NationStates Jolt Archive

This comes from some TGs I've been getting...


Who deserves it more?

After all, Scotland did technically take over England not Vice Versa... (See James I of England)

Indeed! The kings and queens of England died with Elizabeth in 1603.
The current royal line is the Scottish one.

I'd vote for returning to the system we had from 1603 to 1707 - Two nations, 1 Crown.

Scotland only has a culture because kilts are more conductive to Romance Novels than Togas.

Wait...


...you debate via TG's? :confused:

You deprive the forum of valuable posts!

This comes from some TGs I've been getting...


Who deserves it more?

After all, Scotland did technically take over England not Vice Versa... (See James I of England)

I would say both countries deserve it.

I would say both countries deserve it.
Why? Scotland isn't like Kosovo. Most polls have suggested that the majority of Scots don't favour independence. A sizable minority, sure but the situation couldn't be any more different.

Eh, let all who want to declare their independance declare it.
Although I don't immediately see why Scotland would want to declare it's independance, but at the same time I don't live in the UK. From over here it looks like the international equivalent of a bunch of high school friends sharing an apartment and Mr. and Mrs. Ireland got a divorce and one of them moved into an apartment across town and the Prime Minister is like the overzealous landlord who tells them what they can and can't do while they're living on his property.
But like I said, that's the way it looks on the other side of the Atlantic =P

Wait...


...you debate via TG's? :confused:

You deprive the forum of valuable posts!

Some Serbian (i suspect) was TGing.

Name : The Federation of AIBRES land

Eh, let all who want to declare their independance declare it.
Although I don't immediately see why Scotland would want to declare it's independance, but at the same time I don't live in the UK. From over here it looks like the international equivalent of a bunch of high school friends sharing an apartment and Mr. and Mrs. Ireland got a divorce and one of them moved into an apartment across town and the Prime Minister is like the overzealous landlord who tells them what they can and can't do while they're living on his property.
But like I said, that's the way it looks on the other side of the Atlantic =P

There are two good things that come from Scotland.

Whiskey and the Railway going south (the road being too slow)

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13488427']Why? Scotland isn't like Kosovo. Most polls have suggested that the majority of Scots don't favour independence. A sizable minority, sure but the situation couldn't be any more different.

I posted that both countries deserve independence, which doesn't imply that they'll get it or that I'm taking into consideration the status of one country or the other. This was my honest opinion.

Eh, let all who want to declare their independance declare it.
Although I don't immediately see why Scotland would want to declare it's independance, but at the same time I don't live in the UK. From over here it looks like the international equivalent of a bunch of high school friends sharing an apartment and Mr. and Mrs. Ireland got a divorce and one of them moved into an apartment across town and the Prime Minister is like the overzealous landlord who tells them what they can and can't do while they're living on his property.
But like I said, that's the way it looks on the other side of the Atlantic =P

Sortof... of course the Prime Minister is currently Scottish (although because of how the current devolved government works he can't vote on Scotland only matters despite being the MP for a Scottish constituency... bah the West Lothian issue is a question for another time).

Kosovo and Scotland are two very different situations, one is a country where after being subjected to war and genocide, 80% of it wanted independence. The other is country where the vast majority don't want independence right now and it's a more or less even split (still think Unionist just pip the majority) if you ask about it at 'some point in the distant future' (it really does depend how you ask the question), it also has a devolved government and representation in the national paliament where it's MPs vote on national issues, and indeed England-only/England and Wales related issues same as the English MPs, the Welsh MPs and the Northern Irish MPs

I posted that both countries deserve independence, which doesn't imply that they'll get it or that I'm taking into consideration the status of one country or the other. This was my honest opinion.
But why should a country get independence if a majority of people don't even want it?

Why does the poll have the option Scotland and Kosovo? surely that's the ideal solution that both gain independance?

Other than that if i did have to choose i'd go with Kosovo, because Scotland wan't doing too badly under Westminster, i mean it wasn't perfect but we've got a better situation than those in Kosovo.
Not often i can say that about Scotland.

If it has a popular mandate, I'll support pretty much any independence movement.

Scotland relieson the English economy and subsidies per person/capita to keep the Scottish economy going. If they gained independance then they'll be cutting their lifeline. Scottish oil production alone won't keep them going- it is running out as we keep being told.

Scotland relies on the English economy and subsidies per person/capita to keep the Scottish economy going. If they gained independance then they'll be cutting their lifeline. Scottish oil production alone won't keep them going- it is running out as we keep being told.

Indeed! The kings and queens of England died with Elizabeth in 1603.
The current royal line is the Scottish one.


Actually the current royal line is German and of course the English line was in fact French (even the Tudors were originally Norman nobility), arguably the last "English" king was Harold but who's counting.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13488460']But why should a country get independence if a majority of people don't even want it?

This is just a poll. THE OP just wanted to know what people in NSG thought about the issue in question. Again, all we're doing here is giving our opinions. If the country doesn't want independence, that's another matter in which we, the posters, have no say.;)

Anyone who denies scotland independance should be hung, drawn and quatered then left in boiling water just like William Wallace got for supposedly betraying a king he nevr swore loyalty to, cant say id swear loyalty to an English king either. Scotland should have been free years ago and the only people who want scotland to stay part of britian are the english. The westminster government will do whatever it takes to deny scotland independance because scotlands oil generates around £15billion per year and will last for around 30 more years. And the english wonder why we have more GDP per head than them, England has nothing to make money off of as it was the scots who invented alot of things people take for granted e.g. penicillin, T.V, etc. The polls are lies to put down scottish peoples morale and make them not want to do anything to support scottish independance. Englands that hated that even berwick wants to join back up with Scotland. Like Renton from Trainspotting once said "I dont hate the english, There all just a bunch of Wankers. At last someone speaks the truth. FREEDOM FOR SCOTLAND.

I voted both.

*waves Kosovar and Scotish Flags*

After all, Scotland did technically take over England not Vice Versa... (See James I of England)
Well, both no and yes. James I became England and Scotland, (Queen Anne later became Queen of Great Britain) but Parliament remained well and truly dominated by England, and since the Glorious Revolution, Parliament generally has had the final say.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13488427']Why? Scotland isn't like Kosovo. Most polls have suggested that the majority of Scots don't favour independence. A sizable minority, sure but the situation couldn't be any more different.
Polls in Scotland are notoriously unreliable. Ones suggesting Scotland should become an intependent countey tend to yield a majority, ones suggesing the the Union should be broken tend not to. Most polls, however, do support a referendum on the issue, regardless of how it turns out.

