myself as Welsh, despite my Welsh ancestry, probably because I haven't been there often, I don't speak Welsh, and I simply don't feel a strong sense of "Welshness".)

During the last football match between France and Scotland, someone asked me which side I was supporting. I supported France, because I'm French. The person pointed out that I'm also British. I said "Yes, but I'm not Scottish".

As a Brit, I support Scotland against any team except France, England or Wales. As a Brit of English & Welsh but not Scottish descent, I support England and Wales over Scotland.


Another thing that made me laugh today ... Scotland is celebrating getting to host the commonwealth games .... now i dont know my commonwealth history to well but i thought it was something the UK did back in the day .... so on one hand it wants nothing to do with the UK... yet on the other its now celebrating being part of the the UK and what it once achieved (if it can be called achievement)


Hosting the Commonwealth Games has got nothing to do with being part of the UK. I may be wrong, but I think the last Commonwealth Games were held in Malaysia. Being part of the Commonwealth means having had historic ties with the United Kingdom, generally as former colonies (except in the case of Mozambique, which just tags along for the fun of it).

Also, Scots were very active imperialists back in the days of the Empire (although that may not be something Scots like to think about now. Some may prefer to think of themselves as having a history of being oppressed, rather than a history of being oppressors).

Oh, and make it a requirement that all future claimants to the throne be fluent in Gaelic.
A language that has never been spoken by the majority of Scots?

Gaelic has always been confined to the North-West of Scotland, particularly the Western Isles, while Glasgow has a large amount of fluent speakers. True, there has been a limited revival of Gaelic in the past decade or so, but it’d be mistaken to see Gaelic as the national language of Scotland.

...the nearest i am to disliking the Scots is when i see people like Ewan Mcgregor riding his bike with the Scot flag on it ... my reason for that is because its making more anti Scot feelings(Hes from the UK right?)
Nationalism is silly anyways (I support ‘independence’ for Scotland for distinctly non-nationalist reasons), so I don’t see the difference between someone being slightly nationalist with Scotland in mind, rather than the UK in mind.

Anyways, a lot — but certainly not all — of Scots consider themselves Scottish first and British second, just as a lot of Welsh or English folks consider themselves Welsh or English first and British second. I don’t see being proud of being born in a sub-division of the UK any more or less irrational than being proud of being born in the UK.

As a Brit i see the SNP going for the same votes etc as the BNP ... and if they do that that means the BNP has more success
You can’t equate the SNP and BNP, even if they both have ‘Nationalist’ in their name. As mental as Alex Salmond may be, he’s certainly no Nick Griffin; the SNP have never called for the ‘repatriation’ of non-white Scots, aren’t anything near as authoritarian as the BNP, nor do they originate from a Neo-Nazi organisation.

Scotland is celebrating getting to host the commonwealth games... so on one hand it wants nothing to do with the UK... yet on the other its now celebrating being part of the the UK... go figure that one out lol
It’s quite easy to figure out:

The majority of Scots don’t want independence, or at least not a complete breakaway from the Union; independence-minded Scots have only ever been in the minority.

Moreover, the Scottish people didn’t get the Commonwealth Games to come to Glasgow, it was Glasgow Council and Holyrood. (Personally, as a resident of Glasgow, I’m not greatly happy; I can see a lot of public money being diverted from arts projects and pumped into the games over the next seven years.)

This is what happens when you try and talk about nations as a single entity.

Scotland can have independence by all means.

But this will have to mean several things:

1. Scottish MPs stay in their own Scottish Parliament. They can't enter the English Parliament, and most definitely can't vote on matters that only concern England (and hence have nothing to do with Scotland). The reverse will concomitantly be true - English MP's will be restricted to English Parliament and not vote on Scottish affairs.

2. Economic independence tends to go with political independence. It doesn't have to though. Scotland can enter the European Union and even adopt the Euro currency if they so wish. But that's their choice alone to make. If they choose to become economically segregated, then so be it. No more subsidies from England (if indeed there were any to begin with). We'll then see just how long they can continue to provide free University education. Perhaps taxes on (and hence prices of) Scotch whisky (their biggest industry and export) will have to rise to support an independent Scottish government.

Maybe they'll go so far as to rebuild Hadrians Wall to keep the English out. Or perhaps only in a metaphorical sense - since if Scotland is officially a different country, then we'll need our passports to go there.

Maybe they'll go so far as to rebuild Hadrians Wall to keep the English out. Or perhaps only in a metaphorical sense - since if Scotland is officially a different country, then we'll need our passports to go there.

Not if it's part of the EU.

When I go to Italy or to the Netherlands, I take my ID card but not my passport.

Good point - I forgot about that particular advantage of european harmonisation.

Scottish MPs stay in their own Scottish Parliament.
That’s impossible.

