NationStates Jolt Archive

Apparently, the town of Berwick-Upon-Tweed, historically contested between the nations of Scotland and England for two centuries until 1482, has voted a willingness to return to Scottish dominion.


Sky News

The Scottish Nationalist Party has fixed its sights on the English border town of Berwick upon Tweed as its next battleground with England.

Christine Grahame, MSP for southern Scotland, has "invited" the people of Berwick to "come back into the fold" and swap their allegiance from England to Scotland.

Historically, the town has been a battleground between England and Scotland for centuries.

It has changed hands between the two nations no less than 13 times and was last won by the English in 1482.

But in a poll, organised by local newspaper the Berwick Advertiser, 77% of all those who voted said they would like to be governed by Scotland once more.

Keith Hamblin, deputy editor, said: "I was surprised by the result. I am a Berwick man born and bred and I regard myself very much as English.

"I think, though, that people feel the quality of life is better in Scotland since devolution.

"Also, we are losing our borough council next year. It's being replaced by a new unitary authority, so all our administration wil be run 60 miles away further south.

"So people feel they're going to be left out even further on the frozen north."

The town already has Scottish loyalties when it comes to football.

Its team, Berwick Rangers FC, has played in the Scottish league for years.

Ms Grahame hopes the rest of the town will also become fans of the idea of being Scottish.


Once again, a very petty issue raised by the SNP, once again designed to do pretty much nothing except antagonize the British government. An interesting issue nonetheless.

Personally, I would welcome the citizens of Berwick-Upon-Tweed into the Scottish fold once more. I propose the Scottish government makes a symbolic gesture by sending a detachment from the 32nd Scottish Signals Regiment to the town in order to protect Scottish citizens from the illegitimate English government.

The local population will likely do well under devolutionised Scottish rule. They'll get to keep thier own borough council for one thing, and won't be forced to accept a unitary authority.

BTW creating more unitary authorities is the latest attempt by Westminster to further centralise and diminish local government. UA's basically replace all individual town councils with a larger county-wide local government, where decisions crucial to communities are being decided for them up to 50+ miles away by repesentatives of which a majority are elected by other towns. A waste of tax payers money, and local people are even further removed from decisions about thier community than before. Utterly disgraceful in my opinion.

Also, I'd imagine Berwick-Upon-Tweed must be in need of foreign assistance, rebuilding it's infrastructure and such after being at war with Russia for no less than 113 years. The Crimean War must have taken it's toll. :(

So, welcome back proud Scottish citizens of Berwick! :D

So what does NSG think?

Welcome them with a banquet of deep fried everything say I

Welcome them with a banquet of deep fried everything say I

Naturally. :D

Once we have Berwick-Upon-Tweed back within our borders, we can rebuild a Greater Scotland once again! The Border regions will flock to our banner.

I wouldn't trust a local newspaper for accurate opinions of the population surely?

but the scrapping of local councils is more to improve the overall efficiency of running the place especially in areas like waste disposal, schooling and public parks now that England is increasingly connected and more centralized

you seem to somehow like your local council...odd that :p

I really don't get why some Scottish people want total devolution. It's not as if, once you cross the border, the issues that government deals with is totally different.

I support Scotlands nationalism!

Also, I'd imagine Berwick-Upon-Tweed must be in need of foreign assistance, rebuilding it's infrastructure and such after being at war with Russia for no less than 113 years. The Crimean War must have taken it's toll. :(
Not actually true:

The BBC programme Nationwide investigated this story in the 1970s, and found that while Berwick was not mentioned in the Treaty of Paris, it was not mentioned in the declaration of war either. The question remained of whether Berwick had ever been at war with Russia in the first place. The true situation is that since the Wales and Berwick Act 1746 had already made it clear that all references to England included Berwick, the town had no special status at either the start or end of the war.

And an interesting post-script:

Nevertheless, in 1966 a Soviet official waited upon the Mayor of Berwick, Councillor Robert Knox, and a peace treaty was formally signed. Mr Knox is reputed to have said "Please tell the Russian people that they can sleep peacefully in their beds." To complicate the issue, some have noted that Knox did not have any authority with regard to foreign relations, and thus may have exceeded his powers as mayor in concluding a peace treaty


Also, a couple of things on the article - firstly, it does say "77% of those who voted". What about those who didn't vote? Secondly, what was the question? If it was "Should Berwick-upon-Tweed be part of England or part of Scotland?", the result would be vaguely interesting. If it was "Should Berwick-upon-Tweed be part of Scotland?", it's highly likely that many people voted yes just because it's the positive answer.

Jeez, I'm taking this too seriously.

I support Scotlands nationalism!

please don't stab me :p

I really don't get why some Scottish people want total devolution. It's not as if, once you cross the border, the issues that government deals with is totally different.

Personally, I think both the Unionists and the Seperatists are wrong. It's ridiculous that the argument has been limited to either complete independence for Scotland, or the current unbalanced status quo, with devolution for Scotland, Wales and N Ireland, but none for England.

I'd like to see Britain become a confederation, with Scotland, England, Wales and N Ireland being governed by thier own parliaments, with control over all domestic and economic policy, and the Westminster government limited to defense and foreign policy for Britain as a whole.

If they want to be part of Scotland, why not? I think it should be up to the town's population to decide.

It's the final result of a couple hundred years' worth of sending Scots into Berwick. Soon it will be ours again! Inevitably, we will reinstate the border of Hadrian's Wall!!

That said, I do think Berwick should return to Scottish government. And having the Scottish border moving slowly but steadily to Hadrian's wall isn't too bad an idea either. To accomplish this, each year the Scots will move the border by one third of a meter. Eventually, right when the Scots are closing in, the English will suddenly look out and ask what happened, but it will be too late.

If that's what they want there doesn't seem to be any harm in the town being Scottish.

If that's what they want there doesn't seem to be any harm in the town being Scottish.

Gordon Brown, being the British nationalist he is, won't allow any kind of symbolic concession such as this to the nationalists, sadly.

Sure why not have another town to join Scotland.
What i'm wondering is, has England got that bad that towns want to move up? Historically folks wanted to go anywhere but Scotland.

Hey that's an interesting idea.
For towns that don't like their government, they could form a little country of their own (by taking all benefits of the origional government, but refuse to pay taxes).

Personally i think the government should move the entire House of Commons, to the centre of Britain. So North England, away from the South, and representing a unified Britain, not one ruled by some people who can afford houses in South East England.

Nah Ah'm jest ahn ignernt American, buht ain't ya'll jest one country anyhow?

But seriously, how strong are the sentiments of nationalism amongst the English, Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish/Ulsters?

A great wave of nationalism flooded Scotland. (Think of that guy from 'the rock', the old guy with his accent, I can't think of his name....:confused:)

Sean Connery?

But seriously, how strong are the sentiments of nationalism amongst the English, Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish/Ulsters?

A great wave of nationalism flooded Scotland. (Think of that guy from 'the rock', the old guy with his accent, I can't think of his name....:confused:)

But seriously, how strong are the sentiments of nationalism amongst the English, Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish/Ulsters?
Well, put it this way. The SNP is in charge in Scotland and Plaid Cymru are in charge in Wales. Northern Ireland has huge sectarian divides between Loyalists and Nationalists who are currently in a cosy relationship in Stormont. English nationalism it is a little more vague and based around either football and/or distrust of Scotland, with logic I don't really understand.