Actually the current royal line is German and of course the English line was in fact French (even the Tudors were originally Norman nobility), arguably the last "English" king was Harold but who's counting.

The Present Queen is vaguely descended from Alfred the Great isn't she?

The current royal line is a different European bunch of inbreds, which is vaguely Scottish, but as much a Russian, Dutch and German one.
Fixed.
I'd vote for returning to the system we had from 1603 to 1707 - Two nations, 1 Crown.
Meh.

Who deserves it more?
I think both should become independant but the way Scotland's independence should be decided is by referendum. In this referendum, I would for it but if it was voted against, (And properly voted against, not like last when we were asked and it was a 66% yes but they still didn't let us get independant.) then I'll be like "Fair enough most other Scots obviously do not think that the same as me. Definitely time to move I wouldn't have already."

After all, Scotland did technically take over England not Vice Versa... (See James I of England)

James 6 ruled from England not from Scotland. Also, Elizabeth requested he rule soon before her death so it was really the English monarch's decision that he be there. The two are related anyway, by way of Margaret Tudor.

Besides, the union of the crowns was not the union of the countries, which was the union of the parliaments. The aforementioned was unpopular in Scotland, causing protest riots for weeks. Practically the only people in Scotland that wanted it was the parliament. And no wonder why with the punishment of Gaelic in schools, the banning of the highland dress etc.

The current monarchy is not necessarily of English descent but it is of English choice: England wanted to put a Protestant monarch on the throne and Scotland wanted a Catholic one. Hence Bonnie Prince Charlie being the latter and George II (although the country was really run by Robert Walpole at the time) being the former.
Scotland only has a culture because kilts are more conductive to Romance Novels than Togas.
And this contrasts with being part of the UK how?
There are two good things that come from Scotland.

Whiskey and the Railway going south (the road being too slow)
This and the above sound like trolling to me.

Scotland relieson the English economy and subsidies per person/capita to keep the Scottish economy going.
If you're referring to the Barnett formula here, that only makes a difference of 2%(between £17789 per capita with it and £17433.22 without it) and people are thinking of removing its advantage anyway.

If they gained independance then they'll be cutting their lifeline. Scottish oil production alone won't keep them going- it is running out as we keep being told.Scotland is far from the 1-export country people seem to think it is. A real example would be Saudi Arabia, where oil accounts for 90% of its exports. Actually, whisky and electronics are among Scotland's main exports, not oil. There is also fishing and textiles. (kilts were mentioned but noone thinks that these could be sold.)

And which goods does England notably export anyway? Nothing much. A large amount of the GDP of the UK is based in foreign investment. The balance of trade in the UK is in deficit. The third worst in the world. Time for us to get out a sinking ship.

In any case, the best comparison for the state of the Scottish economy after independence is Eire, a country with a greater GDP per capita and greater amount of exports per capita than the UK. Go figure.

Scotland relieson the English economy and subsidies per person/capita to keep the Scottish economy going. If they gained independance then they'll be cutting their lifeline. Scottish oil production alone won't keep them going- it is running out as we keep being told.

It's better for us English though. :p

The Present Queen is vaguely descended from Alfred the Great isn't she?
Yes: Henry I (third Norman king; younger son of William the Conqueror) married a princess Matilda who was descended on her mother's side from the old house of Wessex, to give him some legitimacy with the Saxons.

Some Serbian (i suspect) was TGing.

I seeeee....




I smells a conspiracy, I tells ya!

Most people in Scotland prefer the current devolved government to independence - when polls give the the option of devolution, it usually wins over union or independence, with the results more varies when only the latter two options are given.

Most people in Scotland prefer the current devolved government to independence - when polls give the the option of devolution, it usually wins over union or independence, with the results more varies when only the latter two options are given.

Personally I support a more clearly laid out federalised government, possibly on a similar model to Germany, since the nation is also based on a union of several smaller countries. Not just "devolved" power, since these implies a temporary nature to it, but effectively constitutionalised and equal devolution of certain powers to the constituent countries parliaments, while Westminster deals with UK-wide issues including (but not exclusively) Foreign policy, defence etc... I think this will both help those who want more local regional autonomy, solve the West Lothian question (since England will have it's own parliament... or arguably North/South assemblies if they manage to sort them out effectively) and also help strengthen the Union due to a clearly written constitution which by it's nature will need to be agreed upon by all parties as equal partners.

Now, since the other parties have managed to steal most of the Lib Dems policies so far, maybe they'll steal this one too.

The English should revolt against those heathen Scots.
Throw all their Scotch into London Harbour!

The current monarchy is not necessarily of English descent but it is of English choice: England wanted to put a Protestant monarch on the throne and Scotland wanted a Catholic one. Hence Bonnie Prince Charlie being the latter and George II (although the country was really run by Robert Walpole at the time) being the former.



Queen Elizabeth I/II can claim all the ancient Anglo-Saxon and Scottish Kings as forebears. Charles Edward Stuart and his brother Cardinal Henry Stuart died without legitimate heirs so the throne would have reverted to the Hanoverians anyway, even if Charles had marched on London from Derby like he should have. There are weird and wonderful stories about the 'rightful' King of England given that in many cases e.g. in the case of the Williams (The Conqueror and Of Orange) there may have been a blood heir from the previous dynasty left standing. However, in the case of Scotland, HM Queen is the undisputed rightful sovereign.
Anyway, I'd rather have a quasi-Scottish Greco-Germanic constitutional monarch than have President and all the corruption that that would bring.

I don't think the Scots have been bad enough to deserve independence. I'm not mean enough to wish that upon them.

I support Scottish domination of all Europe, and beyond. Better Kilts than Burkhas, anyway.

I'm strongly pro-Scottish independence. Kosovo's already acquired most of its, but I support that as well.

**wears kilt with pride**

I'm bad i'm bad shamone! come on i'd like to see what would happen.

I don't know what you're saying, but if I were in charge, I would allow the Scots to choose independence if they desired it (and to come back afterwards).

I don't think the Scots have been bad enough to deserve independence. I'm not mean enough to wish that upon them.

I'm bad i'm bad shamone! come on i'd like to see what would happen.

I support Scottish domination of all Europe, and beyond. Better Kilts than Burkhas, anyway.

Amen brother!!

I don't know what you're saying, but if I were in charge, I would allow the Scots to choose independence if they desired it (and to come back afterwards).

sorry, i was mixing the words from one of Michael Jacksons famous songs, "i'm bad" and added it in.
I'd like to see Scottish independance.

