NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7876637.stm

Conservative leader David Cameron said his party will vigorously oppose the SNP, just days after the Scottish Tories backed the Nationalists' budget.

Mr Cameron said he would do everything in his power to stop Scottish independence, if he became prime minister at the next UK election.

But he also pledged to boost relations between UK and Holyrood governments.

First Minister Alex Salmond said Scotland's constitutional future was not up to David Cameron.

The Scottish Government's spending plans for the coming year were passed on the second attempt, after Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens earlier combined to reject the £33bn proposals.

No amount of warm words from the Tories will wipe out the memories the people of Scotland have of the damage inflicted on the country during 18 long years of Conservative rule
Spokesman for Alex Salmond

Mr Cameron said the negotiating skills of the 16 Conservative MSPs, led by Annabel Goldie - who voted for the budget on both occasions - helped secure concessions including a £60m town centre regeneration fund, a policy which had also been championed by Labour.

The UK Conservative leader said there were lessons to be learned from the budget experience about running devolution.

Mr Cameron said his support for the Westminster government's bank recapitalisation plan had not stopped him holding it to account since then.

"In the same way, our support for this budget will in no way diminish our vigorous opposition to the SNP and what it represents," he said.

"If elected, I will do everything in my power to ensure the SNP will not be able to split up the UK.

"I want to be a prime minister of the whole United Kingdom. That's not because I'm some kind of megalomaniac, it's because we have so much in common and we have done so much together."

Mr Cameron also claimed the current UK Government had failed to respect the relationship it needed to have with the Holyrood administration.

He said the Scottish secretary should be having monthly meetings with the Scottish first minister, while Westminster cabinet members and officials should be regularly talking to their Holyrood counterparts.

"If we win the next election at Westminster, we would govern with a maturity and a respect for the Scottish people," Mr Cameron added.
Mr Cameron paid tribute to Scots Tory leader, Annabel Goldie

"I would be a prime minister that would work constructively with any administration at Holyrood for the good of Scotland and I would be in regular contact with the first minister, no matter what party he or she came from."

A spokesman for Mr Salmond said Scotland's constitutional future should be decided by the people of Scotland, in a referendum.

"The SNP government will co-operate with any UK administration in the best interests of Scotland," he said.

"At the next election, the way to protect and promote Scottish interests will be to return a block of 20 SNP MPs to support the work of the Scottish Government.

"But no amount of warm words from the Tories will wipe out the memories the people of Scotland have of the damage inflicted on the country during 18 long years of Conservative rule."


Interesting, what are your thoughts? I especially found this funny: it's because we have done so much together. Such as endless wars, poisonings, treason plots etc.

I'm too lazy to post a picture of a scene from Braveheart...

I'm opposed to it too, as i can't really see how it would benefit anyone living south of the border. Maybe it's a good thing for the Scottish, although i can't really see how (aside from maybe being a pride thing), but i'm more concerned about me.

I'm opposed to it too, as i can't really see how it would benefit anyone living south of the border. Maybe it's a good thing for the Scottish, although i can't really see how (aside from maybe being a pride thing), but i'm more concerned about me.

It means we won't have to support them with our taxes anymore.

The Scots can bloody have it.

Yet another reason not to vote for Cameron.

I'm too lazy to post a picture of a scene from Braveheart...

D'you know how much bullshit that film was?

I think Scottish Independence is an issue for the Scots. I'd be quite happy to let them vote on it - mainly because I respect them enough to know they're not so stupid as to actually do it.

D'you know how much bullshit that film was?

Yes I do, but it was fun to watch and its fun to post pictures of half naked Faux Scots killing British soldiers (who are actually marines) and shouting for thier fleedom.

killing British soldiers

Don't you mean English?

Don't you mean English?

They were from the Isle of Britain.

I have to reluctantly admit this is the first sign of anything resembling 'principles' rather than political expediency from David Cameron. If Scotland becomes independent, the Conservatives would win almost every Westminster election.

If Scotland becomes independent, the Conservatives would win almost every Westminster election.