But we'll muddle along together, just as we always have.

A great wave of nationalism flooded Scotland. (Think of that guy from 'the rock', the old guy with his accent, I can't think of his name....:confused:)
Not really. Unionists still hold a parliamentary majority in Holyrood.

Sean Connery?

That's him:) Sean Connery.

I really should stop smoking weed...

Nah Ah’m jest ahn ignernt American, buht ain’t ya’ll jest one country anyhow?
Aye, ya dobber, but thay Englush bastuhds’ll fair gettit fae us when we’ve got their toon, ya ken!

We'll chib yer heid ya bass!

But seriously, how strong are the sentiments of nationalism amongst the English, Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish/Ulsters?
Among quite a large bit of each respective society, fairly rampant.

Well, put it this way. The SNP is in charge in Scotland and Plaid Cymru are in charge in Wales. Northern Ireland has huge sectarian divides between Loyalists and Nationalists who are currently in a cosy relationship in Stormont. English nationalism it is a little more vague and based around either football and/or distrust of Scotland, with logic I don't really understand.

But we'll muddle along together, just as we always have.

Interesting. Thank you.

At the very least, Berwick’s move to Scotland (if it happens) will make driving through the Borders slightly less confusing.

As you approach Berwick-upon-Tweed from the road south, you pass into and out of Scotland several times, as the road crosses repeatedly over the River Tweed which marks the border of England and Scotland.

I really don't get why some Scottish people want total devolution. It's not as if, once you cross the border, the issues that government deals with is totally different.

No, but they should be. I am all for England, i love the place, its one of my favourite countries. However, when the UK parliament legislates, it does so taking into account the balanced needs of all of its protectorate, therefore the decision cannot be what is 100% best for Scotland as compromise is inevitible and in this context essential.
What I want for Scotland is a government that when making decisions, does so safe in the knowledge that the factors it has to take into account are solely what is best for the Scots people.

Nah Ah'm jest ahn ignernt American, buht ain't ya'll jest one country anyhow?

But seriously, how strong are the sentiments of nationalism amongst the English, Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish/Ulsters?

We are one country in the same way that the USA is one country. Just with more historical autonomy in worldwide events. Texas will never get to put a team into the world cup.

On the second point, very in places, not so in others.
English (and for that matter British) suffers from the problem of having been taken over by Yobs. There is nothing wrong with English nationalism or British as long as it is confined to wanting to further the aims of England/Britain as a country. It has sadly been put in with a tradition of racism, insularity and dep rooted xenophobia. True nationalism embraces the opposites of all of these.

Well, put it this way. The SNP is in charge in Scotland and Plaid Cymru are in charge in Wales. Northern Ireland has huge sectarian divides between Loyalists and Nationalists who are currently in a cosy relationship in Stormont. English nationalism it is a little more vague and based around either football and/or distrust of Scotland, with logic I don't really understand.

But we'll muddle along together, just as we always have.

I don't think England distrusts Scotland, i would say, and this is based on having spent time living in both countries, that south of the border, an Englishman's ignorance of Scotland is staggering. This is not a moan and trying to disparage the English, but it is fair to say that Scotland just is not something that the average Englishman thinks about regularly. This is all based on my experience.

Not really. Unionists still hold a parliamentary majority in Holyrood.

Parties with a unionist agenda do. And therefore it would be fair to say that voters could be said to have voted for unionism. However the MSP's themselves if taken their views into account, it could be said, if one assumes that a voter votes for the MSP not the party, that there could be a different outcome. I don't know enough numbers to give exact details.


AMK
xxx

Welcome them with a banquet of deep fried everything say I

Can you deep fry brussels sprouts?

AMK
xxx

Personally i think the government should move the entire House of Commons, to the centre of Britain. So North England, away from the South, and representing a unified Britain, not one ruled by some people who can afford houses in South East England.
Free Mercia!

Go Scotland! Scots are awesome!

No, but they should be. I am all for England, i love the place, its one of my favourite countries. However, when the UK parliament legislates, it does so taking into account the balanced needs of all of its protectorate, therefore the decision cannot be what is 100% best for Scotland as compromise is inevitible and in this context essential.
What I want for Scotland is a government that when making decisions, does so safe in the knowledge that the factors it has to take into account are solely what is best for the Scots people.

The same could be said of any area in the country that has its own unique features and issues. Why is Scotland special in this regard? Should Yorkshire or Cornwall be granted similar devolution? All central government decisions are compromises over the whole country, this is what local government is meant to balance out.

Well, put it this way. The SNP is in charge in Scotland and Plaid Cymru are in charge in Wales. Northern Ireland has huge sectarian divides between Loyalists and Nationalists who are currently in a cosy relationship in Stormont. English nationalism it is a little more vague and based around either football and/or distrust of Scotland, with logic I don't really understand.

But we'll muddle along together, just as we always have.


Interesting. Thank you.

In Wales that's not true. Plaid are the junior partner of a coalition with Labour and don't really wield much power at all.

As for England, the North West region got offered a referendum on a regional parliament along the lines of the Welsh Assembly etc and turned it down, that pretty much ended the English parliament idea for the moment.


Personally i think the government should move the entire House of Commons, to the centre of Britain. So North England, away from the South, and representing a unified Britain, not one ruled by some people who can afford houses in South East England.
Isle of Man is about as close as we can get I think. Though without EIRE included I suppose it'd move further east somewhere.

Isle of Man is about as close as we can get I think. Though without EIRE included I suppose it'd move further east somewhere.

But then instead of having bastards in Westminster, we'd just have bastards in Tynwald. On a funny stepped mound.

Still I suppose it'd be a change.

I wonder how much Scotch Whiskey used to to bribe them town to join Scotland? :p

I'm surprised, but I don't really care either way.

I can't see the English giving up such a strategic fortress upon the river Tweed though. It would open up entire NorthEeast to the maurauding Scots! York would have to be re-fortified. :p

At the very least, Berwick’s move to Scotland (if it happens) will make driving through the Borders slightly less confusing.

As you approach Berwick-upon-Tweed from the road south, you pass into and out of Scotland several times, as the road crosses repeatedly over the River Tweed which marks the border of England and Scotland.
Er, which road are you driving on? Cos it's sure as hell not the A1...
I'm surprised, but I don't really care either way.

I can't see the English giving up such a strategic fortress upon the river Tweed though. It would open up entire NorthEeast to the maurauding Scots! York would have to be re-fortified. :p

Oi! What about Newcastle! *bitches* We've got plenty of castles to throw things at the Scots before they reach York (which is southern).

Anyway, I grew up in Newcastle, so I get to speak for the region, yay! Berwick's always been a funny place, in many ways it's much more focused around Scotland than England - its children's rugby teams play in Scottish leagues (mainly cos the Scots are so much closer), as does the local football side. I'm pretty sure people from Berwick and some of the border towns pretty much ignore the border. Now, as to whether people actually want to be part of Scotland - I reckon they do - it's got a lot going for it - better healthcare, free university education, etc. That said, there would be a hell of a lot of work involved to switch over to Scottish rule, such as changing over school districts, healthcare, emergency services, local government etc. All those little English Heritage signs would have to go, too. So yeah, while the people might like the idea, it's not really practicable.