For indepedence they have to be a nation (NOT national minority) and it must be according to international law.
Only other option is to be an ally of USA and powerful states of EU.

So, if indepedence, then only Scotland.

Kosovo can be part of Albania, they should have to deal with problems of Kosovo.

restore soverignty to every bioregeonal ethnicity, even microbioregeonal. to such extent as soverignty of anything serves any useful purpose at all.

especially any and all existing superpowers need to be micro-granularized so that planetary and interstellar regeonal entities can maintain real, free and graitifying peace to all living organisms.

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

i dont care what scotland does... i dont think kosovo should have independece. the balkans has always been a melting pot that boiling over the top. they are always waiting to erupt, and at the same time i dont want to go to another country and help fight for their independence. im doing it right now in iraq. kosovo will just end up being another hub for islmic fanatics.

Why does Scotland want independence anyway?

Why does Scotland want independence anyway?
Some here want independence for nationalistic reasons, some feel it would be a good economic move, some simply want to get away from Westminster.

Personally, as a supporter of more devolved, localised, accountable government, I support a more independent Scotland, although certainly one with no ties whatsoever to the rest of the UK. I’m no isolationist.

Supporters of independence usually site the fact that Scotland already has its own legal system, its own education system, a (mostly) separate NHS, its own distinct culture, etc., as additional reasons.

The main problem I see is the amount of integration with the UK that Scotland currently enjoys. There’d need to be some serious shake-ups of a number of major British institutions (including, some claim, the disbandment of the UK altogether) were Scotland to push for independence.

For one thing, as folks have already noted, the current PM is Scottish.

Why does Scotland want independence anyway?

Scotland as a whole doesn't want independence. While the current executive of the devolved local government is led by the pro-independence SNP, they lead a minority government, and a clear majority of Scottish voters consistently vote for pro-Union candidates. Not all SNP voters are necessarily in favour of independence either, instead seeing the party as the only realistic opposition to Labour dominance in Scotland. Note that Alex Salmond (leader of the SNP) no longer seems to have any appetite for holding the referendum on Scottish independence that he promised since A) he would be unlikely to get it passed at Holyrood and B) he would lose the referendum. Clever politicians - and there's no doubt Salmond falls into that category - don't hold referendums they can't win.

The real discussion isn't over full independence, but rather the degree of devolution, and this is something Chumblywumbly has dealt with in the previous post, so I see no real point in repeating his points.


But on a related topic... the Scottish royal house inarguably held a much better dynastic claim to the English throne than any English king following the death of Edward the Confessor in 1066.

The actual dynastic heir to the English throne on Edward's death wasn't Harold II, but rather Edgar the Aetheling, Edward's great-nephew. Edward even named Edgar his heir in 1057 upon the death of Edgar's father, Edward the Exile (there's a lot of Edwards here, so bear with me).

However, Edgar was still only 15 when his great uncle died, so the Witenagemot elected Edward's (the Confessor) brother-in-law Harold as king. For a short period between the Battle of Hastings and William I's entry into London, the Witenagemot recognised Edgar as King, though this never had any practical effect.

What does this have to do with Scotland, you rightly ask....

Well, William I initially treated the teenage Edgar fairly well, until the latter became mixed up with a series of anti-William revolts. Edgar then fled to Scotland in c.1068, and the next year King Malcolm III Canmore of Scotland married Edgar's sister Margaret, which means that every subsequent King of Scotland was descended from the closest relative of the last Saxon claimant to the English throne.

The Kings of England didn't establish a dynastic link to the House of Wessex until Edgar's niece Edith-Matilda married Henry I. The Scottish royal house had the closer and more direct link to the House of Wessex both before and after this marriage.

Edgar himself lived until c.1126, and died in his 70s. He only finally seems to have given up hopes of being restored to his ancestral throne in the 1090s, when Henry I of England pardoned him shortly before marrying Edgar's niece. Edgar's eventful life also included participating in the First Crusade with an English fleet, and possibly fathering an illegitimate child on a cousin of Byzantine Emperor Alexius I.

But that's all by the by... James I & VI, in the (very) long run, had a better claim to the English throne than Elizabeth anyway.

Scotland as a whole doesn’t want independence. While the current executive of the devolved local government is led by the pro-independence SNP, they lead a minority government, and a clear majority of Scottish voters consistently vote for pro-Union candidates.
Although I probably wouldn’t disagree with the notion that the majority of Scots don’t want independence (or at least SNP-style independence), the statement that “a clear majority of Scottish voters consistently vote for pro-Union candidates” is a bit of a misnomer.

It’s more accurate to say that less than half of Scots eligible to vote have voted three times in the past eight years for pro-Union candidates.

EDIT: And can I just say, it's equally amusing and sweet that so many people on this forum have such strong opinions about a wee bit country with only 5 million inhabitants. :)

Personally I support a more clearly laid out federalised government, possibly on a similar model to Germany, since the nation is also based on a union of several smaller countries. Germany is more based on a federalism of regions than one of countries. Great Britain hasn't seen such a scenario as the way Germany was up until the 19th century since England was split into Wessex and a' that in the 9th century.
I don't think the Scots have been bad enough to deserve independence. I'm not mean enough to wish that upon them.What's that supposed to mean?:confused:
Personally, as a supporter of more devolved, localised, accountable government, I support a more independent Scotland, although certainly one with no ties whatsoever to the rest of the UK. I’m no isolationist. We can easily be separate from the UK without being isolationist. Or be independant but keep the Queen, like Canada and Australia. We could easily trade with other countries, like join EFTA, or have an independant Scotland enter into trade agreements with an independant England.
The main problem I see is the amount of integration with the UK that Scotland currently enjoys. There’d need to be some serious shake-ups of a number of major British institutions (including, some claim, the disbandment of the UK altogether) were Scotland to push for independence. No bad thing I think.
For one thing, as folks have already noted, the current PM is Scottish.By descent, but he doesn't seem to be doing much for Scotland's interests.
Scotland as a whole doesn't want independence. While the current executive of the devolved local government is led by the pro-independence SNP, they lead a minority government, and a clear majority of Scottish voters consistently vote for pro-Union candidates. Or rather, a majority of the people who voted in recent elections voted (not for pro-union parties but) for parties other than SNP. The SSP also supports independance. And I'm sure the Tories (Conservative and Unionist Party) are the only which is explicitly pro-union. Most other parties are not necessarily against independance as such, it's just they're not for it either.

