NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, the by-election in Glenrothes made me think about this, and I personally think they should have complete independence. What do you think?

Should they have it? No. Do they want it? No.

End of

Well, the by-election in Glenrothes made me think about this, and I personally think they should have complete independence. What do you think?
Nah, there's not enough people in their economy for it to work properly. Should we probably devolve more powers to Scotland? Aye.

Should they have it? No. Do they want it? No.

End of

Interesting, I always thought they did. Well who am I to listen to reliable polls?

No.

Now, for something completely irrelevent to the thread, Yootopia you're from Hull? Whereabouts?

Nah, there's not enough people in their economy for it to work properly.

One of the reasons they should be independent. See how they can run everything without English money.

One of the reasons they should be independent. See how they can run everything without English money.

So...spite, essentially?

No.

Now, for something completely irrelevent to the thread, Yootopia you're from Hull? Whereabouts?

He's from York, isn't he? I thought he just moved to Hull?

So...spite, essentially?

Partially. Also, everyone has the right to rule themselves.

If they want it, absolutely. And while we're at it, let's see Northern Ireland return home as well.

If they want it, they should have the right to self-determination. If they don't want it, they should have the right to all the muffins they can eat.

No.

Now, for something completely irrelevent to the thread, Yootopia you're from Hull? Whereabouts?
I'm in Hull and living in Junkie Central (Grafton St.) in the first year of my History degree here.
One of the reasons they should be independent. See how they can run everything without English money.
They don't use our English Bastart Money, they use their own pounds :tongue:

*edits*

Also, I see no reason why trade would suddenly be cut off between England and Scotland.

He's from York, isn't he? I thought he just moved to Hull?
Jawohl.

No. I'm not in favor of the balkanization of the world. If the Scottish people want independence, then give it to them, but I don't think it should happen un-instigated.

They don't use our English Bastart Money, they use their own pounds :tongue:

Taxpayers' money, then.

Well, the by-election in Glenrothes made me think about this, and I personally think they should have complete independence. What do you think?

If they wanted it, they coud have it.
But I think they - same as many other - have realised that it would be prohibitively expensive and ultimately pointless.

Let's look at it : What exactly would they gain? But they would have to set up their own system of officials, they would need their own army, their own postal system, their own board of education, their own health care, etc. etc.
All that is easier and cheaper to do together with England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

So...spite, essentially?
That's exactly why I want them to become independent. Just to see the SNP unable to promise everything they have promised, that Scotland would become some sort of magic wonderland when they go independent.

I recently watched an SNP party political broadcast, and it was laughable. The things they promised appear unrealistic to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.

I'm in Hull and living in Junkie Central (Grafton St.) in the first year of my History degree here.

I live pretty much exactly 250 metres up Newland Avenue from Grafton Street.

But they would have to set up their own system of officials, they would need their own army, their own postal system, their own board of education, their own health care, etc. etc.

They have the ones in bold and the Scottish regiments in the British army could become the Scottish army.

I'm happy enough with Scotland being a part of the UK if that's what they want. Voted "I'm English, yes" though as I think it'd be for the best.

I live pretty much exactly 250 metres up Newland Avenue from Grafton Street.
That's pretty excellent :D

Up for a very tiny NS Meet in Reading Week, or are you off back home?

If they want it, absolutely. And while we're at it, let's see Northern Ireland return home as well.

Home? I don't think it ever went anywhere, from where I'm sitting at the minute it appears to be exactly where it's always been.

If they want it, absolutely. And while we're at it, let's see Northern Ireland return home as well.

Well seeing as Northern Ireland is the part that wants to stay united. I don't see it happening.

Back on topic.

I doubt that Scotland could last long without it's share of British taxes. By all means, give them some more freedoms, like what has happened in Wales.

They have the ones in bold and the Scottish regiments in the British army could become the Scottish army.

What, Scotland has it's own, independant health system? Unsubsidized?
Same goes for the schools, last time I looked they did get to say what's being taught to whom, but still happily took the money to run their education from the common pot...

I doubt that Scotland could last long without it's share of British taxes. By all means, give them some more freedoms, like what has happened in Wales.

Scotland is actually more independent and has more freedoms than Wales.

That's pretty excellent :D

Up for a very tiny NS Meet in Reading Week, or are you off back home?

I'm at home at the minute, actually, don't go back to Hull until next weekend. I'll maybe give you a shout when I'm back. It's amazing that I'm actually doing reading this week, second year law doesn't give you much hope of doing anything else...

They have the ones in bold and the Scottish regiments in the British army could become the Scottish army.

Most the soldiers in the Scottish regiments aren't Scottish any more. In fact, I don't think they have been 100% Scot for decades.

Most the soldiers in the Scottish regiments aren't Scottish any more. In fact, I don't think they have been 100% Scot for decades.
But then Scotland is supposed to be one of the recruiting heartlands of the British Army.

The difference between the amount of money Scotland pays into the UK pot and takes out of that pot shouldn't be overstated. It's ludicrous to say that it would bring an independent Scotland to its knees.

Interesting, I always thought they did. Well who am I to listen to reliable polls? The polls are far from reliable. One will be published saying they want it, then two months later a poll will be taken that shows they dont want it. If scots truly wanted independence then Alex Salmond would've held a referendum, but he wont becasue he knows he will lose.

The difference between the amount of money Scotland pays into the UK pot and takes out of that pot shouldn't be overstated. It's ludicrous to say that it would bring an independent Scotland to its knees.

No, I don't think it would either.
But they would find raising enough money a good deal more difficult, so why would they want to do it?

I'm at home at the minute, actually, don't go back to Hull until next weekend. I'll maybe give you a shout when I'm back. It's amazing that I'm actually doing reading this week, second year law doesn't give you much hope of doing anything else...
Fair play. Doing a great deal of nothing in History so far isn't helping my work ethic at all. Still, will be nice to take out all of the books I need from the library while everyone else is at home and all that.

The difference between the amount of money Scotland pays into the UK pot and takes out of that pot shouldn't be overstated. It's ludicrous to say that it would bring an independent Scotland to its knees.
But it is still friggin' massive compared to what the other constituent nations of the UK get. And when its considered that the SNP wants to lower taxes and get rid of Council Tax, it makes no sense that they'll be able to continue with their current level of spending on public services and things like free university.

But then Scotland is supposed to be one of the recruiting heartlands of the British Army.
So's Yorkshire, what's your point?

But then Scotland is supposed to be one of the recruiting heartlands of the British Army.

There are lots of Scots in the British Army. Some are in the Scottish regiments, some in the Armoured, Para's. Everywhere! Same goes for all nationalities in the British Army. The traditional names are merely tradition these days, and do not necessary signify the nationality of the troops within.

But it is still friggin' massive compared to what the other constituent nations of the UK get. And when its considered that the SNP wants to lower taxes and get rid of Council Tax, it makes no sense that they'll be able to continue with their current level of spending on public services and things like free university.
University in Scotland isn't free, they just all get student loans automatically.

So's Yorkshire, what's your point?
I don't think I have one.

Uh, it'd bugger up the British Army?

I don't think I have one.
Oh ok :tongue:
Uh, it'd bugger up the British Army?
Aye, might. Although most of the fighting in Afghanistan is done by the Paras and RMC, and Iraq is a bit superfluous.

I'm English and I live in the Highlands of Scotland. Have done for 16 years now.