Scottish MPs are Members of Parliament (i.e. Westminster) who’s constituency is in Scotland; just as Cornish MPs are MPs who’s constituency is in Cornwall, etc. Scottish MSPs, on the other hand, are Members of the Scottish Parliament (i.e. Holyrood).

MPs can’t vote at Hoolyrood, while MSPs cant vote at Westminster; they are two separate jurisdictions.

I agree that it’s shocking that Scottish MP’s helped push through policies like foundation hospitals and tuition fees that don’t affect their Scottish constituents, but the distinction between an MP and an MSP must still be made.

Economic independence tends to go with political independence. It doesn’t have to though. Scotland can enter the European Union and even adopt the Euro currency if they so wish. But that’s their choice alone to make. If they choose to become economically segregated, then so be it.
As the SNP have distinctly said they fully support the EU and an independent Scotland will remain part of said institution, I doubt, if Scotland does break from the Union, it will become economically ‘segregated’ (whatever that means).

We’ll then see just how long they can continue to provide free University education.
As I have said before in this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13202047&postcount=41), Scottish students do not get free higher education. We pay money after we finish our courses — not before as in England, Wales and NI — but we still pay a hefty sum of money.

Another myth stirred up by the tabloids, I’m afraid.

Perhaps taxes on (and hence prices of) Scotch whisky (their biggest industry and export) will have to rise to support an independent Scottish government.
Whisky is already heavily taxed, although tourism and the service industry play a much larger part in the Scottish economy than beverages. However whisky is still one of the largest Scottish exports. Moreover, I believe Edinburgh is still the fifth or sixth largest financial centre in Europe.

Maybe they’ll go so far as to rebuild Hadrians Wall to keep the English out. Or perhaps only in a metaphorical sense–since if Scotland is officially a different country, then we’ll need our passports to go there.
Well, as Hadrian’s Wall was built to keep the North Britains out of Southern Britain, that’d be quite a change.

Back to the real world, as a member of the EU, you wouldn’t need a passport to get across the Scottish border, just as you don’t need one to cross from France into Germany, etc.

You would, however, probably still need one if you were flying, just as you are today if you make any internal UK flights.

Any more hyperbole you’d like disarming?

Good point - I forgot about that particular advantage of european harmonisation.

Which is? That Scotland can become independant, and promptly surrender a good amount of its new found autonomy to Brussels?

Sounds like a plan to me.:rolleyes:

All points gratefully received. I stand corrected.

Except I beg to differ about the location of Hadrians wall. I walked the length of it about 15 years ago, from Carlisle to just north of Newcastle. Ok, so it's not exactly on the border between England and Scotland, but it's pretty close.

Whether it was built to keep the scots out of england or to keep the english out of scotland is another argument. Although it probably served both of these functions, irrespective of which was the greater priority.

You would, however, probably still need one if you were flying, just as you are today if you make any internal UK flights.


I had to fly to Ireland the other week from London on such short notice that I didn't have time to pick up my passport. An ID card was fine.

Except I beg to differ about the location of Hadrians wall. I walked the length of it about 15 years ago, from Carlisle to just north of Newcastle. Ok, so it’s not exactly on the border between England and Scotland, but it’s pretty close.
I wasn’t ever claiming it was.

There wasn’t such things as ‘Scotland’ or ‘England’ back then.

I had to fly to Ireland the other week from London on such short notice that I didn’t have time to pick up my passport. An ID card was fine.
Really? Cool.

What sort of ID card?

It's an appeal to nationalism for votes, and little else. If a serious debate on independence ever arose, everyone in Scotland would need to realise that for it to happen, they'd likely have to lose most forms of current government assistance, and that would include massive changes to the NHS and university system in Scotland, and I don't see the majority willing to do that for the sake of some nationalist appeal.

However, if the debate does advance, I do think it will have consequences for advocates of british republicanism, or british federalism. In my opinion, the independence thing won't work out, but they'll likely add their voices to other such causes to further scottish devolution and UK constitutional reform.

IIRC they did a study, and even with the gas reserves, Scotland would still be in a net deficit - unless Scotland can some how pull a miracle out of their ass or work some Scottish magic on the budget, they'll be up shit creak within a few years.

According to what I read, pretty much anything–even a bus pass. I had a “citizenship” card but in the four times I went in/out of the respective countries it was only ever glanced at. My name could have been Osama The Terrorist.
Neato.

Perhaps they’ve relaxed restrictions, I haven’t flown since last Christmas.

Really? Cool.

What sort of ID card?

According to what I read, pretty much anything - even a bus pass. I had a "citizenship" card but in the four times I went in/out of the respective countries it was only ever glanced at. My name could have been Osama The Terrorist.

IIRC they did a study, and even with the gas reserves, Scotland would still be in a net deficit–unless Scotland can some how pull a miracle out of their ass or work some Scottish magic on the budget, they’ll be up shit creak within a few years.
I’ve seen studies one way and studies another. Studies saying that Scotland can’t survive on its own and studies saying Scotland would soon become a prosperous nation.