I'm not sure about Scotland, at all. I'd certainly like to deprive Scottish MP's of their powers to sit, and vote, in the Commons, although this owes more to petty partisan polticking on my part than anything else.

I genuinely do find appealing the idea of Union, if only it did not allow them up north to vote in a Labour government in 2005.

Or rather, a majority of the people who voted in recent elections voted (not for pro-union parties but) for parties other than SNP. The SSP also supports independance. And I'm sure the Tories (Conservative and Unionist Party) are the only which is explicitly pro-union. Most other parties are not necessarily against independance as such, it's just they're not for it either.

The Liberal Democrats are pro-union but with a more federalised regional governments than a single centralised government (they are of course for more local powers for the regions of England), and Labour is certainly pro-Union so I wouldn't say it's only the Tories.

No bad thing I think.
No, not necessarily. But it’s still a tricky problem to overcome.

By descent, but he doesn’t seem to be doing much for Scotland’s interests.
That doesn’t make him any less Scottish! A dour native of Govan who’s father was a Presbyterian minister; can’t get much more Scottish than that! :p

Or rather, a majority of the people who voted in recent elections voted (not for pro-union parties but) for parties other than SNP. The SSP also supports independance. And I’m sure the Tories (Conservative and Unionist Party) are the only which is explicitly pro-union. Most other parties are not necessarily against independance as such, it’s just they’re not for it either.
The Lib Dems made quite a fuss over the Union in the last Holyrood election. Though I admit it may have been more of an anti-SNP tactic than anything else. What really pisses me off is the point-blank refusal by most parties (including the SNP now) of having a referendum.


I’m not sure about Scotland, at all. I’d certainly like to deprive Scottish MP’s of their powers to sit, and vote, in the Commons, although this owes more to petty partisan polticking on my part than anything else.
At least you’re honest. ;)

It’s by no means a fair solution all round, especially in the light of Scottish MPs helping to push through controversial Labour policy that doesn’t affect Scotland, but many important issues for Scotland (foreign policy, the economy, defence, etc.) are decided by Westminster. Preventing us Scots from having any representation in Parliament seems far too drastic and completely unfair.

I'm not sure about Scotland, at all. I'd certainly like to deprive Scottish MP's of their powers to sit, and vote, in the Commons, although this owes more to petty partisan polticking on my part than anything else.

I genuinely do find appealing the idea of Union, if only it did not allow them up north to vote in a Labour government in 2005.

This is the thing about democracy, sometimes people vote for the party you don't want :p

Or rather, a majority of the people who voted in recent elections voted (not for pro-union parties but) for parties other than SNP. The SSP also supports independance. And I'm sure the Tories (Conservative and Unionist Party) are the only which is explicitly pro-union. Most other parties are not necessarily against independance as such, it's just they're not for it either.

The Liberal Democrats are pro-union but with a more federalised regional governments than a single centralised government (they are of course for more local powers for the regions of England), and Labour is certainly pro-Union so I wouldn't say it's only the Tories.

Umdogsland is quite correct to point out that I had neglected to note that the SSP is pro-independence (and can we please at least try and spell 'independence' correctly); however the SSP failed to win a single seat at Holyrood in 2007, and are no longer represented in the Scottish parliament.

Eofaerwic is quite correct in turn to point out that the Lib Dems and Labour are most certainly explicitly pro-Union (though their policies on the precise nature of the Union may differ from both each other and the Tories), to the point that the Lib Dems categorically refused to support a Holyrood bill to enable an independence referendum.

Just to be ultra-completist about this, there is another pro-independence party represented at Holyrood in the shape of the Scottish Greens, whose 2007 Holyrood manifesto reads:

We support calls for Scottish independence, not out of nationalistic fervour, but as a means to create a more locally-based, sustainable, and democratic society.

Nonetheless, I stand by my original point that most Scottish voters vote for pro-Union parties, especially at Westminster elections. Scottish voters are more likely to vote for anti-Union parties in Holyrood elections, especially the last one, but polls suggest that this was much an anti-Labour executive vote than a pro-independence pro-SNP vote.

The seats won at Holyrood in the 2007 election were:
SNP - 47 (21 constituency, 26 list)
Labour - 46 (37 constituency, 9 list)
Tories - 17 (4 constituency, 13 list)
LibDems - 16 (11 constituency, 5 list)
Greens - 2 (0 constituency, 2 list)

That adds up to 79 seats held by pro-Union parties, and 49 held by pro-independence parties.

Note that this discussion over the outcome of voting is, however, quite separate from a discussion over the merits of independence or increased devolution.

This comes from some TGs I've been getting...


Who deserves it more?

After all, Scotland did technically take over England not Vice Versa... (See James I of England)

Why not the Basques? or the Kurds? Or -insert other ethnic group here-? Why did you limit it? Ahhh!:p

Why not the Basques? or the Kurds? Or -insert other ethnic group here-? Why did you limit it? Ahhh!:p
‘The Scots’ are not, and have never been, an ethnic group. We’re made up of loads of different groups from all over Western Europe, and in more recent times from groups all over the world.

You simply can’t point to an ethnic grouping as clearly defined as, say, the Kurds or Albanian Kosovans or Basques, etc.

I bow to your superior–and technically accurate–use of statistical geekiness.
Pedantry rocks.

Might we be able to agree on “of those Scots who have exercised their right to vote in Holyrood elections, a majority have voted for pro-Union candidates in each of those elections”?
Yup.

It’s more accurate to say that less than half of Scots eligible to vote have voted three times in the past eight years for pro-Union candidates.

EDIT: And can I just say, it's equally amusing and sweet that so many people on this forum have such strong opinions about a wee bit country with only 5 million inhabitants. :)

I bow to your superior - and technically accurate - use of statistical geekiness.

Might we be able to agree on "of those Scots who have exercised their right to vote in Holyrood elections, a majority have voted for pro-Union candidates in each of those elections"?

After all, failing to vote - and falling turnout in elections is a UK-wide problem - hardly suggests a burning engagement with the political process, whether pro- or anti-independence.

Why not the Basques? or the Kurds? Or -insert other ethnic group here-? Why did you limit it? Ahhh!:p

The problem with the Basques is that the province is divided between Spain and France. Ibarretxe, the Lehendakari wants independence (there's even a rumor that he's helping the ETArras monetarily), and whenever he goes overseas he wants to leave crystal clear that the Basque Country is a Commonwealth, but working towards its independence. Now, wether the Spanish government will grant his wishes is another thing. And wether France agrees, well, that has to be seen too.