I do not want to see Scotland gain independence because I don't think the Scottish economy can support Scotland without a little help from the rest of the U.K. I don't think that the majority of Scotland's voters want it and that's the reason it has not already happened.

Most Scottish people are aware of the SNP's shortcomings.

Another wee point to add in here. A lot of Scotland's voters are not Scottish, for example me :)

It seems senseless to me that while the rest of the world is forming alliances and working friendships (European Union for example) that the U.K is still talking about tearing itself apart. Seems like a step backwards while the rest of the world moves forwards to me.

Fair play. Doing a great deal of nothing in History so far isn't helping my work ethic at all. Still, will be nice to take out all of the books I need from the library while everyone else is at home and all that.

I know two people who do History at Hull. One did loads of work last year and had a few resits, the other did none and got a 2:1 last year. I think I know which one I'd prefer...

I'm in sanc quite a lot. If you're there and see a slightly odd looking and strangely tall Northern Irish girl then come and talk to me.

I am disapointed in this thread... not one reference to the movie Braveheart, William Wallace, or Mel Gibson!

I am disapointed in this thread... not one reference to the movie Braveheart, William Wallace, or Mel Gibson!
Nor that shite Connery, either.

Bloody tax exile who can only do his own damned voice.

I'm in sanc quite a lot. If you're there and see a slightly odd looking and strangely tall Northern Irish girl then come and talk to me.
Same, I'll be the one in a suit and tie, with either a very strong Scottish accent (if I've been to Scotland/talked with someone Scottish for 10 seconds) or an RP accent (if I haven't).

Same, I'll be the one in a suit and tie, with either a very strong Scottish accent (if I've been to Scotland/talked with someone Scottish for 10 seconds) or an RP accent (if I haven't).

Suit and tie? Very un-studenty!

Suit and tie? Very un-studenty!
Yeah, I know :tongue:

I am disapointed in this thread... not one reference to the movie Braveheart, William Wallace, or Mel Gibson!

Because epic phailz aren't a good reason for independence.

Nor that shite Connery, either.

Bloody tax exile who can only do his own damned voice.

There is nothing that irritates me more than someone who leaves a country and then presumes to speak on behalf of it. Connery claiming to speak for Scotland from a beach on the other side of the world is pathetic.

FREEDOM!!!!!!

http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/images/braveheart.jpg

Every thread about Scotland should have a reference to this movie.

Every thread about Scotland should have a reference to this movie.

Because it shows lies and the epic phail that was Scotland at the time?

I am disapointed in this thread... not one reference to the movie Braveheart, William Wallace, or Mel Gibson!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLrrBs8JBQo
there happy?

Because it shows lies and the epic phail that was Scotland at the time?

Of course an Englishman would say that. :p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLrrBs8JBQo
there happy?

See gigantic picture 2 posts above you.

I personally think Scotland should gain it´s independence from England.

See gigantic picture 2 posts above you.

its a pic from a blog it doesn't count

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLrrBs8JBQo
there happy?

Scottish accents make me lol. :D

Last polls I saw came down to this. If you ask Scottish people if they want Scoltland to be independent at some point, about 60% will say yes. If you ask them if they want to break with the union and be independent right now, that drops to around 30-odd%. If you ask them if they want independence or more devolution, the overwhelming support is for devolution not independence.

Personally I feel it would be a great shame if Scoltand was to have full independence for both sides. They have been part of the Union for over 300 years, consider that's longer than the US has been in existence. Our cultures are very similar, we have shared interests both domestically and foreign. It's about far more than just economics.

On the other hand, I feel that we should get the whole devolution thing sorted properly and bring in a federalised system making a clear division between what is the purview of Westminster and what should be to the constituent country (or indeed smaller divisions even in england) governments/assemblys. Setting it out clearly I think will make both the other countries happy and indeed England, since currently we do have the issues of the West Lothian question. Ie Scottish/Welsh/NIrish MPs can vote on issues only affecting England but the reverse is the not the case.

I personally think Scotland should gain it´s independence from England.

From the UK, you mean. England is no more free than the rest. We don't even have our own parliament.

I personally think Scotland should gain it´s independence from England.

Actually, that's one statement that annoys me. England does NOT rule Scotland. Scotland sends representatives to Westminster is keeping with it's population, just like every constituency of England, Wales and N. Ireland. One could argue the reverse is true, since Westminster MPs cannot vote on issues devolved to Scotland (as it should be) but Scottish MPs can vote on the very same sorts of issues (health, education, criminal justice) that affect only England or England and Wales.

What you mean is Scotland should break away from the Union or should have independence from the UK.

To be fair, England has 80%+ of the population and therefore the vote so England sort of does rule Scotland in a manner of speaking.

From the UK, you mean. England is no more free than the rest. We don't even have our own parliament.

Yes, if you´re getting technical, yes. Scotland should gain it´s independence from the UK.

::sigh:: I'm from another country -- but should Scotland decide to become independent, I hope they'll be willing to establish relations with the Republic of Texas!

Don't worry Scotland Form an independence army we Americans will start funneling you guns and Money. Due to vague association of ethnicity just like the IRA gets.

Yes, if you´re getting technical, yes. Scotland should gain it´s independence from the UK.

It's not even getting technical. All countries of the UK have their own parliament, asides from England. That means they can decide issues in their own parliaments as well as ones in the entire UK parliament. England has the least say, even though it's the biggest country and provides most of the money. We have a Scottish Prime Minister right now, but an English bloke can't be first minister of Wales, for example.

Haven't read much of the rest of the thread, but speaking as an actual Scottish-British citizen, I can tell you quite confidently that currently, most Scottish people favour staying within the Union, but want the Scottish Government to be granted more autonomy.

However, with the likelihood of a Tory government coming to power in Westminster soon, nationalist feeling is on the rise. Many would like to see Scotland become independent, rather than be governed by a Conservative Westminster.

For the benefit of International users, Scotland, as a constituent part of the United Kingdom, has always been a solidly socialist nation. Scottish Conservative MP's are a rare breed.

Ideally, I would like to see a more confederal union. An English Parliament should be created, and the current parliament's given more autonomy from Westminster. National parliaments would perform the tasks of governance better than the distant govenment in London. Westminster would be more suited to co-ordinating UK-wide policy such as defence, international relations and so on.

The relationship between national parliaments and Westminster needs to be addressed, and set in stone. I've had it with the cross-border bickering between the Scottish Government and Westminster.

Actually, that's one statement that annoys me. England does NOT rule Scotland. Scotland sends representatives to Westminster is keeping with it's population, just like every constituency of England, Wales and N. Ireland. One could argue the reverse is true, since Westminster MPs cannot vote on issues devolved to Scotland (as it should be) but Scottish MPs can vote on the very same sorts of issues (health, education, criminal justice) that affect only England or England and Wales.

What you mean is Scotland should break away from the Union or should have independence from the UK.

An excellent explanation imo.

Nah, there's not enough people in their economy for it to work properly. Should we probably devolve more powers to Scotland? Aye.
There are plenty of countries with populations of less than five million, and not all of them are Iceland.

If scots truly wanted independence then Alex Salmond would've held a referendum, but he wont becasue he knows he will lose.
Salmond can't hold a referendum because, in the absense of an Act of the Scottish Parliament allowing the Scottish Executive to hold one, he has no legal authority to do so. Considering the unionist majority in the Scottish Parliament, that isn't going to happen. Salmond knows this. Therefore, he will introuce a bill in 2010, happily watch Parliament reject it, and go into the 2011 election pointing out that 60%-70% of Scots want a referendum and that the SNP are the party that will give them one. If Salmond gets his way, he gets a majority government.