Er, which road are you driving on? Cos it's sure as hell not the A1...


Oi! What about Newcastle! *bitches* We've got plenty of castles to throw things at the Scots before they reach York (which is southern).

Anyway, I grew up in Newcastle, so I get to speak for the region, yay! Berwick's always been a funny place, in many ways it's much more focused around Scotland than England - its children's rugby teams play in Scottish leagues (mainly cos the Scots are so much closer), as does the local football side. I'm pretty sure people from Berwick and some of the border towns pretty much ignore the border. Now, as to whether people actually want to be part of Scotland - I reckon they do - it's got a lot going for it - better healthcare, free university education, etc. That said, there would be a hell of a lot of work involved to switch over to Scottish rule, such as changing over school districts, healthcare, emergency services, local government etc. All those little English Heritage signs would have to go, too. So yeah, while the people might like the idea, it's not really practicable.

Let's face it, Newcastle's expendable. Let the Scots exhaust themselves looting & pillaging there. The reserve will gather in York, then sally forth & crush them.

Let's face it, Newcastle's expendable. Let the Scots exhaust themselves looting & pillaging there. The reserve will gather in York, then sally forth & crush them.

To be honest, we'd probably join them and head south, a'lootin' and a'pillagin'.

To be honest, we'd probably join them and head south, a'lootin' and a'pillagin'.

With a few boat loads of the French no doubt. :p

The same could be said of any area in the country that has its own unique features and issues. Why is Scotland special in this regard? Should Yorkshire or Cornwall be granted similar devolution? All central government decisions are compromises over the whole country, this is what local government is meant to balance out.

Yes you have a point. However, Scotland is seen as a country in its on right, we have our own legal, education and banking systems. Cornwall is a duchy within england.
The Isle of Man has its own parliament, why can Scotland not have? Laws made in the UK do not affect the Isle of Man, however they affect Scotland.
The Isle of Man needs far more money per head of population to survive than Scotland would/does.
Scotland fought wars of independence against England for hundreds of years, and was eventually sold out by a government that had nothing but personal self interest aforethought.
There is a considerable nationalist movement in Scotland. The Yorkshire national party does not hold any governmental posts in the UK. Either does the Cornwall national party.
Where there is a significant independence movement pertaining to a particular, defineable geographic area, it is only right that the area gets to debate and seriously discuss the prospect of independence.

AMK
xxx

Shotgun no being the wan that gets hung, drawn and quartered this time!!!!

(f**king hurt last time)

AMK
xxx

Aye, ya dobber, but thay Englush bastuhds’ll fair gettit fae us when we’ve got their toon, ya ken!

We'll chib yer heid ya bass!




I dare say we'll raise an army, rally under the St George and The Union Flag, and march on Edinburgh in good spirits and crush the haggis-bothering Scottish heathens if they get uppity and get above their station again.



Baa! Baa! Baa!


Their best fighting man was William Wallace. And he was a jew-hating Australian, as it turned out.


We soon put him to the rack, the damned rabble-rousing terrorist.

Time for some rebellious Scot crushing

I dare say we'll raise an army, rally under the St George and The Union Flag, and march on Edinburgh in good spirits and crush the haggis-bothering Scottish heathens if they get uppity and get above their station again.



Baa! Baa! Baa!


Their best fighting man was William Wallace. And he was a jew-hating Australian, as it turned out.


We soon put him to the rack, the damned rabble-rousing terrorist.

This made me spit beer over my monitor! :D

I Inevitably, we will reinstate the border of Hadrian's Wall!!


Erm, I hope not. Newcastle's on the wrong side of the wall.

I don't think that Northumbria would miss Berwick much. Coming back into Scotland would be good for both Berwick and the Borders. Berwick is being marginalised by English local government but if brought back into Scotland would immediately become the most important town in the Borders, just as it was before Edward I killed everyone in the town.

Good for Berwick, good for the Borders and good for Scotland.

march on Edinburgh

After we've put the Scots in their place we should turn to the Welsh and thank them for being nice, quiet subservient members of the UK.:fluffle:

Then start looking south over the Channel......:mp5:

It has been a while since a good ol' war between England and Scotland. Time for a ruckus I say!

That said, there would be a hell of a lot of work involved to switch over to Scottish rule, such as changing over school districts, healthcare, emergency services, local government etc. All those little English Heritage signs would have to go, too. So yeah, while the people might like the idea, it's not really practicable.

Yep, that's exactly why Slovakia didn't bother to separate from the Czech Republic and why Yugoslavia's still in one piece. It was just too much hard work to swap the signs over. Who'd want to spend 2-3 days swapping signs over when they could be watching Jeremy Kyle instead? I'd vote for it but can't be arsed getting out of my chair.:rolleyes:

war between England and Scotland

Couldn't ask for better timing, the local Scottish Regiment's off to Afghanistan, we'll have a free run near me. ;)

Isle of Man is about as close as we can get I think. Though without EIRE included I suppose it'd move further east somewhere.

When I was very small (about 9) I thought that we should have a federal govt on the IoM with seats for Scottish, English, Welsh, Northern Irish and Irish representatives. This would mean extending an invite to the Irish to 'come home'.
Later I thought that they should also include representation for our island outposts that might otherwise be ignored - Gibralter, Channel Islands, IoM and so on.

I think it's still a nice ideal, though perhaps unrealistic. It's very unlikely that the Irish would ever agree to it. :mp5:

Yes you have a point. However, Scotland is seen as a country in its on right, we have our own legal, education and banking systems. Cornwall is a duchy within england.
The Isle of Man has its own parliament, why can Scotland not have? Laws made in the UK do not affect the Isle of Man, however they affect Scotland.
The Isle of Man needs far more money per head of population to survive than Scotland would/does.
Scotland fought wars of independence against England for hundreds of years, and was eventually sold out by a government that had nothing but personal self interest aforethought.
When their king became the king of England?


There is a considerable nationalist movement in Scotland. The Yorkshire national party does not hold any governmental posts in the UK. Either does the Cornwall national party.
Where there is a significant independence movement pertaining to a particular, defineable geographic area, it is only right that the area gets to debate and seriously discuss the prospect of independence.

AMK
xxx
They have

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3984387.stm


North East votes 'no' to assembly

It was a bad night for Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott
People in the North East have voted "no" in a referendum on whether to set up an elected regional assembly.
Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott admitted his plans for regional devolution had suffered an "emphatic defeat" on Thursday night.

The total number of people voting against the plans was 696,519 (78%), while 197,310 (22%) voted in favour.

Official figures showed 47.8% of the region's 1.9 million voters took part in the all-postal ballot.

"The North East public have answered in an emphatic way. I am a democrat and I accept that.

"I was surprised by the clear majority and I think there was a number of reasons for that - and claims of more politicians and greater council tax has an effect.

"It was an overwhelming defeat for the proposal put before the North East public. As a government we believe in letting the people have their say," Mr Prescott said.


"No" campaigner John Elliott was delighted with the result
John Elliott, chairman of the North East Says No campaign, was pleased with the result.

He said: "I'm not interested in giving the government a bloody nose - I am sure they are honourable people. But I would rather John Prescott has two weeks' embarrassment than us be saddled with a £25m white elephant."