The problem with the Basques is that the province is divided between Spain and France. Ibarretxe, the Lehendakari wants independence (there's even a rumor that he's helping the ETArras monetarily), and whenever he goes overseas he wants to leave crystal clear that the Basque Country is a Commonwealth, but working towards its independence. Now, wether the Spanish government will grant his wishes is another thing. And wether France agrees, well, that has to be seen too.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Cortes reject (PSOE and PP) a proposal from Ibarretxe to allow him to hold a referendum in the Basque Autonomous Community?

This is the thing about democracy, sometimes people vote for the party you don't want :p

Yes, but in Scotland, the situation is monstrously unfair. You do know that technically the English government, if English and Welsh constituencies alone were counted, would be Tory?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Cortes reject (PSOE and PP) a proposal from Ibarretxe to allow him to hold a referendum in the Basque Autonomous Community?

Nope, you're correct. After Lehendakari Ibarretxe devised his "Ibarretxe Plan", and after getting the approval of the Basque parliament and plenary (39 votes pro, 35 votes con), he took it to the Spanish Parliament and it was rejected on February 1st by 313 votes against (PSOE, PP, United Left (Spain), Canary Coalition and CHA), 29 votes in favour (PNV, ERC, CiU, EA, Na-Bai and BNG) and 2 abstentions (IC-V). But on a recent visit of his to the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico, he reiterated his intention of making the "Ibarretxe Plan" a reality.

Yes, but in Scotland, the situation is monstrously unfair. You do know that technically the English government, if English and Welsh constituencies alone were counted, would be Tory?
It’s not the English government, it’s the British government.

Yes, the West Lothian question is problematic, but removing all Scottish representation from Westminster while keeping Scotland as part of the UK is completely unacceptable.

It’s not the English government, it’s the British government.

Yes, the West Lothian question is problematic, but removing all Scottish representation from Westminster while keeping Scotland as part of the UK is completely unacceptable.

As unacceptable as having a government imposed upon the rest of the Union by an electorate who are undeniably favoured by the current political model. As unacceptable as having a Labour government foisted upon Westminster by Scotland.

Scotland relieson the English economy and subsidies per person/capita to keep the Scottish economy going. If they gained independance then they'll be cutting their lifeline. Scottish oil production alone won't keep them going- it is running out as we keep being told.

That isn't actually true. The figures that Labour use to say that England subsidises Scotland (sorry, the 'union dividend' the call it) don't take into account spending that is nominally 'UK wide'. For example, the cost of maintaining government departments in Whitehall (and employing huge numbers of staff) is not counted as English expenditure even though the money is spent in England and goes to English employees, business etc. When you count ALL of the spending, Scotland gets about the same as England.

What's that supposed to mean?:confused:

Just a jocular way of saying that I don't think that independence would be in Scotland's best interests.

Unite Ireland

Yes, but in Scotland, the situation is monstrously unfair. You do know that technically the English government, if English and Welsh constituencies alone were counted, would be Tory?

1) As has been said, it's a BRITISH parliament. Yes the West Lothian question is unfair, but if parliament is going to make decisions for the whole country then it should be representing the whole country.

2) Labour has 39 seats in Scotland, it has a majority of 62 ... they'd still have a majority even without Scotland. The Tories would only win if it was just England and that would kinda defeat the point of a UK goverment

3) Different regions vote differently because they will often hold differing values relating to the local culture and historical demographic make-up. Ie, much of the North, certainly around industrial areas such as Yorkshire, and most inner-city districts tend to vote labour. Rural districts and much of the south tend to vote conservative. You can't reallistically divide up a country because a particular geographic areas votes in a way you don't like

1) As has been said, it's a BRITISH parliament. Yes the West Lothian question is unfair, but if parliament is going to make decisions for the whole country then it should be representing the whole country.

2) Labour has 39 seats in Scotland, it has a majority of 62 ... they'd still have a majority even without Scotland. The Tories would only win if it was just England and that would kinda defeat the point of a UK goverment

3) Different regions vote differently because they will often hold differing values relating to the local culture and historical demographic make-up. Ie, much of the North, certainly around industrial areas such as Yorkshire, and most inner-city districts tend to vote labour. Rural districts and much of the south tend to vote conservative. You can't reallistically divide up a country because a particular geographic areas votes in a way you don't like

If Scottish MP's can vote on their own, peculiarly Scottish issues, as, I assume can their Welsh counterparts, I fail to see why a uniquely English government (which, incidentally, would have brought Michael Howard to power in 2005. Grammar Schools! Hurrah!) should not be so.

2) Labour has 39 seats in Scotland, it has a majority of 62 ... they'd still have a majority even without Scotland. The Tories would only win if it was just England and that would kinda defeat the point of a UK goverment


Ironic, though, isn't it, that it's typically been the Conservative and Unionist Party that, though the last 150 years, has always seemed to act in the manner most likely to ultimately be most detrimental to the Union?

The opposition to Gladstone's Home Rule bills, the support of the Curragh mutiny, opposition to the disestablishment of the Welsh church, the introduction of the Poll Tax in Scotland first, opposition to both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, the floating of the 'England Grand Committee' idea....

And look where it's brought us. Ireland and all of Great Britain happy and equal partners in a United Kingdom where the Westminster Parliament decides all matters equally for all part of the Kingdom, and where the Established Church (Anglican in England, Wales and Ireland, Presbyterian in Scotland) remains unchallenged at the head of our religious life.

Yes, they really know how to hold a country together, them Tories.

If Scottish MP's can vote on their own, peculiarly Scottish issues, as, I assume can their Welsh counterparts, I fail to see why a uniquely English government (which, incidentally, would have brought Michael Howard to power in 2005. Grammar Schools! Hurrah!) should not be so.

I quite support an English federal parliament, to sit in the pre-Norman capital of Winchester (sorry, Hampshire), with equal powers to the federal Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, and Stormont. All four components would then have devolved powers roughly equal to German Lander or American States, and Westminster could remain the national Parliament ruling on genuinely national issues, much in the manner of the Reichstag or American Congress.

Now, this may sound like a Tory dream (permanent power in England - I think Cameron and Osborne just wet themselves), except that Labour probably thought as much about Scotland, and that didn't work longer than three elections. Why, they almost lost Wales to a Plaid/Tory/LD coalition this last time.