It's not even getting technical. All countries of the UK have their own parliament, asides from England. That means they can decide issues in their own parliaments as well as ones in the entire UK parliament. England has the least say, even though it's the biggest country and provides most of the money. We have a Scottish Prime Minister right now, but an English bloke can't be first minister of Wales, for example.
Which is why around 90% of MPs represent English constituencies. The Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish dual vote (the latter of which has had dual representation since 1920) really is minimal, and the West Lothian question irrelevant for the vast majority of parliamentary bills.

Northern Irish dual vote (the latter of which has had dual representation since 1920) really is minimal,

Even though the DUP swung the 42 days act.

Ideally, I would like to see a more confederal union. An English Parliament should be created, and the current parliament's given more autonomy from Westminster. National parliaments would perform the tasks of governance better than the distant govenment in London. Westminster would be more suited to co-ordinating UK-wide policy such as defence, international relations and so on.
I'd rather Parliaments in each of the 9 English regions - considering England has the vast, vast majority of the UK population, an English Parliament would be little more devolved than the centralised UK Parliament it inherits power from. To represent England as a nation, there could be some sort of joint authority, perhaps a council of all the English First Ministers, with powers over matters of English national identity. I know regional government is about as popular as testicular cancer these days, but I firmly believe that it's a far more democratic solution than an English Parlaiment that would just mirror Westminster.

The relationship between national parliaments and Westminster needs to be addressed, and set in stone. I've had it with the cross-border bickering between the Scottish Government and Westminster.
Absolutely. That won't be solved, however, while Westminster controls the purse.

Haven't read much of the rest of the thread, but speaking as an actual Scottish-British citizen, I can tell you quite confidently that currently, most Scottish people favour staying within the Union, but want the Scottish Government to be granted more autonomy.

However, with the likelihood of a Tory government coming to power in Westminster soon, nationalist feeling is on the rise. Many would like to see Scotland become independent, rather than be governed by a Conservative Westminster.

For the benefit of International users, Scotland, as a constituent part of the United Kingdom, has always been a solidly socialist nation. Scottish Conservative MP's are a rare breed.

Ideally, I would like to see a more confederal union. An English Parliament should be created, and the current parliament's given more autonomy from Westminster. National parliaments would perform the tasks of governance better than the distant govenment in London. Westminster would be more suited to co-ordinating UK-wide policy such as defence, international relations and so on.

The relationship between national parliaments and Westminster needs to be addressed, and set in stone. I've had it with the cross-border bickering between the Scottish Government and Westminster.

Confused me for a bit by saying national = less distant. For a second I thought I was listening to a states rights advocate from the US. :P

All in all my opinion is best summed up as, whatever the people want. So I guess I agree with this, assuming what you've said is true.

Even though the DUP swung the 42 days act.
Which applies across the entire United Kingdom, which includes Northern Ireland. The DUP has as much a right to vote on the Terrorism Bill as the Conservatives, Plaid, or the SNP. That it was notable and unusual Labour needed DUP support goes to show how hittle infuence the Northern Ireland has in divisions at Westminster.

I'd rather Parliaments in each of the 9 English regions - considering England has the vast, vast majority of the UK population, an English Parliament would be little more devolved than the centralised UK Parliament it inherits power from. To represent England as a nation, there could be some sort of joint authority, perhaps a council of all the English First Ministers, with powers over matters of English national identity. I know regional government is about as popular as testicular cancer these days, but I firmly believe that it's a far more democratic solution than an English Parlaiment that would just mirror Westminster.



I think 9 is a bit much. Possibly 3 or 4: The North, Midlands, South, Greater London for example (or to use the old Kingdom names, Northumbria, Mercia and Wessex with parliaments in York, Tamworth and Winchester respectively :D)

Reforge speaking via Tagmatium

I love Scotland, the last thing I want to see is it circling the drain with no hope while trying to convince itself that it will maintain a stable economy via whisky exports. There is nothing that upsets me more than a deluded Scotsman who believes that you cannot be 'really' Scottish without hating the English and blaming England for everything that is wrong with life.

Imagine that the SNP is the Cornish National Party and apply what it's saying. Does it make sense now, without the patriotic feeling?


As an aside, the majority of English people that I've met want Scotalnd to pull away, so they can get their tax money back. Most English that I know don't want to keep Scotland, they want to ditch it. I can't agree with them.

Devolution should be scrapped all together, it has never been needed since the Union and we don’t need it now. I am British first, English second.

Don't worry Scotland Form an independence army we Americans will start funneling you guns and Money. Due to vague association of ethnicity just like the IRA gets.

'bout the only thing you and the Soviets agreed on during the Cold War was that the IRA needed more guns :p

Should they have it? No. Do they want it? No.
It's nice being told what I should think and do.



Suit and tie? Very un-studenty!
You obviously haven't visited the West End of Glasgow recently...



Haven't read much of the rest of the thread, but speaking as an actual Scottish-British citizen, I can tell you quite confidently that currently, most Scottish people favour staying within the Union, but want the Scottish Government to be granted more autonomy.
As another Scot, I'd concur with the above.

However, with the likelihood of a Tory government coming to power in Westminster soon, nationalist feeling is on the rise. Many would like to see Scotland become independent, rather than be governed by a Conservative Westminster.
To put it mildly.

I think many would rather sell their own children than be ruled by a Tory government.




I love Scotland, the last thing I want to see is it circling the drain with no hope while trying to convince itself that it will maintain a stable economy via whisky exports.
Who's saying that?

There's far more going for the Scottish economy than simply whisky; tourism, a (AFAIK) still-growing high-technology industry sector, finance (Edinburgh is still Europe's sixth-biggest financial centre), oil (though this, admittedly, is a controversial area), etc.

Imagine that the SNP is the Cornish National Party and apply what it's saying. Does it make sense now, without the patriotic feeling?
For me, and I reckon most Scots, it never had a patriotic feeling to begin with. I'm in favour of decentralised, more accountable government. I see removal of power from Westminster as A Good Thing. Thus, I think we should move to further boost a devolved Scottish government's power.

It has little to do with kilts and English-bashing.

I was a fairly staunch Unionist in my younger days but over the last 15 years or so I've found that I go through wee phases of favouring the idea of full independence although I've never really been able to put my finger on exactly why, other than as a sort of knee-jerk reaction to the constant English bias on everything in the UK's media and that, for me, is simply not a good enough reason in and of itself.

Every time I see this debate I see the same tired old objections to the idea being trotted out. For example, in this thread, we've already seen comments made about how we don't have a large enough population to support a 'proper' economy. For the record, our population of a little over 5 million is comparable with those of Finland or Denmark, and is larger than those of Ireland or Norway, and yet I never seem to see anybody questioning the viability of any of those nations because of their demographics.

I'm certainly not suggesting that we might break completely free of the Union without major upheaval. The fact that we've been intimately enmeshed with the politics and economy of those South of the border for as long as we have means that there's probably no realistic way to sever ties completely or cleanly -- it'd be like trying to unmix paint, as an old tutor of mine was fond of pointing out -- and so we find ourselves in this bizarre world where the spectre of independence hangs over every political discussion that we have. It's all very unsatisfying.