If Scotland became independent, and if it could extricate itself from it’s involved place in the UK economy, I haven’t seen anything that conclusively proves either way.

I mean, all these studies are conducted on the back of unreliable economic models with specific, and I suspect politically charged, data plugged in.

Actually, that does raise an interesting point. A lot of (but not all) the oil and gas terminals from pipelines originating in the north sea oil and gas fields are in Scotland. If Scotland became independent, it could lay claim to a fairly high percentage of oil / gas revenues, by charging some sort of levy on the amount passing through the terminals.
Of course, oil companies would probably redirect the pipelines to the north of england (a few of them are already in Hull - or near there anyway), but this will take a few years to do.

Whether it was built to keep the scots out of england or to keep the english out of scotland is another argument. Although it probably served both of these functions, irrespective of which was the greater priority.
It was built by the Romans to demark the border between the Empire and to keep the Picts out of Roman Britain. It was never to keep the English or the Scottish on their respective sides of the border, as the English (Angles/Saxon et al) had yet to invade Britain on any scale other than small raids, and the Scots had yet to invade from Ireland and displace/conquor the Picts.

Which is? That Scotland can become independant, and promptly surrender a good amount of its new found autonomy to Brussels?

Sounds like a plan to me.:rolleyes:
Surely if Scotland becomes independent from the UK and continues as an EU member it wouldn't lose any powers to the EU since they've already been transferred by the UK government?

In any case, Scotland would probably need the European market and single currency for economic reasons. Or so says the SNP.

Surely if Scotland becomes independent from the UK and continues as an EU member it wouldn't lose any powers to the EU since they've already been transferred by the UK government?

In any case, Scotland would probably need the European market and single currency for economic reasons. Or so says the SNP.

I would have thought it would have had to apply for membership, as opposed to simply continuing in the EU.

Well, if Scotland does become independent, which I don't think it will, then it will just be another testiment to how bad Britain is at holding onto its empire.

I would have thought it would have had to apply for membership, as opposed to simply continuing in the EU.
Since all political parties in Scotland are pro-EU, including the SNP, I seriously doubt that they would allow Scotland's membership to lapse as a result of independence. I assume that after a referendum as part of an independence agreement the UK government would sign a treaty with the EU continuing Scotland's membership. It wouldn't be particularly difficult - Scotland has its own MEPs and some degree of EU representation.

Well, if Scotland does become independent, which I don't think it will, then it will just be another testiment to how bad Britain is at holding onto its empire.

Britain didn't want to hold on to its Empire. At least not in the end. Countries in the Pacific, for instance, became independent because the UK wanted to get rid of its colonies, rather than because those countries really demanded independence.

Why should they be? They have been a part of the United Kingdom for 4 centuries. They are a stronger nation as part of the UK, and they are not being oppressed.

Lots of people have been saying that for a long, long, time. And yes, it is right. England wouldn't be holding onto us so ferociously if they weren't gaining something.
It doesn't follow that just because some English people don't want Scotland to go independent that you're somehow being exploited.

Even assuming that there are no other effects of Scottish independence, there's going to be a cost to disentangle the two countries. Even, at a basic level, reprinting the stationery won't be cheap. And it would be nice if the bill was sent North but I don't see that happening. So for me to be in favour of independence would be to be in favour of having more of my money taken from my wallet for precisely no benefit to myself.

And that's leaving aside the synergies that will be lost: economies of scale, prominence on the world stage and in Europe, the seat on the UN security council etc.

It doesn't follow that just because some English people don't want Scotland to go independent that you're somehow being exploited.

Even assuming that there are no other effects of Scottish independence, there's going to be a cost to disentangle the two countries. Even, at a basic level, reprinting the stationery won't be cheap. And it would be nice if the bill was sent North but I don't see that happening. So for me to be in favour of independence would be to be in favour of having more of my money taken from my wallet for precisely no benefit to myself.

And that's leaving aside the synergies that will be lost: economies of scale, prominence on the world stage and in Europe, the seat on the UN security council etc.

Scots only think of it as getting away from the English (hmmm is that me being racist?) not breaking out of the UK and ditiching ireland etc ... and the SNP only comes across as anti English (though to be fair that could be the brit press .... but from what i recall the paying for education is an anti English not anti Welsh thing/change... though very drunk lol)

SNP = BNP to me .... both grabbing votes by degrading another race colour etc ... but im a brit

Lot's of people are starting to say Scotland's about to become independant. Is it right?

Indecent? Scotland...what the kilts? Oh, independent! I dunno, who cares? I'm part Scottish, and I enjoy the heritage, but independence really doesn't matter to me, I don't even live there. What's the point in it?