In truly democratic western societies, the opposition always wins eventually, and even if the Conservative party were to inevitably initially control a devolved English parliament, I'm fairly comfortable in the opinion that that control wouldn't last forever. Eventually, inevitably, Labour or a Labour - LibDem coalition would oust the Conservative Little England Party.

Nope, you're correct. After Lehendakari Ibarretxe devised his "Ibarretxe Plan", and after getting the approval of the Basque parliament and plenary (39 votes pro, 35 votes con), he took it to the Spanish Parliament and it was rejected on February 1st by 313 votes against (PSOE, PP, United Left (Spain), Canary Coalition and CHA), 29 votes in favour (PNV, ERC, CiU, EA, Na-Bai and BNG) and 2 abstentions (IC-V). But on a recent visit of his to the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico, he reiterated his intention of making the "Ibarretxe Plan" a reality.
I like being right.:)

Although I wonder, after being rejected by such a huge majority, how Ibarretxe could get his plan through. The Spanish political scene seems far more hostile to Basque (and Catalan) independence than the British government is to Scotland, Wales and Ireland.

If Scottish MP's can vote on their own, peculiarly Scottish issues, as, I assume can their Welsh counterparts, I fail to see why a uniquely English government (which, incidentally, would have brought Michael Howard to power in 2005. Grammar Schools! Hurrah!) should not be so.
Technically, Howard wouldn't get into government. The EVOEM/English Grand Committee plan doesn't give England its own executive.

As unacceptable as having a government imposed upon the rest of the Union by an electorate who are undeniably favoured by the current political model. As unacceptable as having a Labour government foisted upon Westminster by Scotland.
How was it imposed? How was it foisted?

The Scottish electorate make up only a small part of the total voting public. Assuming you’re correct that Scottish votes for Labour tipped over the balance of power to Tony’s lot, that’s all they did: tipped the balance.

No-one’s vote in Scotland counts for anything more than anyone’s vote in England, Wales and NI. Scots don’t have veto power over other votes. And as long as Scotland is still a part of the UK, we are completely legitimised in voting in a General Election and should be represented at Westminster.

Here's an idea.

Lets just make Scotland 1 Constituency.

Then we can ignore it.

How was it imposed? How was it foisted?

The Scottish electorate make up only a small part of the total voting public. Assuming you’re correct that Scottish votes for Labour tipped over the balance of power to Tony’s lot, that’s all they did: tipped the balance.

No-one’s vote in Scotland counts for anything more than anyone’s vote in England, Wales and NI. Scots don’t have veto power over other votes. And as long as Scotland is still a part of the UK, we are completely legitimised in voting in a General Election and should be represented at Westminster.
The only reason Labour do so well in Scotland is because of the electoral system. Labour in Scotland don't do much better than Labour in England, but the anti-Labour vote is split by the SNP. Ergo, Labour get in.

Yes, but in Scotland, the situation is monstrously unfair. You do know that technically the English government, if English and Welsh constituencies alone were counted, would be Tory?

The same's true if you discount Welsh costituencies, though in both countries the polls have similar results (about 10% wishing independence or for total integration with England, and 40-something percent wanting either more devolution or the same amount of devolution, it might be closer to 20% for independence in Scotland), it's the main reason why Labour are so eager to keep the idea of 'Britishness' in the country, and a Conservative government might actually be tempted to grant independence to the countries (even if the countries don't want it yet, Wales at least (I don't know that much about Scotland) is still fairly wrecked by the Thatcher years).

There are two good things that come from Scotland.

Whiskey and the Railway going south (the road being too slow)

And golf, and woolens, and tartans, and monarchs, and shortbread, and history, and ballads, and philosophers, and economists, and inventors, and chemists, and geologists, and writers, and engineers, and explorers, and physicians....

Really, the comment shows a shocking level of ignorance. Where where you educated?

And golf, and woolens, and tartans, and monarchs, and shortbread, and history, and ballads, and philosophers, and economists, and inventors, and chemists, and geologists, and writers, and engineers, and explorers, and physicians....

Really, the comment shows a shocking level of ignorance. Where where you educated?

Norfolk. It's a Quote dearie, not meant to be taken seriously.

And you misspelt "Woollens"

Wales at least (I don't know that much about Scotland) is still fairly wrecked by the Thatcher years).
We got fucked too. Poll tax, anyone?

If Scottish MP's can vote on their own, peculiarly Scottish issues, as, I assume can their Welsh counterparts, I fail to see why a uniquely English government (which, incidentally, would have brought Michael Howard to power in 2005. Grammar Schools! Hurrah!) should not be so.

They can't. All MPs have equal voting rights, English MPs can vote on all issues Scottish ones can vote on..

The Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly are completely separate bodies with separately elected members which vote on things Westminster allows them to.

There were plans to devolve power to regional governments but the North East referendum was rejected link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3984387.stm) and it's not been raised since (the reasons why it was rejected are debated since even some on the yes side weren't happy with the lack of power the assembly would have.

Norfolk. It's a Quote dearie, not meant to be taken seriously.

And you misspelt "Woollens"

And if we're going to be that pedantic to a Mod, it's worth pointing out that you misspelled 'whisky'. 'Whiskey' is only used to refer to the non-Scottish product.

I'm still totally in the dark as to what the two have in common...?

Norfolk. It's a Quote dearie, not meant to be taken seriously.

And you misspelt "Woollens"

No, dearie, it's not misspelled.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woolens

But thanks anyway, it's been amusing. And what's with the random capitalization on "quote"?

No, dearie, it's not misspelled.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woolens

But thanks anyway, it's been amusing. And what's with the random capitalization on "quote"?

Surely that's American (shudders with abhorrence) spelling?

And I Capitalize when I would emphasise a Word in my Natural Speech.

To put it simply, Scotland will go independent eventually, its going to happen whether we English like it or not. But its economic suicide if they do.

To put it simply, Scotland will go independent eventually, its going to happen whether we English like it or not. But its economic suicide if they do.

Within a Week of their independence the Scots'll be raiding the Borders again, just like they did before 1603.

To put it simply, Scotland will go independent eventually, its going to happen whether we English like it or not. But its economic suicide if they do.

So it's inevitable that Scotland will go into economic suicide once it gains independence
how is it economic suicide?

So it's inevitable that Scotland will go into economic suicide once it gains independence
how is it economic suicide?

Their Country relies on money from the muchly-put-upon English. If they were to independent it's economy would fail.