I like devolution, and I want to see more matters devolved to Holyrood. I also find the SNP's oft-mooted (but yet to be fully expounded to my satisfaction) plan for an independent Scotland within the EU intriguing, and I'd dearly love to see it subjected to rigorous analysis by a few independent bodies (i.e. not by the SNP, and not by anyone committed to the preservation of the Union) but, until that happens, I'll remain on the fence.

'bout the only thing you and the Soviets agreed on during the Cold War was that the IRA needed more guns :p

The US government did not. But the American Patties did. though the US government did somewhat tie the hands of the British in their response.

Every time I see this debate I see the same tired old objections to the idea being trotted out. For example, in this thread, we've already seen comments made about how we don't have a large enough population to support a 'proper' economy.
Or how we're all racists, or how we're stealing money from hard-working English taxpayers, or how nobody in Scotland wants independence/further autonomy in the first place.

You hear it all the time.

Actually, that's one statement that annoys me. England does NOT rule Scotland. Scotland sends representatives to Westminster is keeping with it's population, just like every constituency of England, Wales and N. Ireland. One could argue the reverse is true, since Westminster MPs cannot vote on issues devolved to Scotland (as it should be) but Scottish MPs can vote on the very same sorts of issues (health, education, criminal justice) that affect only England or England and Wales.

What you mean is Scotland should break away from the Union or should have independence from the UK.

What annoys me is that as far as the Commonwealth of the UK goes, Scotland is under it, so don´t come to me and say my statement annoys you. To the eyes of the world, Scotland is not a sovereign country. It still answers to the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland#Government_and_politics

When I stated that yes, Scotland should gain independence from the UK or England, I meant exactly that. A country that still needs to answer to another is not an independent country.

Poll from this year: (http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2192965.0.41_of_scots_back_the_breakup_of_the_union.php)
An exclusive TNS System Three poll has found that 41% of Scots want the SNP government to negotiate an independence settlement, compared to 40% who are opposed to breaking up the UK.

The extraordinary poll results mark one of the few occasions in which independence has outpolled support for the union.

I say have a referendum, but require a two-thirds majority in favor of independence. Increased regional autonomy would be a more reasonable first step anyway.

Poll from this year: (http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2192965.0.41_of_scots_back_the_breakup_of_the_union.php)


I say have a referendum, but require a two-thirds majority in favor of independence. Increased regional autonomy would be a more reasonable first step anyway.

Well, I was told that, on the last referendum, the Scottish were not that interested in acquiring independence from the UK. Something similar happened with N. Ireland. But I could be mistaken and I lack a source to back this statement.

I say have a referendum, but require a two-thirds majority in favor of independence. Increased regional autonomy would be a more reasonable first step anyway.
What other step would there be?

It's not as if the day after a 'Yes' result in a referendum for independence Scotland suddenly becomes a sovereign nation. All the referendum would do would be to put massive pressure on Westminster to investigate the possibility of further power given to Holyrood.

What annoys me is that as far as the Commonwealth of the UK goes, Scotland is under it, so don´t come to me and say my statement annoys you. To the eyes of the world, Scotland is not a sovereign country. It still answers to the UK.
So? England isn't a sovereign country. Nor is Wales. Or Northern Ireland.

So? England isn't a sovereign country. Nor is Wales. Or Northern Ireland.

Confusing Brits!

Yoo-kun, huggles me.:(

Confusing Brits!

Yoo-kun, huggles me.:(
Nothing confusing about it. None of the countries in the UK is "free", we are the UK. You do not deal with the Welsh, you deal with the UK government etc.

Also, you get no huggles, because IIRC you're against independence for the Basque country and all that, and this is exactly the same, just with less terrorism.

Nothing confusing about it. None of the countries in the UK is "free", we are the UK. You do not deal with the Welsh, you deal with the UK government etc.
That's an important point to make; Scotland is (perhaps arguably) an integral part of the UK. It's hard to imagine Scotland becoming independent without the UK ceasing to exist.

Nothing confusing about it. None of the countries in the UK is "free", we are the UK. You do not deal with the Welsh, you deal with the UK government etc.

Also, you get no huggles, because IIRC you're against independence for the Basque country and all that, and this is exactly the same, just with less terrorism.

But I am not against the Basque getting their independence. Coming from a part of Spain that would like to be it´s own master, I am pro they acquire their independence from both Spain and France. And I´m pro other parts of Spain being independent too, like Galicia and Catalunya, and Asturias if it came to that.

That's an important point to make; Scotland is (perhaps arguably) an integral part of the UK. It's hard to imagine Scotland becoming independent without the UK ceasing to exist.
Quite.
But I am not against the Basque getting their independence. Coming from a part of Spain that would like to be it´s own master, I am pro they acquire their independence from both Spain and France. And I´m pro other parts of Spain being independent too, like Galicia and Catalunya, and Asturias if it came to that.
Oh ok I was totally wrong :tongue:

Oh ok I was totally wrong :tongue:

You still owe her a huggle. :D

You still owe her a huggle. :D

He surely does owe me a huggle. *nod*

He surely does owe me a huggle. *nod*
Pfft you want Europe to split up, ya crazy anarchist you :tongue:

Belgium should split up, too. The further Europe moves toward economic union, the less need there is for political union.

Belgium should split up, too. The further Europe moves toward economic union, the less need there is for political union.
The more it moves towards economic union, the more need there is for political union, and military union, and all the rest. You cannot have one trading bloc with a multitude of governments, all with subtly different laws regarding this, that or the other.

Pfft you want Europe to split up, ya crazy anarchist you :tongue:

Nah hun. One thing is what I would like to see happen with Scotland and parts of Spain and as it was put by someone else here, it´s something else what the countries in question want.

I know Scotland´s an integral part of the UK, no matter how much I think it should be it´s own country. Just like, like it or not, Galicia, Catalunya and the Euskal Herría are a part of what makes Spain Spain.

You cannot have one trading bloc with a multitude of governments, all with subtly different laws regarding this, that or the other.
Is that not a perfect description of the current EU?

as far as the Commonwealth of the UK goes, Scotland is under it

As are England Wales and Northern Ireland, plus it's not a Commonwealth, it's a Union.


Scotland is not a sovereign country.
Neither is Enlgand, Wales, etc



It still answers to the UK.
As do England, Wales etc.

I think 9 is a bit much. Possibly 3 or 4: The North, Midlands, South, Greater London for example (or to use the old Kingdom names, Northumbria, Mercia and Wessex with parliaments in York, Tamworth and Winchester respectively :D)
I mentioned the nine regions purely out of knowledege and convenience. One could use generally accepted 'natural' regions of England, such as East Anglic, Yorkshire, the West Country, the Home Counties, Greater London, and sort of fill in the rest. There's plenty of options. In any case, I still feel that one legislature for the whole of England blows a real opportunity to make the UK more democratic, local and accountable.

or how we're stealing money from hard-working English taxpayers
I may be missing your point here, but the pure vitriol you get here in South-East England towards Scotland is absolutely breathtaking, usually mixing the Barnett Formula, Labour/Brown being Scottish (and Scotland thus being blamed for Labour) and good old fashioned racism. I just wish I still had my nice Edinburgh accent, that would give them something to complain about...

The more it moves towards economic union, the more need there is for political union, and military union, and all the rest. You cannot have one trading bloc with a multitude of governments, all with subtly different laws regarding this, that or the other.