Conservative spokesman for the regions Bernard Jenkin said the vote would mean the end of plans for a north-east assembly.

He told the BBC: "The whole idea of regional government has been blown out of the water by this vote.

The whole idea of regional government has been blown out of the water by this vote

Bernard Jenkin MP


The end for regional devolution?
"People are fed up with being dictated to from Westminster but they don't want a toothless talking shop as offered by the Labour Party."

Local government minister Nick Raynsford said the government had to go away and "reflect" on the North East result.

But he refused to rule out holding two further referendums in Yorkshire and the Humber and the North West.

"I don't want to make an instant decision on anything. There are important lessons to be learned from yesterday's referendum and we need to consider them in the cool light of day," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

'Fresh debate'

Liberal Democrat regions spokesman Ed Davey suggested the result might have been different if the government had promised the assembly more powers.

There was still a need for power to be devolved from Whitehall, he said, and more thinking was needed about the best way to do it.

Merseyside Labour MP George Howarth said the North East referendum showed voters had "no appetite" for assemblies based on areas they do not identify with.

He said the result meant "fresh debate" could be held about local government for regions based on cities such as Liverpool or Manchester.

But the Yes For North West campaign says the vote must take place.

Ministers believe assemblies will give a voice to regions distant from Westminster and return power to local people from the non-elected bodies that oversee many services.

But anti-regional assembly campaigners argued the new tier of government would be an expensive talking shop with very little real power.

BBC political editor Andrew Marr said many in the No Camp were Eurosceptic campaigners and ministers would need to reflect on the lessons for its referendum on the new European constitution.


Of course they might have wanted a different type etc. But essentially they said no, and the idea hasn't really come up since.

But seriously, how strong are the sentiments of nationalism amongst the English, Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish/Ulsters?

Fairly strong, the reason why the British are so good at winning wars, is because during times of so called peace we english are beating up the scots, the scots beat on the welsh and we all leave the irish alone because they like to beat each other up. ;)

However , when an external enemy dares cross our path of destiny, the British unite and all 4 nationalites send their best fighters out to do battle with the enemy(so long as its france) :D

In truth, its more to do with Alex salmon's lust for power than any sane policy, and the british labour party's desire for scottish votes which means coming up with even stupider ideas than salmon has. :headbang:

I wonder how much Scotch Whiskey used to to bribe them town to join Scotland? :p

None: There's no such thing.

(Scotch is "Whisky", without the 'e'...)

I'd like to see Britain become a confederation, with Scotland, England, Wales and N Ireland being governed by thier own parliaments, with control over all domestic and economic policy, and the Westminster government limited to defense and foreign policy for Britain as a whole.

You're applying logic to the problem! Logic and politics are like matter and antimatter (in Star Trek, at least) or the Ultimate Answer and the Ultimate Question, the two cannot coexist.

The SNP can kiss my sassenach arse.

If I were in GB, I'd much prefer being Scottish over English, with the exception of kilts. Don't think I could wear a kilt.
Kilts are actually OK to wear, and it's not like people wear them all the time, after all.

Instead, they get worn for special occassions.

If I were in GB, I'd much prefer being Scottish over English, with the exception of kilts. Don't think I could wear a kilt.

If I were in GB, I'd much prefer being Scottish over English, with the exception of kilts. Don't think I could wear a kilt.

Come on, we all know you look absolutely adorable in a skirt.

If I were in GB, I'd much prefer being Scottish over English, with the exception of kilts. Don't think I could wear a kilt.

Kilts are possibly one of the manliest forms of attire i've ever worn to be honest. Much better than a tux for sure

I wonder how much Scotch Whiskey used to to bribe them town to join Scotland? :p
Lawks-a-mercy! There is no such thing as Scotch 'whiskey'. That's 'whisky', ignoramus, and don't you forget it.

More seriously, Alex Salmond's great, other than that he's not at all interested in the wellbeing of the rest of the UK. If only we had his policies in Greater Blighty...

I'm stunned that other than a very brief mention in the OP, no one's commented on the fact that Berwick's football team - Berwick Rangers - already play in the Scottish league, thereby joining such luminaries as Monaco, Toronto FC, Wrexham, Cardiff, Swansea and Wellington Phoenix as teams that play outside their recognised FIFA nation.

As to the status of Berwick itself, this is just a bit of mischief making that's unlikely to go anywhere, not least for the potential precedent of having individual parts of Ulster vote to join the Republic and the potential precedent of large parts of Monmouthshire vote to leave Wales for England.

But no doubt that canny Mr. Salmon is rubbing his hands with glee, as he does - metaphorically or not - every time he sees an excuse for needling Westminster.

Er, which road are you driving on? Cos it’s sure as hell not the A1...
No, one of the windy minor roads.

I don’t know it’s number.

Yes you have a point. However, Scotland is seen as a country in its on right, we have our own legal, education and banking systems. Cornwall is a duchy within england.
The Isle of Man has its own parliament, why can Scotland not have? Laws made in the UK do not affect the Isle of Man, however they affect Scotland.
The Isle of Man needs far more money per head of population to survive than Scotland would/does.
Scotland fought wars of independence against England for hundreds of years, and was eventually sold out by a government that had nothing but personal self interest aforethought.
The 'personal interest' being that Scotland was virtually bankrupt after the Darien scheme, had no useful industries or agricultural produce that would mean they could be successful in world trade, and from the reign of James VI (I of England) became far too entwined with the fate of England anyway as a result of said monarch taking so much influence from the parliament of Scotland and giving it to the crown.

Yep, that's exactly why Slovakia didn't bother to separate from the Czech Republic and why Yugoslavia's still in one piece. It was just too much hard work to swap the signs over. Who'd want to spend 2-3 days swapping signs over when they could be watching Jeremy Kyle instead? I'd vote for it but can't be arsed getting out of my chair.:rolleyes:

I see your point, but that's a different case. They were whole nations declaring independence/seceding/whatever, whereas this is one small town. And for that particular town, changing over would take quite a lot of work. Oh it would be doable, but I don't think the political will is there now.

When their king became the king of England?

Nah nah, that was, theoretically ok, it was the union of the parliaments in 1707 that f**ked the whole thing up.

The 'personal interest' being that Scotland was virtually bankrupt after the Darien scheme, had no useful industries or agricultural produce that would mean they could be successful in world trade, and from the reign of James VI (I of England) became far too entwined with the fate of England anyway as a result of said monarch taking so much influence from the parliament of Scotland and giving it to the crown.

Meh, thats a very one dimensional view. I dare say the facts you have presented are true, however the problem being that the parliament in Scotland was facing the music for their own bugger ups and couldn't find a way out.
This saved their skin and prompted one of Burn's best ever poems. Parcel O'Rogues.
Scotland must be the only country in the world who managed to lose autonomy when their crown took over the crown of a neighbouring country. Only in scotland.
For hundreds of years the English had been vying for control of Edinburgh castle. In the 18th century, we handed them the keys.
In the 16th century at the Battle of Flodden Field, Scotland had finally a chance to win the wars of independence and strike a mortal blow to the English imperial ambitions north of the border.
They had a vastly superior army (the scots) and had control of the high ground where defeat was virtually impossible. So to level the playing field, the Scots walked off the high ground, gave it to England and got slaughtered.
In doing so, prompting the writing of perhaps the most beautiful song written in the Scots language. The floo'rs of the forest.
Gotta hand it to us Scot's, we know how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory every time!