Dont forget Scottish citizens enjoy tax exempt status for many things. Education and trade being two vital ones. And it is inevitable. The reason the fact its economic suicide isnt putting them off voting for it is cuz, sadly, the majority of voters in any country vote with anything but their brains.

Can't use your brain if you've killed the working 10% with booze, and deep fried Mars Bars (and Pizza a la batter if you're in Glasgow)

Lol I really should say thats racist but I cant help agreeing with you. Dont forget the lowly pot noodle =)

It's not racist it's Scotchist. Don't forget that Glasgow would look the same after a Nuclear Holocaust as it did before.:D

Dont forget Scottish citizens enjoy tax exempt status for many things. Education and trade being two vital ones. And it is inevitable. The reason the fact its economic suicide isnt putting them off voting for it is cuz, sadly, the majority of voters in any country vote with anything but their brains.

Lol I really should say thats racist but I cant help agreeing with you. Dont forget the lowly pot noodle =)

It's not racist it's Scotchist. Don't forget that Glasgow would look the same after a Nuclear Holocaust as it did before.:D

Ive been to Glasgow. Its a very very rubbish city. The streets are controlled by gangs, your virtually born into a gang depending on which street your born in. And if you dont fight you could get killed by other gangs. Its really scary to think that sort of feral behaviour exists within the UK. To put it honestly I'll be glad to see Scotland leave with its problems

And I Capitalize when I would emphasise a Word in my Natural Speech.

And that, sir, is Bad Grammar(tm).

Ive been to Glasgow. Its a very very rubbish city. The streets are controlled by gangs, your virtually born into a gang depending on which street your born in. And if you dont fight you could get killed by other gangs. Its really scary to think that sort of feral behaviour exists within the UK. To put it honestly I'll be glad to see Scotland leave with its problems

Edinburgh is good, in fact its great!

Ive been to Glasgow. Its a very very rubbish city. The streets are controlled by gangs, your virtually born into a gang depending on which street your born in. And if you dont fight you could get killed by other gangs. Its really scary to think that sort of feral behaviour exists within the UK. To put it honestly I'll be glad to see Scotland leave with its problems

Maybe would dig a ditch at the border. About two miles wide and half a mile deep filled with shark infested Water.

And that behaviour exists even in Norfolk, though not to such a degree.

And Katganistan, Bad Grammar it may be however it reflects the Tone and Style of my speech, proving I am a Human being with a personality, not a Grammar Dictionary with a Human Chained to it.

And Katganistan, Bad Grammar it may be however it reflects the Tone and Style of my speech, proving I am a Human being with a personality, not a Grammar Dictionary with a Human Chained to it.

It is Kind of Annoying though. See what I Mean?

It is Kind of Annoying though. See what I Mean?

Nopeity Nope Nope Nope.

The U.K. would fall apart if Scotland left. The Welsch (sorry if I spelled it wrong) would probaly start to push for independance more if Scotland was allowed to leave. And Northern Ireland would get hit even more by terrorists.:mp5: The U.K. would have a tougher time with every thing. They would be viewed less seriously than before. I still think Scotland deserves independance but it would make west Europe more like east europe with all the small countries. It's quite a pickle they are in. :headbang:No more love in the isles. :fluffle:

If the Scots left the resultant Disaster would Strengthen the Union, and within a year Scotland would have voted to Rejoin Great Britain.

The U.K. would fall apart if Scotland left. The Welsch (sorry if I spelled it wrong) would probaly start to push for independance more if Scotland was allowed to leave. And Northern Ireland would get hit even more by terrorists.:mp5: The U.K. would have a tougher time with every thing. They would be viewed less seriously than before. I still think Scotland deserves independance but it would make west Europe more like east europe with all the small countries. It's quite a pickle they are in. :headbang:No more love in the isles. :fluffle:

And Katganistan, Bad Grammar it may be however it reflects the Tone and Style of my speech, proving I am a Human being with a personality, not a Grammar Dictionary with a Human Chained to it.

Oh please continue. It's quite ironic, given your mistaken correction of my spelling, and endlessly amusing.

There was another poster 'round here who did the same thing... can't remember his name...

Oh please continue. It's quite ironic, given your mistaken correction of my spelling, and endlessly amusing.

There was another poster 'round here who did the same thing... can't remember his name...

Different sides of the Atlantic Ocean for some reason seem to make people think they have a God-given right to abuse the English Language.

Ive been to Glasgow. Its a very very rubbish city. The streets are controlled by gangs, your virtually born into a gang depending on which street your born in. And if you dont fight you could get killed by other gangs.
Simply hilarious! You’ve been watching too much Taggart.

I can assure you, hen, that Glasgow is far from being a warzone, no matter how many two-bit documentary makers portray it that way. I’ve lived here for nearly four years now, and I’ve never come across a gang, never been threatened, never been involved in any violence whatsoever. In fact, Glasgow’s the friendliest place I’ve lived in, especially compared to cities like London or Edinburgh.

Sure, certain parts of Glasgow are rough, but which city doesn’t have a rough area? You may have been to Glasgow, but by saying that it’s ‘rubbish’ or that ‘the streets are controlled by gangs’, it’s obvious you didn’t experience the dear green place.


It’s not racist it’s Scotchist.
No, it is racist; albeit simply ignorant, generalising racism as opposed to the hate-filled variety.

Don’t forget that Glasgow would look the same after a Nuclear Holocaust as it did before.:D
*looks outside*

Hmmm... tree-lined streets, beautiful architecture, proportionally the most green space in any British city, river walks, deli’s, restaurants, boutiques, a world-class university, museums, galleries, a thriving arts scene, one of the top five retail areas in the world...

Sure we’re talking about the same place?

Their Country relies on money from the muchly-put-upon English. If they were to independent it’s economy would fail.
Any evidence for either claims?

I’d point you towards a thriving tourist business, the whisky industry, an ever-increasing technology sector (Grand Theft Auto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockstar_North), anyone?) and the admittedly contentious, yet still very much profitable, oil industry, to name just a few things Scotland has going economically.

I like being right.:)

Although I wonder, after being rejected by such a huge majority, how Ibarretxe could get his plan through. The Spanish political scene seems far more hostile to Basque (and Catalan) independence than the British government is to Scotland, Wales and Ireland.

My country´s very hostile to the Basque, that´s true. But remember, the ETA has done so much harm to countless innocent people in Spain. I see it like this, if ETA targets politicians, well, I can understand it, it comes with the position (although I don´t condone it). But when a car is rigged and explodes, taking the life of innocent bystanders, those who just had the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, that´s when public sentiment becomes hostile towards a cause. I blame ETA for the hostility.