We have it in America. It's called federalism. The EU government can regulate interstate trade, and the Flemish and Wallons can have their own states.

The Queen should rule us all. English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish nationalities do not exist!

We're British!

(PS: No I do not support the BNP, they're my least favourite party :P)

Is that not a perfect description of the current EU?
Hehe, it's not far off.

The EU thing is also the reason that we don't often see one of the other old favourite objections thrown up too often - the "what would happen to all the Scots who live/work in the rest of the UK if Scotland became independent?" one (although, come to think of it, I seem to recall it cropping up in the Glenrothes election thread the other day). If they were EU citizens they'd be perfectly entitled to continue living and working where they were.

Belgium should split up, too. The further Europe moves toward economic union, the less need there is for political union.
What about the Basques, the Catalans, the Bretons, the Sami (?sp), the Padanians or the Tatars?

The Queen should rule us all. English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish nationalities do not exist! Fuck off, yes they do and have done for thousands of years.

We're British!

Not the Northern Irish, they don't live in Britain.

What about the Basques, the Catalans, the Bretons, the Sami (?sp), the Padanians or the Tatars?

Sure, why not? It may be that the nation-state is an outmoded form of political organization. Why can't you have sub-states within sub-states, all with varying degrees of autonomy?

What annoys me is that as far as the Commonwealth of the UK goes, Scotland is under it, so don´t come to me and say my statement annoys you. To the eyes of the world, Scotland is not a sovereign country. It still answers to the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland#Government_and_politics

When I stated that yes, Scotland should gain independence from the UK or England, I meant exactly that. A country that still needs to answer to another is not an independent country.

Yeah, you don't know much about the constitutional situation in the UK, do you?

As are England Wales and Northern Ireland, plus it's not a Commonwealth, it's a Union.

It´s funny because most English people I know refer to the UK as a commonwealth and not an union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_United_Kingdom#Government_and_politics

15 Commonwealth countries, bringing the UK into a personal union with these. But the system seems to be called a commonwealth.

I'm just gonna say it's a bad idea. Why? I think it might hurt the scottish economy, seeing as many of their policies depend on government funding.

Yeah, you don't know much about the constitutional situation in the UK, do you?

I was already pointed in the right direction there. Thanks.

15 Commonwealth countries, bringing the UK into a personal union with these. But the system seems to be called a commonwealth.

Lol, the Commonwealth is nothing like that. The Commonwealth is a bunch of ex-Empire countries, they rule themselves, the UK doesn't dictate their laws. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a Union of England, Wales Scotland and Northern Ireland, anything else is not part of the UK.

In any case, I still feel that one legislature for the whole of England blows a real opportunity to make the UK more democratic, local and accountable.
I quite agree.

A single executive each for Wales, NI (assuming things say as they are) and Scotland, with multiple executives for England, would be a good first step.

I may be missing your point here...
Not at all.


It may be that the nation-state is an outmoded form of political organization.
I believe there's little 'may' about it.

Lol, the Commonwealth is nothing like that. The Commonwealth is a bunch of ex-Empire countries, they rule themselves, the UK doesn't dictate their laws. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a Union of England, Wales Scotland and Northern Ireland, anything else is not part of the UK.

I stand corrected.

I'm just gonna say it's a bad idea. Why? I think it might hurt the scottish economy, seeing as many of their policies depend on government funding.

But it's our money they use.

Lol, the Commonwealth is nothing like that. The Commonwealth is a bunch of ex-Empire countries, they rule themselves, the UK doesn't dictate their laws. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a Union of England, Wales Scotland and Northern Ireland, anything else is not part of the UK.

Last time I checked, the UK was also referred to as a Commonwealth. It's just another way of saying it. :p

But it's our money they use.

Precisely my point - without us, they're screwed - hence they need us.

I stand corrected.

I can see where you got confused. The Queen is still head of state of some Commonwealth countries. She has to sign their laws when they're passed, but has no say at all, so they're fully independent.

Precisely my point - without us, they're screwed - hence they need us.

But they take our money. That we could use.

Last time I checked, the UK was also referred to as a Commonwealth. It's just another way of saying it. :p

But you see, No Names Left wants to get technical so lets grant him that. The UK is not a commonwealth but an union. Scotland can´t subsist without the UK and I still think it should be independent from the union.

But they take our money. That we could use.

My point is that Scotland would be screwed without us, i'm not moaning about the fact they take our money, Just that they could not survive without it.

Last time I checked, the UK was also referred to as a Commonwealth. It's just another way of saying it. :p

No.

Last time I checked, the UK was also referred to as a Commonwealth. It's just another way of saying it. :p

No, the UK is made up of the four constituent countries of Enlgand, Wales, blah blah blah. The Commonwealth is a bunch of ex-Empire countries such as Canada, Zimbabawe etc.

No, the UK is made up of the four constituent countries of Enlgand, Wales, blah blah blah. The Commonwealth is a bunch of ex-Empire countries such as Canada, Zimbabawe etc.

Ok then, my mistake.

But you see, No Names Left

No longer Adu-kun?? :eek:

Why must you torture me this way? :(

No longer Adu-kun?? :eek:

Why must you torture me this way? :(

You're still Adu-San to me. :)

No, the UK is made up of the four constituent countries of Enlgand, Wales, blah blah blah. The Commonwealth is a bunch of ex-Empire countries such as Canada, Zimbabawe etc.

Yes, Adu-kun, yes. But you yourself said it in another post. The laws of said ex-Empire countries need to pass through the hands of the Queen. So... are these countries completely their masters or not? Are they part of the UK´s 4 constituent countries or not? Is this an union or commonwealth or not? Because if the laws of Scotland need to be ok´ed by the Queen then Scotland is no more it´s master than any other part of the ¨union¨ is.

You're still Adu-San to me. :)

*Sniffs* At least I still have one friend. *Cries onto Zero's shoulder*

Fuck off, yes they do and have done for thousands of years.



Not the Northern Irish, they don't live in Britain.

Maybe not, but they're as much part of the Union as the rest of us, and are therefore British.
We've achieved more United than we would have done alone.

Yes, Adu-kun

Yay!:)

So... are these countries completely their masters or not? Yes, 100%. She has to sign the laws, whether she likes it or not.

Are they part of the UK´s 4 constituent countries or not? No

Because if the laws of Scotland need to be ok´ed by the Queen then Scotland is no more it´s master than any other part of the ¨union¨ is.

It's not, but it should be.

My point is that Scotland would be screwed without us, i'm not moaning about the fact they take our money.
And you bloody well shouldn't, unless you're going to show how no Scot has ever paid tax.

Does only 15% (the proportion of the UK population that lives in London) of UK tax get spent in London? Does it bollocks!

"They take our money"... cheeky wee bugger.

Maybe not, but they're as much part of the Union as the rest of us, and are therefore British.
They don't live on the island of Britain, therefore they are not British.

Ah, poor Adu-San, you're attention starved. :D

And you bloody well shouldn't, unless you're going to show how no Scot has ever paid tax.

Does only 15% (the proportion of the UK population that lives in London) of UK tax get spent in London? Does it bollocks!

"They take our money"... cheeky wee bastard.

Hence why I never complained - my point is without full government funding, some policies would have to be scrapped.

They don't live n the island of Britain, therefore they are not British.

So they're Irish?
Even if they hold a British passport? Okie Dokie then...