AMK
xxx

Fareweel to all our Scottish fame
Fareweel our ancient glory
Fareweel even to our Scottish name
Sae famed in martial story
Now Sark rins to the Solway sands
And Tweed rins to the Ocean.
To mark where Englands province stands
Sic a parcel of rogues in a nation

What force or guile could not subdue
Through many warlike ages
Is wrought now by a coward few
For hireling traitors wages
The English steel we could disdain
Secure in valours station.
But English gold has been our bane
Sic a parcel of rogues in a nation.

I would, ere I had seen the day
When treason thus could sell us
My auld grey head had lain in clay
Wi’ Bruce and loyal Wallace
But pith and power ‘till my last hour
I’ll make this declaration.
We were bought and sold for English gold
Sic a parcel of rogues in a nation.


The Floo'rs o The Forest:

I've heard the lilting, at the yowe-milking,
Lasses a-lilting before dawn o' day
But now they are moaning on ilka green loaning
"The Flowers of the Forest are a' wede away"

As buchts, in the morning, nae blythe lads are scorning
The lasses are lonely and dowie and wae
Nae daffin', nae gabbin', but sighing and sobbing
Ilk ane lifts her leglen, and hies her away

In hairst, at the shearing, nae youths now are jeering
The Bandsters are lyart, and runkled and grey
At fair or at preaching, nae wooing, nae fleeching
The Flowers of the Forest are a' wede away

At e'en, in the gloaming, nae swankies are roaming
'Bout stacks wi' the lasses at bogle to play
But ilk ane sits drearie, lamenting her dearie
The Flowers of the Forest are a' wede away

Dule and wae for the order sent our lads to the Border
The English, for ance, by guile wan the day
The Flowers of the Forest, that foucht aye the foremost
The prime o' our land are cauld in the clay

We'll hae nae mair lilting, at the yowe-milking
Women and bairns are dowie and wae
Sighing and moaning, on ilka green loaning
The Flowers of the forest are all wede away

AMK
xxx

I'm stunned that other than a very brief mention in the OP, no one's commented on the fact that Berwick's football team - Berwick Rangers - already play in the Scottish league, thereby joining such luminaries as Monaco, Toronto FC, Wrexham, Cardiff, Swansea and Wellington Phoenix as teams that play outside their recognised FIFA nation.


Thats probably because the Wee Gers are as important to Scottish Football as Micronesia is to world affairs.

Meh, thats a very one dimensional view. I dare say the facts you have presented are true, however the problem being that the parliament in Scotland was facing the music for their own bugger ups and couldn't find a way out.
In their defence, the bugger ups were mainly as a result of their attempts to place Scotland as an important economic and political 'player' of the time. Geographically, however, they were too distant from Europe to actually do this, so it spectacularly backfired.

Nah nah, that was, theoretically ok, it was the union of the parliaments in 1707 that f**ked the whole thing up.



Meh, thats a very one dimensional view. I dare say the facts you have presented are true, however the problem being that the parliament in Scotland was facing the music for their own bugger ups and couldn't find a way out.
Not really, Darien was funded by large amounts of money invested by the average person in the street. Parliament backed it but it wasn't solely their decision.


This saved their skin and prompted one of Burn's best ever poems. Parcel O'Rogues.
Scotland must be the only country in the world who managed to lose autonomy when their crown took over the crown of a neighbouring country. Only in scotland.
Union isn't loss of autonomy technically. And the crowns were unified rather than one taking over the other.


For hundreds of years the English had been vying for control of Edinburgh castle. In the 18th century, we handed them the keys.
In the 16th century at the Battle of Flodden Field, Scotland had finally a chance to win the wars of independence and strike a mortal blow to the English imperial ambitions north of the border.
They had a vastly superior army (the scots) and had control of the high ground where defeat was virtually impossible. So to level the playing field, the Scots walked off the high ground, gave it to England and got slaughtered.
In doing so, prompting the writing of perhaps the most beautiful song written in the Scots language. The floo'rs of the forest.
Gotta hand it to us Scot's, we know how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory every time!
No. They had a larger army, but was made up of inexperienced soldiers against English veterans and the scots had pikes which put them at a disadvantage when fighting on uneven ground against the bills the English were using.

They walked off the high ground because the English had superior artillery and would've sat at the bottom and happily shelled the Scots to pieces.

The Union of the Parliaments was a result of the English squeezing the scots economically until they couldn't survive on their own. Darien was a long shot at escaping this, it failed but it was the only way they were really going to avoid union.

Yes you have a point. However, Scotland is seen as a country in its on right, we have our own legal, education and banking systems. Cornwall is a duchy within england.
The Isle of Man has its own parliament, why can Scotland not have? Laws made in the UK do not affect the Isle of Man, however they affect Scotland.
The Isle of Man needs far more money per head of population to survive than Scotland would/does.
Scotland fought wars of independence against England for hundreds of years, and was eventually sold out by a government that had nothing but personal self interest aforethought.
There is a considerable nationalist movement in Scotland. The Yorkshire national party does not hold any governmental posts in the UK. Either does the Cornwall national party.
Where there is a significant independence movement pertaining to a particular, defineable geographic area, it is only right that the area gets to debate and seriously discuss the prospect of independence.

In general, I'm not against Scotland and Wales having more autonomy than they currently do, but I do not see the advantage in declaring independence. It seems unnecessarily reactionary and ignoring the links that exist between the countries. Although, I'm not actually sure what the SNP's aims are, and how far they extend.

In their defence, the bugger ups were mainly as a result of their attempts to place Scotland as an important economic and political 'player' of the time. Geographically, however, they were too distant from Europe to actually do this, so it spectacularly backfired.

That is pretty much exactly the case. Naiive and optimistic to the point of destructive. Scotland became a world powerhouse after the union of the parliaments, and this would probably have happened union or not, however at the time, the world was not needing what Scotland had to offer. There is NO doubt at all that Scotland benefited hugely in certain aspects from the union as its free access to the British Imperial market gave it a virtual world monopoly in many areas.

Not really, Darien was funded by large amounts of money invested by the average person in the street. Parliament backed it but it wasn't solely their decision.

Union isn't loss of autonomy technically. And the crowns were unified rather than one taking over the other.

No. They had a larger army, but was made up of inexperienced soldiers against English veterans and the scots had pikes which put them at a disadvantage when fighting on uneven ground against the bills the English were using.
They walked off the high ground because the English had superior artillery and would've sat at the bottom and happily shelled the Scots to pieces.
The Union of the Parliaments was a result of the English squeezing the scots economically until they couldn't survive on their own. Darien was a long shot at escaping this, it failed but it was the only way they were really going to avoid union.

Darien was a lovely idea that in typical Scottish fashion, went tits up. It was an unsustainable colony in an area that really did not need it. It was masterminded by the government and the populace bought into it wholesale. The focus of blame for the failure would always fall at the Scottish Government as they were the authoritative force behind the move.