Shit... I didn't think about that.

They were from the Isle of Britain.

Lol wot. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about - the English were never called the British. By your logic, since Scots are from the island known as "Britain", then it was Brits versus Brits.

They were from the Isle of Britain.

As were the Scots and the Welsh. It's a bit of an over generalisation.

Lol wot. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about - the English were never called the British. By your logic, since Scots are from the island known as "Britain", then it was Brits versus Brits.

As were the Scots and the Welsh. It's a bit of an over generalisation.

Quanitities of the English soldiers were Scots and Welshmen, and many of the Scottish Nobles still supported the English King. The English army consisted of 'British' soldiers. I'm right.

I'm right.

You're wrong. The war was England vs Scotland.

You're wrong. The war was England vs Scotland.

I don't see how I'm wrong, an army consisting of English, Welsh, and Scots seems pretty British to me. Granted there may have been a couple of Franks and Irishmen in there too. Not every Scot fought against the crown, some of them were quite happy to get fat off of lands granted to them for kissing the King of England's ass, and kissing that ass included fighting in his army.

I don't see how I'm wrong, an army consisting of English, Welsh, and Scots seems pretty British to me.

It was an army made almost entirely of English. The Welsh were used as bowmen, and there weren't any Scots in it.

It was an army made almost entirely of English. The Welsh were used as bowmen, and there weren't any Scots in it.

Robert I himself fought for England against the same Scots he eventually became the ruler of until the Battle of Falkirk, then he treid to get Edward to support him in becoming the King of Scotland. When he realized that Edward wanted Scotland for himself, and only when he realized that, did he join his fellow Scots against the English. Robert was one of the most powerful men in Scotland, perhaps the most powerful man in Scotland at that time; with several other nobles and hundreds of soldiers loyal to him. Guess who those men would have fought for while Robert Bruce was cavorting with the English King? There most definetly were Scots in the army, maybe not an overwhelming amount but they were there.

Silly people and their ancient feuds.

Robert I himself fought for England against the same Scots he eventually became the ruler of until the Battle of Falkirk, then he treid to get Edward to support him in becoming the King of Scotland. When he realized that Edward wanted Scotland for himself, and only when he realized that, did he join his fellow Scots against the English. Robert was one of the most powerful men in Scotland, perhaps the most powerful man in Scotland at that time; with several other nobles and hundreds of soldiers loyal to him. Guess who those men would have fought for while Robert Bruce was cavorting with the English King? There most definetly were Scots in the army, maybe not an overwhelming amount but they were there.

It doesn't matter what you think, you're still wrong. You're using an anachronic word to describe the English army. The term "British" did not describe inhabitants of Britain until relatively recently.

Robert I himself fought for England against the same Scots he eventually became the ruler of until the Battle of Falkirk, then he treid to get Edward to support him in becoming the King of Scotland. When he realized that Edward wanted Scotland for himself, and only when he realized that, did he join his fellow Scots against the English. Robert was one of the most powerful men in Scotland, perhaps the most powerful man in Scotland at that time; with several other nobles and hundreds of soldiers loyal to him. Guess who those men would have fought for while Robert Bruce was cavorting with the English King? There most definetly were Scots in the army, maybe not an overwhelming amount but they were there.

Robert the Bruce was Norman, so again you fail.

It doesn't matter what you think, you're still wrong. You're using an anachronic word to describe the English army. The term "British" did not describe inhabitants of Britain until relatively recently.

Robert the Bruce was Norman, so again you fail.

Maybe his parents or Grandparents, or perhaps Great Grandparents. But as far as I have ever known he was born in Scotland and at the very least to parents who owned vast quantities of the afermentioned place, and he spent a lot of time there, making him Scottish; if your going to be going by crazy technicalities like that then every King and Queen of England for several centuries was French. Bruce was a Scot, the people in the armies he levied to fight for him when he fought for the english were Scots, you yourself admitted that the English had Welsh mercenaries.