Ah, poor Adu-San, you're attention starved. :D

This is the most attention I've ever got on NSG, actually. On either account.

So they're Irish?
Even if they hold a British passport? Okie Dokie then...

They hold a passport for the United Kingdom, not for Britain, and some actually hold Republic passports.

What's Scotland going to do with independence?

Yay!:)It's not, but it should be.

Then my point stands, Adu-kun.:fluffle:
Scotland is no more it´s master than the rest of the ¨union¨ is. Therefore, once again, I think that it should gain it´s independence from the rest of the UK.

Then my point stands, Adu-kun.:fluffle:
Scotland is no more it´s master than the rest of the ¨union¨ is. Therefore, once again, I think that it should gain it´s independence from the rest of the UK.

It's actually more its master than England, but it should definitely gain independence.

They hold a passport for the United Kingdom, not for Britain, and some actually hold Republic passports.

Oh okay then. The people who live in NI that I know, however, regard themselves as British. But I understand your reasoning.

It's actually more its master than England, but it should definitely gain independence.

You infuriate me!!!:mad:

But you´re like a cute puppy, and as long as you wag your tail at me, I can´t stay mad.:tongue:

They don't live on the island of Britain, therefore they are not British.

Some of them are British people that Cromwell sent over to take land away from the Catholics.

my point is without full government funding, some policies would have to be scrapped.
Some, perhaps.

Though I've never seen anything more than conjecture either way as to whether Scotland could/could not survive economically on its own. I don't see why it necessarily couldn't; there's quite a few prosperous nations of a similar or smaller size to Scotland.

Yes, Adu-kun, yes. But you yourself said it in another post. The laws of said ex-Empire countries need to pass through the hands of the Queen. So... are these countries completely their masters or not?

Yes, because the Queen is seperately Queen of Canada, Queen of New Zealand, etc.

She gives her assent to laws in her capacity as Queen of each individual country, not as Queen of the United Kingdom. Canada does not have the same Crown as the UK. Australia does not have the same Crown as New Zealand.

The Balfour Declaration of 1926 and the Statute of Westminster 1931 make it perfectly clear that commonwealth realms are on an equal level to the UK, and are in no way subject to the UK.

Are they part of the UK´s 4 constituent countries or not?

The UK's constituent countries are England, Wales (technically a principality of England, really, but we don't remind them of that, they get tetchy), Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

Anything else is not part of the UK. Canada is not part of the UK. Barbados is not part of the UK.

Is this an union or commonwealth or not?

The four constituent countries of the UK are in a legal, political, and economic union, with a common Parliament and a common head of state; the Queen.

The UK and the other commonwealth realms are in a personal union. Entirely different thing. All that means is that the person that is their monarch is the same person, not that they have the same monarchy. The Queen of the United Kingdom is not the head of state of Belize. The Queen of Belize is.

Because if the laws of Scotland need to be ok´ed by the Queen then Scotland is no more it´s master than any other part of the ¨union¨ is.

No part of the UK is its own "master". The UK is the master.

This is really not a complicated concept to grasp.

Some, perhaps.

Though I've never seen anything more than conjecture either way as to whether Scotland could/could not survive economically on its own. I don't see why it necessarily couldn't; there's quite a few prosperous nations of a similar or smaller size to Scotland.

Well, only time will tell now I guess.

So they're Irish?
Even if they hold a British passport? Okie Dokie then...

Anybody born in NI has dual British and Irish nationality, and can have the passport of one, both, or neither of the countries, whether they care to admit it or not.

Then my point stands, Adu-kun.:fluffle:
Scotland is no more it´s master than the rest of the ¨union¨ is. Therefore, once again, I think that it should gain it´s independence from the rest of the UK.

Under that reasoning England should gain independence. As should Wales and Northern Ireland.

What you are essentially advocating is the dissolution of the United Kingdom into its four constituent countries.

Some of them are British people that Cromwell sent over to take land away from the Catholics.

There's just so much "lolwut" there that I'm not even going to bother. Be satisfied with this:

No.

No part of the UK is its own "master". The UK is the This is really not a complicated concept to grasp.

I got it already.:wink: But I was making Adunabar run into circles. That´s all.

There's just so much "lolwut" there that I'm not even going to bother. Be satisfied with this:

No.
Cromwellian conquest of Ireland. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwellian_conquest_of_Ireland)

There's just so much "lolwut" there that I'm not even going to bother. Be satisfied with this:

No.
I was leaving that one for you to handle.

If Glasgow's taught me anything it's 'don't get into an argument about Northern Ireland'.

Cromwellian conquest of Ireland. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwellian_conquest_of_Ireland)

Mate, I think he's saying that that event is too far back to consider them to be from Britain now...
He's being a douche about it, yes. But still.

yup Scotland should be independent.

I was leaving that one for you to handle.

If Glasgow's taught me anything it's 'don't get into an argument about Northern Ireland'.

Yeah, N. Ireland is a touchy subject best left to the Northern Irish.

Yeah, N. Ireland is a touchy subject best left to the Northern Irish.

Or Ireland as a whole.

Or Ireland as a whole.

Perhaps.

My point was that many Northern Irish may consider themselves British because they were originally British colonists. Probably shouldn't have said it like that.

Cromwellian conquest of Ireland. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwellian_conquest_of_Ireland)

Oh, believe me I'm perfectly aware of what you think you are referring to. Comes with the territory of having a history degree from one of the top universities in Ireland, and having spent most of my three years at said university studying events such as the one you cite.

Let me disassemble your point thusly:

They were not British people. Such a thing didn't exist at the time.

They were not "sent over by Cromwell". They were there fighting under him.

They were not there with the purpose of taking land from Catholics. They were there to subdue the rowdy locals in order to make it impossible for Royalists to use Ireland to launch an attack on Cromwell in England, to further his power, and to secure his position as part of the wider Cromwellian wars that affected England, Scotland, and Ireland. Taking land off Catholics was a part of this process, purely because the Confederacy had been mostly Catholic and had supported the Royalists; penalising the Catholic population was the most obvious and sensible way to reduce Royalist supporters from gaining strength and being able to launch a sustained and credible attack on Cromwell.

Yeah, N. Ireland is a touchy subject best left to the Northern Irish.
More that so many people up here with rather... loose connections to NI seem to know exactly how to solve all of NI's problems, and who exactly to blame.

When you've been grilled by some unassuming old lady in a pub as to whether you're a Proddy or a Fenian, you think twice.

Oh, believe me I'm perfectly aware of what you think you are referring to. Comes with the territory of having a history degree from one of the top universities in Ireland, and having spent most of my three years at said university studying events such as the one you cite.

Let me disassemble your point thusly:

They were not British people. Such a thing didn't exist at the time.

They were not "sent over by Cromwell". They were there fighting under him.

They were not there with the purpose of taking land from Catholics. They were there to subdue the rowdy locals in order to make it impossible for Royalists to use Ireland to launch an attack on Cromwell in England, to further his power, and to secure his position as part of the wider Cromwellian wars that affected England, Scotland, and Ireland. Taking land off Catholics was a part of this process, purely because the Confederacy had been mostly Catholic and had supported the Royalists; penalising the Catholic population was the most obvious and sensible way to reduce Royalist supporters from gaining strength and being able to launch a sustained and credible attack on Cromwell.

Hrmkay. I was under the impression that the Protestant colonists had more of a British identity than the locals. But I don't wish to get into an argument as I know next-to-nothing about the subject.