The crowns were indeed unified, but for gods sake, we finally had a Scottish king on the throne of England after how many hundreds of years of the English crown trying bloodily to do the opposite. And somehow we manage not to use that to our advantage. Again... only Scotland can pull that one off.

Artillery can only shell men who are not nearby. There were many times in the preceding days/hours to the final battle when the Scots could have used their position to bring to bear a force that would have isolated and removed the english cannon from the equation.
Inexperience, and not having my textbooks to hand, less than overwhelming loyalty from certain areas of the Scottish "nobility" meant that Scotland turned what was a very very good standpoint into one of certain doom. Imagine the battle equivalent of Iran and Peru. We had the ability to beat them all, we did the hard bit, ie tanked the best team in the world and got to the high ground, then a loss and a draw in the easy stages left us going home in tatters. Its recurrent throughout our history. Gotta love Ally Macleod.

Darien was more a cause for the need for a union than the effect of trying to escape the idea.
Union of the crowns is too simplistic a catalyst for the union of parliaments, it was not within the realms of possibility that the crowns could be split again after king James VI's death or proceeding generations. Other factors intervened to ensure that wouldnt happen...speed bonny boat...

In general, I'm not against Scotland and Wales having more autonomy than they currently do, but I do not see the advantage in declaring independence. It seems unnecessarily reactionary and ignoring the links that exist between the countries. Although, I'm not actually sure what the SNP's aims are, and how far they extend.

Reactionary? Its over 300 years since the union of the parliaments. How is that a reaction? That is a long thought out response if anything.
The links that exist between the countries were forced upon both countries when to be honest, only the nobility of the countries wanted it. The English peasantry were completely none the wiser, and probably a bit nonplussed by their sudden new aquaintences north of the border.
If you do not see the advantage yourself in declaring independence, then let those who do, give it a shot and you may see why.
If I can cite a few examples in recent years of Independence bringing benefits, Scandanavia used to be about 1 or maybe 2 countries, now we all look to Norway, Finland, Denmark etc as shining beacons of how we should al live. Im sure the French didnt want to wait 300 years after the 2nd world war for their country back, but thats ok coz it was the Nazis.
The Czechs and Slovaks seem to be doing fine, as do Hungary, Austria, Australia, India, Croatia, Bosnia, Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, China (Used to be Japan a good while back) England (used to be Rome if we are really looking back), USA, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, shall I go on?

Can we get the same chance please?

AMK
xxx

That is pretty much exactly the case. Naiive and optimistic to the point of destructive. Scotland became a world powerhouse after the union of the parliaments, and this would probably have happened union or not, however at the time, the world was not needing what Scotland had to offer. There is NO doubt at all that Scotland benefited hugely in certain aspects from the union as its free access to the British Imperial market gave it a virtual world monopoly in many areas.



Darien was a lovely idea that in typical Scottish fashion, went tits up. It was an unsustainable colony in an area that really did not need it. It was masterminded by the government and the populace bought into it wholesale. The focus of blame for the failure would always fall at the Scottish Government as they were the authoritative force behind the move.

Not really. England was never going to let Scotland rise as a potential rival. Blockading trade and the like. Noose was slowly but inexorably tightening.


The crowns were indeed unified, but for gods sake, we finally had a Scottish king on the throne of England after how many hundreds of years of the English crown trying bloodily to do the opposite. And somehow we manage not to use that to our advantage. Again... only Scotland can pull that one off.

Only Scotland? Henry VII was Welsh after all, yet his son oversaw the Legal Union of England and Wales which was in effect the subsuming of Wales under England. Both him and James I saw the way forward as unification and despite their being a Welsh/Scottish king, England was always going to be the dominating power in a union.


Artillery can only shell men who are not nearby. There were many times in the preceding days/hours to the final battle when the Scots could have used their position to bring to bear a force that would have isolated and removed the english cannon from the equation.
Inexperience, and not having my textbooks to hand, less than overwhelming loyalty from certain areas of the Scottish "nobility" meant that Scotland turned what was a very very good standpoint into one of certain doom. Imagine the battle equivalent of Iran and Peru. We had the ability to beat them all, we did the hard bit, ie tanked the best team in the world and got to the high ground, then a loss and a draw in the easy stages left us going home in tatters. Its recurrent throughout our history. Gotta love Ally Macleod.

Wouldn't that be the 'walking off high ground' that you complained about earlier. Also see Wales' Euro 2004 qualifying campaign, beat Italy, lose out to Serbia and Montenegro


Darien was more a cause for the need for a union than the effect of trying to escape the idea.
Union of the crowns is too simplistic a catalyst for the union of parliaments, it was not within the realms of possibility that the crowns could be split again after king James VI's death or proceeding generations. Other factors intervened to ensure that wouldnt happen...speed bonny boat...

See above, Scotland would've remained independent for longer but would've just got strangled by the expanding English empire.

Darien was an excellent theory, it was essentially the Panama canal centuries early. It failed based on poor information as to the local situation. If they'd had better info and gone in militarily, cleared land etc it could well have worked.


Reactionary? Its over 300 years since the union of the parliaments. How is that a reaction? That is a long thought out response if anything.
The links that exist between the countries were forced upon both countries when to be honest, only the nobility of the countries wanted it. The English peasantry were completely none the wiser, and probably a bit nonplussed by their sudden new aquaintences north of the border.
If you do not see the advantage yourself in declaring independence, then let those who do, give it a shot and you may see why.
If I can cite a few examples in recent years of Independence bringing benefits, Scandanavia used to be about 1 or maybe 2 countries, now we all look to Norway, Finland, Denmark etc as shining beacons of how we should al live. Im sure the French didnt want to wait 300 years after the 2nd world war for their country back, but thats ok coz it was the Nazis.
The Czechs and Slovaks seem to be doing fine, as do Hungary, Austria, Australia, India, Croatia, Bosnia, Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, China (Used to be Japan a good while back) England (used to be Rome if we are really looking back), USA, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, shall I go on?

Can we get the same chance please?

AMK
xxx

Interesting definition of the word recent, and I think you'd need to check your Scandinavian history. There's a world of difference between a failed invasion such as the Nazis and the Union that Scotland has experienced for the last 300 or so years.

Aside from all that opinion polls usually show support for greater powers for Scotland but within the UK.

In my opinion, England should just grant Scotland it's complete independence. Just like Ireland should be it's own country and not have a chunk of it's land as private property of the English.

Not really. England was never going to let Scotland rise as a potential rival. Blockading trade and the like. Noose was slowly but inexorably tightening.

Only Scotland? Henry VII was Welsh after all, yet his son oversaw the Legal Union of England and Wales which was in effect the subsuming of Wales under England. Both him and James I saw the way forward as unification and despite their being a Welsh/Scottish king, England was always going to be the dominating power in a union.

Wouldn't that be the 'walking off high ground' that you complained about earlier. Also see Wales' Euro 2004 qualifying campaign, beat Italy, lose out to Serbia and Montenegro

See above, Scotland would've remained independent for longer but would've just got strangled by the expanding English empire.

Darien was an excellent theory, it was essentially the Panama canal centuries early. It failed based on poor information as to the local situation. If they'd had better info and gone in militarily, cleared land etc it could well have worked.

Interesting definition of the word recent, and I think you'd need to check your Scandinavian history. There's a world of difference between a failed invasion such as the Nazis and the Union that Scotland has experienced for the last 300 or so years.