Different sides of the Atlantic Ocean for some reason seem to make people think they have a God-given right to abuse the English Language.
And some people think they have a god-given right to stagnate a language whose one truly great feature is that it has been evolving and assimilating for over a thousand years, yet at the same time abandon all rules of capitalisation.

Different sides of the Atlantic Ocean for some reason seem to make people think they have a God-given right to abuse the English Language.

Yes, but we forgive you anyway.

That doesn’t make him any less Scottish! A dour native of Govan who’s father was a Presbyterian minister; can’t get much more Scottish than that! :pDepends on how you define Scottishness. If you define it by culture, he is a lot less Scottish than if you define it by ancestry. Even if you don't, the point that Gordon Brown is Scottish and thus Scotland rules the UK is still incorrect because a Scottish person might be ruling the UK but Scotland as a whole does not.
‘The Scots’ are not, and have never been, an ethnic group. We’re made up of loads of different groups from all over Western Europe, and in more recent times from groups all over the world.

You simply can’t point to an ethnic grouping as clearly defined as, say, the Kurds or Albanian Kosovans or Basques, etc.
I would say that was the case at Scotland's formation (when we either Gaels, Brythons or Picts) but, more than a millenium on, we are an ethnicity as much as any other.
(and can we please at least try and spell 'independence' correctlyPedantry rocks.
Just a jocular way of saying that I don't think that independence would be in Scotland's best interests.And why not?
To put it simply, Scotland will go independent eventually, its going to happen whether we English like it or not. But its economic suicide if they do.Now this needs evidence. I can find stuff to the contrary as I've said in my 1st post in this thread but do you have any to back that up?
Their Country relies on money from the muchly-put-upon English. If they were to independent it's economy would fail.Where do you get this from? Show links to proper statistics and shit like that.
Ive been to Glasgow. Its a very very rubbish city. The streets are controlled by gangs, your virtually born into a gang depending on which street your born in. And if you dont fight you could get killed by other gangs. Its really scary to think that sort of feral behaviour exists within the UK. To put it honestly I'll be glad to see Scotland leave with its problemsBollocks! I've been to Glasgow and I ken quite a few folk fae there too but it's no like that at all. Liverpool's more like that description but still not nearly as bad as you describe.
No more love in the isles. :fluffle:It was never a case of love in the first place. Ireland (becoming in personal union with England) and Wales (becoming part of England) were conquered and only the governemnt, not the resat of the people, wanted independance for Scotland. That was only because we're shit at colonialism unlike the English, who had the Thirteen Colonies, Barbados and Jamaica before we tried (and fucked up big time with) the Darien Scheme in Panama. Because we fucked up with that and then England barred trade with us, with whom we had about half of our trade at the time with the Alien Act. The Alien Act was intended to fuck up Scotland so the government would be ok with union.

I would say that was the case at Scotland’s formation (when we either Gaels, Brythons or Picts) but, more than a millenium on, we are an ethnicity as much as any other.
How so? The Scottish people are still made up of different ethnicities; saying there’s a single Scottish ethnic group is as silly as saying there’s a single American ethnic group. Both nations are made up of multiple ethnicities, and are all the better for it.

You’re confusing nationality (a human concept) with ethnicity (a biological concept). Sometimes, those two meet. But certainly not in Scotland. Today, "Scottish" refers to just more than those who are descended from the indigenous people of Scotland.

My country´s very hostile to the Basque, that´s true. But remember, the ETA has done so much harm to countless innocent people in Spain. I see it like this, if ETA targets politicians, well, I can understand it, it comes with the position (although I don´t condone it). But when a car is rigged and explodes, taking the life of innocent bystanders, those who just had the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, that´s when public sentiment becomes hostile towards a cause. I blame ETA for the hostility.
Oh, I understand that. However, I don't think that that means that the Spanish government has a trump card it can play should the Basque people accept independence in a referendum, for example. That said, ETA should take a look at Northern Ireland and the peace process there, and work towarda a Basque Downing Street Declaration rather than senseless violence, which is not an acceptable way to achieve political goals.

Oh, I understand that. However, I don't think that that means that the Spanish government has a trump card it can play should the Basque people accept independence in a referendum, for example. That said, ETA should take a look at Northern Ireland and the peace process there, and work towarda a Basque Downing Street Declaration rather than senseless violence, which is not an acceptable way to achieve political goals.

We can only hope. I thought that the Cease Fire they accorded last year with the government was a step towards peace, but I guess we were all mistaken in that. Only a few months passed and violence was back to an all time high.

Yes, but we forgive you anyway.

Grrr. I won't argue with that Mr Sarky.

Glasgow, whever I've seen it has Buildings that End with where there were Houses Before the Bombs hit but their Chimneys have survived, The Centre of the City was Bulldozed for a Road.

However the Station (Central) Seemed nice.

How so? The Scottish people are still made up of different ethnicities; saying there’s a single Scottish ethnic group is as silly as saying there’s a single American ethnic group. I'll emphasise the last five words of 'we are an ethnicity as much as any other.'. The French were made up of Gauls, Franks and Romans more than a thousand years ago too but I doubt many people in France or geneticists talk about whether they are one or the other. Once you have a single nationality, you usually soon have a single ethnicity. America is not like that because the people still know of whether they are descended from Natives, Germans, English or whatever. Once they forget the differing ethnicities and the differing ethnicities have interbred, they no longer are different ethnicities.

Besides, the Scottish Parliament and Wikipedia both recognise 'Scottish' as an ethnicity. If recognition as an ethnicity is not a criterion for being an ethnicity, then what is?
Both nations are made up of multiple ethnicities, and are all the better for it.America is much more so and much more recently. Nowadays, in Scotland, there are significant minorities of Scots who are not ethnically Scottish but that doesn't mean the ethnicity. It certainly is all the better for its idea of nationality not based on ethnicity.
You’re confusing nationality (a human concept) with ethnicity (a biological concept). Sometimes, those two meet. But certainly not in Scotland.I don't think I am confusing the two. I agree that there is no such thing as an American ethnic group but still an American nationality. I think there is such a thing as a Scottish ethnic group.

Anyway, both are human concepts. I would describe the first as a sociological concept.
Today, "Scottish" refers to just more than those who are descended from the indigenous people of Scotland.
That's because 'Scottish' is used to refer to the nationality as well as to the ethnicity.