More that so many people up here with rather... loose connections to NI seem to know exactly how to solve all of NI's problems, and who exactly to blame.

When you've been grilled by some unassuming old lady in a pub as to whether you're a Proddy or a Fenian, you think twice.

I was in N. Ireland a few years ago and the subject was quite touchy. I was grilled by my host´s grandfather about the situation and he began to compare it with the Basques and whatnot. He basically called me an imperialistic Spanish swine and I was at a loss for words. So yes, the subject is so touchy I try not to go deep into it.

I think this is the first time I touched it as deeply as I could, and it has nothing to do with NI primarily.

My point was that many Northern Irish may consider themselves British because they were originally British colonists. Probably shouldn't have said it like that.

In the most base, simplistic, black and white way, yes, you are correct.

Looking at it properly, no, you're essentially not.

The development of a British identity among some in Northern Ireland is a far more complex thing, and not overly connected with being colonists. It is much more closely tied to the religion of the colonists, and how they were affected by the penal laws, and to a greater extent economic growth in the aftermath of Ireland joining the UK in the early decades of the nineteenth century.

But that's enough about Ireland.

In the most base, simplistic, black and white way, yes, you are correct.

Looking at it properly, no, you're essentially not.

The development of a British identity among some in Northern Ireland is a far more complex thing, and not overly connected with being colonists. It is much more closely tied to the religion of the colonists, and how they were affected by the penal laws, and to a greater extent economic growth in the aftermath of Ireland joining the UK in the early decades of the nineteenth century.

But that's enough about Ireland.
Well, that makes sense. Thank you for explaining it.

But that's enough about Ireland.
Typical.

(A nice thread about) Scotland is ruined by Ireland/Northern Ireland's problems... :p

Typical.

(A nice thread about) Scotland is ruined by Ireland/Northern Ireland's problems... :p

we could always divide Scotland up into independent highlands and part the the UK low lands.

Typical.

(A nice thread about) Scotland is ruined by Ireland/Northern Ireland's problems... :p

I know.:(

Typical.

(A nice thread about) Scotland is ruined by Ireland/Northern Ireland's problems... :p

If you bloody Scots hadn't come over here in the first place we wouldn't have this problem :tongue:

We could always make Scotland and Ireland States of the Untied States.

*I am Scottish*

I have no objection to a political and economic union with the other member nations of the United Kingdom but I think the current system doesn't work well. I would prefer a federal Govt controlling foreign policy, the military, currency, the environment and national infrastructure and leave the rest to national governments.

*I am Scottish*

I have no objection to a political and economic union with the other member nations of the United Kingdom but I think the current system doesn't work well. I would prefer a federal Govt controlling foreign policy, the military, currency, the environment and national infrastructure and leave the rest to national governments.

A Scotsman has spoken. That´s all I needed to hear.

Or Ireland as a whole.

For many, indeed. And exactly why I let that thought die on page 2. :D I've been through this with Nadkor before.

Is that not a perfect description of the current EU?
No, because you are trading with individual countries and not "the EU".

If they want to be independent, perhaps. I think greater autonomy would work fine, too. Depends on what they want really, it's their country, not mine.

We have it in America. It's called federalism. The EU government can regulate interstate trade, and the Flemish and Wallons can have their own states.
Aye, federalism is alive and kicking in many European states, esp. Germany. Doesn't mean it's actually very good, it just means that you've got more excuses when you fuck up.

"Oh but that's really a state/federal issue" etc. - bugger that shit, get one European state imo.

there is a slight problem with Scotland being independent, money! It's little known that England bankrolls Scotland's Education, public services, Healthcare and military. To truly devolve would involve an 8 billion pound hole in any Scottish ministers spending plan

The Barnett formula diverts about £8 billion of extra public expenditure to Scotland each year. This means that the entire population of Scotland enjoys a subsidy averaging £30 per person per week. The same formula sends extra funding to wales too.

I support Scottish independence if only because its wrong that Scottish MPs should be able to vote on English issues while English MPs have no power north of the border and that English tax subsidises Scotland's services and spending plans is even more criminal.

If you bloody Scots hadn't come over here in the first place we wouldn't have this problem :tongue:

But weren't they Irish people who'd invaded Scotland and then went back or something?
This is why the Welsh are better, out of consideration for future history students we just have a list of people who invaded us. Far simpler to learn and understand

*I am Scottish*

I have no objection to a political and economic union with the other member nations of the United Kingdom but I think the current system doesn't work well. I would prefer a federal Govt controlling foreign policy, the military, currency, the environment and national infrastructure and leave the rest to national governments.

Are you a... True Scotsman?

Anyway, that idea seems to make sense.

We could always make Scotland and Ireland States of the Untied States.

If you are talking about the United States of America, that is a very bad idea.

On the other hand, if you are proposing some new nation called the Untied States, this interesting. However, I would suggest a different name. Untied and United are too close and people might get confused.

If you are talking about the United States of America, that is a very bad idea.

On the other hand, if you are proposing some new nation called the Untied States, this interesting. However, I would suggest a different name. Untied and United are too close and people might get confused.

its important in the name. Everyone in the Constitution will be required to have shoes untied when in public.

But weren't they Irish people who'd invaded Scotland and then went back or something?
This is why the Welsh are better, out of consideration for future history students we just have a list of people who invaded us. Far simpler to learn and understand

Yeah they were, the Scots are Irish Celts from Northern Ireland, but they went Protestant while Ireland went Catholic and then got sent back during the Ulster plantations.

Lol

Yeah they were, the Scots are Irish Celts from Northern Ireland, but they went Protestant while Ireland went Catholic and then got sent back during the Ulster plantations.

Lol
Simplification, much :p

Simplification, much :p

Well, you know, we like things simple in Bristol. That filthy Corn's been influencing you too much. :tongue:

Well, you know, we like things simple in Bristol. That filthy Corn's been influencing you too much. :tongue:
Nah, it's my background in all things history, really. I tend to get annoyed if anything is historically inaccurate, which I know is pretty stupid :p

Braveheart made me sad :(

Nah, it's my background in all things history, really. I tend to get annoyed if anything is historically inaccurate, which I know is pretty stupid :p

I get annoyed too, but what I said wasn't inaccurate. I missed a lot of stuff, but what was there was accurate.

I get annoyed too, but what I said wasn't inaccurate. I missed a lot of stuff, but what was there was accurate.
I know, I didn't say you were being inaccurate. That was more of a generality.

I know, I didn't say you were being inaccurate. That was more of a generality.

Oh.

The UK should never be split up. United we stand, divided we fall. No doubt a separation could lead to a situation much the same as N.I, which none of us want. Devolution should be scrapped all together, system worked fine before the conservative government stopped caring about Scotland and you cant break up an age old and perfectly working union based on a few years bad luck

No doubt a separation could lead to a situation much the same as N.I,

Thousands of deaths, even though everyone is separate? Riiight.

The thing that I never understood about the Scottish independence was this: Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, our last 2 prime ministers, both Scots...

Also the fact that every constitutent country in Britain (bar England) claim to be Celtic, even though the first celts turned up in London in 1792.

The thing about these situations is simple, their economy could be destroyed without the Union... they should have more powers in the region the same as Wales and England for that matter (every other constituent has their own Assembly or Parliament bar England) but not total independence.