Aside from all that opinion polls usually show support for greater powers for Scotland but within the UK.

It is far too easy to say that the English noose was tightening. For hundreds of years the English economy and military power had been a burden to the development of Scotland. It was no different then and no more difficult than it had been in the past. Mistakes made by the governing powers within Scotland that could have given rise to social change and/or unrest, i maintain, was a defining factor in the union of parliaments.

The cases of Scotland and Wales are different. Where Edward I succeeded very much in achieving Scottish submission during the early period of the wars of independence, he achieved total and inexorable control over wales in this time. He virtually removed the druids as a potent power in the region.
Scotland, whilst not exactly free and doing well, had at least gained some sort of respite after Edward I's death due to his son's lack of military brutality.
It could be said Scotland made strides forward in the early 14th century in this regard, Mel Gibson aside, we managed some nice work.
Scotland was not a wealthy, nor a powerful and not a particularly well placed nation by any manner of means, but it was self sufficcient and had the ability to remain so if its ambitions had been somewhat more realistic and less antagonistic to the powers round about her in whose best interests it was to curtail these ventures.
Darien was an excellent theory, if you think that way, for a nation with the resources and the international standing to uphold herself.

My Scandinavian history reminds me that Finland declared its independence from Russia sometime around the end of WWI. Used to be Swedish, then Russian and is now doing fine on its own.
As a slightly pedantic note, its all well and good to look with retrospect that we don't like the Nazis much. I am sure that the invading armies from England were held in similar regard at the time and the thought of living subservient to such a power would be equally repugnant then as it is now.
As for war crimes. The term had not been coined and the ritual slaughter of undesirable peasants was taken to be a perfectly acceptable way of sorting a problem out. Lucky we have moved on somewhat. We just lock them up in Cuba for 6 years then strap them to an electric chair. ;-)

AMK
xxx

In my opinion, England should just grant Scotland it's complete independence. Just like Ireland should be it's own country and not have a chunk of it's land as private property of the English.

You really need to learn even just a little bit about the UK and Ireland and their relationship to understand just how stupid your post is

You really need to learn even just a little bit about the UK and Ireland and their relationship to understand just how stupid your post is

Awww, you're post is so sweet. I may need to learn more about the relation between the UK and Ireland, but you need some etiquette classes, dear. Ciao!

Awww, you're post is so sweet. I may need to learn more about the relation between the UK and Ireland, but you need some ettiquette classes, dear. Ciao!

This thing you call ettiquette, i'm intrigued. I wonder what it is.
Is it like "et al" but for nice people it's "ett iquette"?
hmmmm

This thing you call ettiquette, i'm intrigued. I wonder what it is.
Is it like "et al" but for nice people it's "ett iquette"?
hmmmm

For your intellectual growth, sir.

Etiquette, one aspect of decorum, is a code that governs the expectations of social behavior, according to the contemporary conventional norm within a society, social class, or group. Usually unwritten, it may be codified in written form. Etiquette usually reflects formulas of conduct in which society or tradition have invested. An etiquette may reflect an underlying ethical code, or in may grow more as a fashion.

Etiquette fundamentally prescribes and restricts the ways in which people interact with each other, and show their respect for other people by conforming to the norms of society.

Modern etiquette instructs people to:

Greet relatives, friends and acquaintances with warmth and respect
Refrain from insults and prying curiosity
Offer hospitality equally and generously to guests
Wear clothing suited to the occasion
Contribute to conversations without dominating them
Offer assistance to those in need
Eat neatly and quietly
Avoid disturbing others with unnecessary noise
Follow the established rules of an organization upon becoming a member
Arrive promptly when expected
Comfort the bereaved
Respond to invitations promptly.
Accept gifts or favors with humility and gratitude.
Acknowledge gifts or favors with prompt tokens of thanks (e.g. a thank-you card).

Agur!

For your intellectual growth, sir.

Etiquette, one aspect of decorum, is a code that governs the expectations of social behavior, according to the contemporary conventional norm within a society, social class, or group. Usually unwritten, it may be codified in written form. Etiquette usually reflects formulas of conduct in which society or tradition have invested. An etiquette may reflect an underlying ethical code, or in may grow more as a fashion.

Etiquette fundamentally prescribes and restricts the ways in which people interact with each other, and show their respect for other people by conforming to the norms of society.

Modern etiquette instructs people to:

Greet relatives, friends and acquaintances with warmth and respect
Refrain from insults and prying curiosity
Offer hospitality equally and generously to guests
Wear clothing suited to the occasion
Contribute to conversations without dominating them
Offer assistance to those in need
Eat neatly and quietly
Avoid disturbing others with unnecessary noise
Follow the established rules of an organization upon becoming a member
Arrive promptly when expected
Comfort the bereaved
Respond to invitations promptly.
Accept gifts or favors with humility and gratitude.
Acknowledge gifts or favors with prompt tokens of thanks (e.g. a thank-you card).

Agur!

Bon chance, mon ami (yes i also have no idea what this means either, somthing like good luck my friend is roughly what i'm aiming for).

But what counts as prying curiousity? Is that like asking personal questions?

And what do you mean by wearing clothing suited to the occaision?

And how far do you offer assisstance to those in need? Does that mean i should give more money to charity, or try to help people cross the road or i dunno, refrain from drinking too much etc.

Bon chance, mon ami (yes i also have no idea what this means either, somthing like good luck my friend is roughly what i'm aiming for).

But what counts as prying curiousity? Is that like asking personal questions?

And what do you mean by wearing clothing suited to the occaision?

And how far do you offer assisstance to those in need? Does that mean i should give more money to charity, or try to help people cross the road or i dunno, refrain from drinking too much etc.

Yes, "Bon chance, mon ami" roughly translates as good luck, my friend. Mais, in my case, you would have to use the femenine, m'amie. But I'm digressing.

On to your questions:
If you don't know someone well enough, I believe you would never ask this person if he/she had sex last night. That, my friend, would be prying curiosity.

As for the clothing aspect, well, you wouldn't go to a wedding wearing shorts and a t-shirt. You have to dress to the ocassion. You wouldn't attend the beach, in Summer, wearing a coat and boots. You dress according to the place you're going.

As for offering asistence, only to those who truly need it. You won't go around paying a drug addict 5 dollars everytime he/she asks you on the street. That would be supporting his/her addiction. And it's not fair to you.

As in all else that pertains to human behavior, you, the individual, have to check in your society and culture, which of these principles (starting guidelines, if you prefer) apply to you. And all in moderation.

But this is a discussion for an etirely different thread. And I belive we were discussing if a town that used to be English should be annexed to Scotland.

Agur!

It is far too easy to say that the English noose was tightening. For hundreds of years the English economy and military power had been a burden to the development of Scotland. It was no different then and no more difficult than it had been in the past. Mistakes made by the governing powers within Scotland that could have given rise to social change and/or unrest, i maintain, was a defining factor in the union of parliaments.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree. England was growing in power consistently at the time and sooner or later were going to firmly shut the French back door. Darien accelerated it but it was going to get swallowed up sooner or later. See Ireland for example.