(Plus in a few hundred years or so after independence it would be inevitable that one or the other country would end up with a dictator trying to take the other country lol)

Also the fact that every constitutent country in Britain (bar England) claim to be Celtic, even though the first celts turned up in London in 1792.

1. Britain =/= the UK.

2. Lol epic phail at history.

Also the fact that every constitutent country in Britain (bar England) claim to be Celtic, even though the first celts turned up in London in 1792.

I'm sorry but just what the hell are you talking about?

The UK should never be split up. United we stand, divided we fall. No doubt a separation could lead to a situation much the same as N.I, which none of us want. Devolution should be scrapped all together, system worked fine before the conservative government stopped caring about Scotland and you cant break up an age old and perfectly working union based on a few years bad luck

Well shouldn't that be up to the respective populations in the respective constituent parts rather than just one part say?

I'm in favor of secession for every man, woman, and responsible child in the world.

I realise I'm jumping in a bit late here, but after reviewing a number of the prominent arguments, a thought has come to mind.

A predominant amount of posters have cited the inability of Scotland to maintain itself economically as their primary reason to be against this sort of move. They would state that their removal from the United Kingdom and its money would somehow cripple Scotland. However, as the U.K. is a member of the E.U., would an independent Scotland, a former part of the U.K., not be made a member-state due to that?

Even if not, in all likelihood they would desire to join the E.U. and, in doing so, be eligible for regional development funding: like that which the Republic of Ireland received, and helped their GDP and overall development substantially.

However, as the U.K. is a member of the E.U., would an independent Scotland, a former part of the U.K., not be made a member-state due to that?

Even if not, in all likelihood they would desire to join the E.U. and, in doing so, be eligible for regional development funding: like that which the Republic of Ireland received, and helped their GDP and overall development substantially.

Sssshhh. We don't need that kind of logical talk in here.

I realise I'm jumping in a bit late here, but after reviewing a number of the prominent arguments, a thought has come to mind.

A predominant amount of posters have cited the inability of Scotland to maintain itself economically as their primary reason to be against this sort of move. They would state that their removal from the United Kingdom and its money would somehow cripple Scotland. However, as the U.K. is a member of the E.U., would an independent Scotland, a former part of the U.K., not be made a member-state due to that?

Even if not, in all likelihood they would desire to join the E.U. and, in doing so, be eligible for regional development funding: like that which the Republic of Ireland received, and helped their GDP and overall development substantially.

But it has also been stated that without Scotland, the UK may very well fall apart. Also, it appears Scotland, after several referendums, has no desire to seceed from the UK.

If the Scottish vote for it, they should be given it. Same goes for pretty much every separatist movement on earth. (I would just point out here that at the moment, no-where in Britain currently has a majority wanting secession, so please please bear that in mind when you refer to "uniting Ireland") or whatever.

</story>

If the Scottish vote for it, they should be given it. Same goes for pretty much every separatist movement on earth. (I would just point out here that at the moment, no-where in Britain currently has a majority wanting secession, so please please bear that in mind when you refer to "uniting Ireland") or whatever.

</story>

I didn't, personally, see any posts related to a unified Ireland -- pardon me if I've simply neglected to read them.

And, in regards to the need for a majority Scottish vote prior to their being given independence, that is clearly the case. Speculation as to how Scotland would function as an independent state, however, is still permitted, I would think, even without said vote. ;)

But it has also been stated that without Scotland, the UK may very well fall apart. Also, it appears Scotland, after several referendums, has no desire to seceed from the UK.
I'm not saying they would pass, but Scotland hasn't had any referenda on independence.

If the Scottish vote for it, they should be given it. Same goes for pretty much every separatist movement on earth.What counts as a separatist movement? Should someone be allowed to declare his room to be an independent country?

What are your thoughts the principality of Sealand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand)? Should it be recognized as independent sovereign state?

I'm not saying they would pass, but Scotland hasn't had any referenda on independence.

Didn't someone here posted some sort of link on Scotland's referanda?:confused:

Didn't someone here posted some sort of link on Scotland's referanda?:confused:

No, it was a link from a poll, and there was a 1% majority in favour anyway.

No, it was a link from a poll, and there was a 1% majority in favour anyway.

Aw well, then that was my mistake.:wink:

Aw well, then that was my mistake.:wink:

Yeah, Scotland have never held a referendum.

The Nats have promised one, and are in government in the Scottish Parliament but have yet to actually pull the trigger on calling one.

The Nats have promised one, and are in government in the Scottish Parliament but have yet to actually pull the trigger on calling one.

Because it won't get a large majority. They'll wait until the tories win Commons.

No, it was a link from a poll, and there was a 1% majority in favour anyway.

polls like this they tend to ask the questions in a way to get the answer they want.

polls like this they tend to ask the questions in a way to get the answer they want.

Yeah.

Well shouldn't that be up to the respective populations in the respective constituent parts rather than just one part say? It will be up to there representative’s in parliament

What counts as a separatist movement? Should someone be allowed to declare his room to be an independent country?

What are your thoughts the principality of Sealand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand)? Should it be recognized as independent sovereign state?

Note that I said "pretty much", not every. That way I can weasel out of such situations as the one above by saying "that's not really what I meant..." :p

Perhaps I'm being unrealistic, but if there is ever a clearly defined group of people, who do constitute the majority of the area they inhabit, and wish to seek political independence, ultimately it should be granted so long as the rights of everyone else in that area are respected. However the process shouldn't be an immediate one by any means at all, I'm not advocating redrawing the world's borders overnight. Certainly such trivial examples as the one above should be ignored.

Perhaps I'm being unrealistic, but if there is ever a clearly defined group of people, who do constitute the majority of the area they inhabit, and wish to seek political independence, ultimately it should be granted so long as the rights of everyone else in that area are respected.

^This 100%.

I didn't, personally, see any posts related to a unified Ireland -- pardon me if I've simply neglected to read them.

Read the thread again.

The Glenrothes by-election spelt it out: No to independence. Or at least no to independence under Alex Salmond.

So a by-election in one constituency means Scotland can't be independent? I see. What a grasp of politics you have.

So a by-election in one constituency means Scotland can't be independent? I see. What a grasp of politics you have.

Well Salmond was turning the by-election into a vote of confidence in Brown.

Brown campaigning in person only sustantiated this view.

When Brown won a seat most people had him pegged to lose to SNP it does scupper the SNP's plans somewhat.

I'm Scottish and I am 100% unsure.

I'm Scottish and I am 100% unsure.
Be 100% sure not to vote for Alex Salmond - he's a shite. Whether or not you want Scotland to be independent, I doubt you want such a man at the controls.

Be 100% sure not to vote for Alex Salmond - he's a shite. Whether or not you want Scotland to be independent, I doubt you want such a man at the controls.

You can say that about anyone though really.

You can say that about anyone though really.
Yes, if you want to stretch it that far. I doubt you'd want me at the controls of a real country - my reign of terror would make the living wish they were dead.

But then there's no way in hell I'd ever be in such a position, especially one built purely on the hubris of half-imagined slights and fake promises like that particular chap.

especially one built purely on the hubris of half-imagined slights and fake promises like that particular chap.

That's how every other politician gets into office.

Yeah, Scotland have never held a referendum.

Then perhaps it´s time for one.

Then perhaps it´s time for one.

That's what the SNP are promising, however there probably won't be a large enough majority. They'll wait until the Tories win Commons in 2011, because the Tories aren't well like in Scotland, then hold one.