The cases of Scotland and Wales are different. Where Edward I succeeded very much in achieving Scottish submission during the early period of the wars of independence, he achieved total and inexorable control over wales in this time. He virtually removed the druids as a potent power in the region.
Scotland, whilst not exactly free and doing well, had at least gained some sort of respite after Edward I's death due to his son's lack of military brutality.
It could be said Scotland made strides forward in the early 14th century in this regard, Mel Gibson aside, we managed some nice work.
Scotland was not a wealthy, nor a powerful and not a particularly well placed nation by any manner of means, but it was self sufficcient and had the ability to remain so if its ambitions had been somewhat more realistic and less antagonistic to the powers round about her in whose best interests it was to curtail these ventures.
Darien was an excellent theory, if you think that way, for a nation with the resources and the international standing to uphold herself.
See above, and I'd say Edward I pretty much did the same to the lowlands as he did to Wales, while the highlands never really accepted English rule the lowlanders often fought in favour it in the oncoming centuries.


My Scandinavian history reminds me that Finland declared its independence from Russia sometime around the end of WWI. Used to be Swedish, then Russian and is now doing fine on its own.
Ah, I was going off the old version of Scandinavia of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, all of which have been independent for a long while.


As a slightly pedantic note, its all well and good to look with retrospect that we don't like the Nazis much. I am sure that the invading armies from England were held in similar regard at the time and the thought of living subservient to such a power would be equally repugnant then as it is now.
As for war crimes. The term had not been coined and the ritual slaughter of undesirable peasants was taken to be a perfectly acceptable way of sorting a problem out. Lucky we have moved on somewhat. We just lock them up in Cuba for 6 years then strap them to an electric chair. ;-)

AMK
xxx

The difference with the Nazis is that was a purely military invasion that lasted for less than a decade. Compared to a mutually politically agreed union that's been in existance for 300 years.

You wouldn't attend the beach, in Summer, wearing a coat and boots. You dress according to the place you're going.
You've never been to a British beach.

Reactionary? Its over 300 years since the union of the parliaments. How is that a reaction? That is a long thought out response if anything.
The links that exist between the countries were forced upon both countries when to be honest, only the nobility of the countries wanted it. The English peasantry were completely none the wiser, and probably a bit nonplussed by their sudden new aquaintences north of the border.
If you do not see the advantage yourself in declaring independence, then let those who do, give it a shot and you may see why.
If I can cite a few examples in recent years of Independence bringing benefits, Scandanavia used to be about 1 or maybe 2 countries, now we all look to Norway, Finland, Denmark etc as shining beacons of how we should al live. Im sure the French didnt want to wait 300 years after the 2nd world war for their country back, but thats ok coz it was the Nazis.
The Czechs and Slovaks seem to be doing fine, as do Hungary, Austria, Australia, India, Croatia, Bosnia, Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, China (Used to be Japan a good while back) England (used to be Rome if we are really looking back), USA, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, shall I go on?

It's unnecessarily reactionary because it is still sore over something that happened 300 years ago. In this it is not comparable to others.

And just because others have done it is not a good enough reason as to why Scotland should. Give me details of what Scotland wants to achieve and why it does not want to be apart of the UK in doing this.

Give me details of what Scotland wants to achieve and why it does not want to be apart of the UK in doing this.
‘What Scotland wants’ depends, obviously, on which Scot you talk to; we ain’t the Borg.

For example, I support a move away from Westminster, but I certainly don’t follow in the footsteps of the SNP; my idea of decentralised, localised government that’s responsive and accountable to the people is quite a distance away from Salmond’s desired Scotland.

Although living in England, I support this for the sake of people in Berwick. They are sensible to want to be in Scotland considering the higher standard of living in Scotland.

Scottish devolution results in higher transport spending, better healthcare and better education in terms of tuition fees.

Ah, I was going off the old version of Scandinavia of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, all of which have been independent for a long while.

The difference with the Nazis is that was a purely military invasion that lasted for less than a decade. Compared to a mutually politically agreed union that's been in existance for 300 years.


Fair point in Scandanavia, i was getting a little previous.
The only difference is in the manner of the union, England had tried military for hundreds of years and managed it politically. The Nazi's managed it first time. Yes France was right to cast off the invaders however just because it was recently after the invasion does not give Scotland, if it so wishes, any reason not to do the same.

It's unnecessarily reactionary because it is still sore over something that happened 300 years ago. In this it is not comparable to others.

And just because others have done it is not a good enough reason as to why Scotland should. Give me details of what Scotland wants to achieve and why it does not want to be apart of the UK in doing this.

See my initial posts in this topic. I really don't want to type it all out again.


AMK
xxx

‘What Scotland wants’ depends, obviously, on which Scot you talk to; we ain’t the Borg.


Given the rugby team you're putting out there can't be more than 22 men in the country. Shouldn't take long to poll.

At the end of the day it's self-determinism. When enough people want a referendum there should be one (and I think there should because I suspect a no vote would win, or like last time not enough people would be bothered to turn up.).

Personally, I wouldn't care if you take us over. Though saying that, I wouldn't mind if the Cornish, Welsh or Irish did either. Just do it peacefully brothers!

Given the rugby team you're putting out there can't be more than 22 men in the country. Shouldn't take long to poll.

At the end of the day it's self-determinism. When enough people want a referendum there should be one (and I think there should because I suspect a no vote would win, or like last time not enough people would be bothered to turn up.).

Thats a fair comment, I just hope youare not English because they don't really have much room to criticise right now. :p
AMK
xxx

In my opinion, England should just grant Scotland it's complete independence. Just like Ireland should be it's own country and not have a chunk of it's land as private property of the English.

Are you willing to see Navarra and Catalonia go their own way and have complete independence?

Are you willing to see Navarra and Catalonia go their own way and have complete independence?

If it comes to that, because I am in favor of Asturias becoming it's own nation, yes. In Spain we're first from our provinces, and then we're Spanish (if anything). And it's spelled Catalunya. So yes, I am willing to let Navarra and Catalunya have their independence if it's their wish. Just as I am in favor of Scotland and Ireland being independent.

If it comes to that, because I am in favor of Asturias becoming it's own nation, yes. In Spain we're first from our provinces, and then we're Spanish (if anything). And it's spelled Catalunya. So yes, I am willing to let Navarra and Catalunya have their independence if it's their wish. Just as I am in favor of Scotland and Ireland being independent.

The people of Northern Ireland were asked and it wasn't their wish (at that time)

Thats a fair comment, I just hope youare not English because they don't really have much room to criticise right now. :p
AMK
xxx

I am one of the all-conquering Welsh. Grand Slam Winners 08.



If it comes to that, because I am in favor of Asturias becoming it's own nation, yes. In Spain we're first from our provinces, and then we're Spanish (if anything). And it's spelled Catalunya. So yes, I am willing to let Navarra and Catalunya have their independence if it's their wish. Just as I am in favor of Scotland and Ireland being independent.

The thing is twofold. Firstly they're not ruled by England. It's a Union. Secondly in N.Ireland particularly polls show they don't want to leave the union. In Scotland polls are consistently inconsistent and the last time a referendum was held in the late 70s they put (and well publicised the existance) a lower limit of 40% turnout requirement and although yes won by a narrow margin only about 35% of the population was bothered enough to vote.

The idea of a country desiring independance and having that refused them is simplistic and very innacurate.