Aside from that, British is a perfectly acceptable term to describe anyone from the UK today so its perfectly fine to describe someone who lived there about 1,000 years ago as British; as the whole landmass happens to be named Britian and all...

if your going to be going by crazy technicalities like that then every King and Queen of England for several centuries was French.

It's not a crazy technicality. He spoke French as his first language, and, as a matter of fact, did English kings until the 1400s.

Bruce was a Scot

No he wasn't.

Welsh mercenaries.

They weren't mercenaries.

British is a perfectly acceptable term to describe anyone from the UK today

No it's not, not if you're from Northern Ireland.

No it's not, not if you're from Northern Ireland.

Yes it is, while N.Ireland isn't attach to Great Britain, most N.Irish have British Citizenship and can therefore be called British.
It is true that a lot of N.Irish people would object to be callled British. I don't really have a problem but I see myself as N.Irish, Irish and then British.

Yes it is, while N.Ireland isn't attach to Great Britain, most N.Irish have British Citizenship and can therefore be called British.
It is true that a lot of N.Irish people would object to be callled British. I don't really have a problem but I see myself as N.Irish, Irish and then British.

Seeing as Britain is an island, you can't be from Ireland and still British any more then you can be from French Guiana and European.

It's not a crazy technicality. He spoke French as his first language, and, as a matter of fact, did English kings until the 1400s.

Speaking French makes someone French as much as speaking English makes me British. (Or English if you are going to be all Word Nazi)



No he wasn't.

http://www.britannia.com/bios/robertbruce.html


Earl of Carrick, Robert Bruce was born at Turnberry Castle, Ayrshire, in 1274, of both Norman and Celtic ancestry

Born in Scotland, his mother was Celtic (presumably Scottish), live out the vast majority of his life in Scotland... Scottish. Maybe not "Oi there lads I lost me kilt again." Scottish, but Scottish. (Disclaimer: This post includes a bit of humor that was only meant as humor, no intended offense to any Scots, or people who like kilts.)


They weren't mercenaries.


Assuredly some of them were. I am wrong in saying they all were, but you can't prove that none of them were.


No it's not, not if you're from Northern Ireland.

According to you if your parents, grand parents, or great grandparents, possibly etcetera were, then you are.

I'd be perfectly happy for the Scots to be independant; Tory government would be that much easier to achieve, and be that much more right wing.

Shit... I didn't think about that.
And you'd see the backs of MPs like Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling, Douglas Alexander, Charles Kennedy...

Well, all this lot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_MPs_for_Scottish_constituencies_2005-).

Labour, and in part the Lib Dems, would be rather buggered without their Scottish support. There's currently only one Scottish Tory MP, David Mundell, and it'll be a cold day in hell before you get a majority of Tory's in Scottish constituencies.

We're still bitter up here.

It was an army made almost entirely of English. The Welsh were used as bowmen, and there weren't any Scots in it.

Sorry, but the Welsh were rarely used as bowmen, for the simple reason that they were better employed as hobilars; light, scouting cavalry on mountain ponies. The warbow was of Welsh origin, but the massed ranks of bowmen at Agincourt, Crecy, Poitiers et al. were undoubtedly English.

Speaking French makes someone French as much as speaking English makes me British. (Or English if you are going to be all Word Nazi)

Seeing as they actually called themselves Norman, spent most of their time in France and in on case even tried to sell London, I'd say they were pretty French.

Assuredly some of them were. I am wrong in saying they all were, but you can't prove that none of them were.

They weren't mercenaries. They were conscripted. They would not willingly join a foreign country's army, especially seeing as that country had only recently defeated their people in a war, and was now off to crush a country hundreds of miles away with a substantial Welsh population.

And you'd see the backs of MPs like Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling, Douglas Alexander, Charles Kennedy...

Well, all this lot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_MPs_for_Scottish_constituencies_2005-).

Labour, and in part the Lib Dems, would be rather buggered without their Scottish support. There's currently only one Scottish Tory MP, David Mundell, and it'll be a cold day in hell before you get a majority of Tory's in Scottish constituencies.

We're still bitter up here.

Sounds rather like a normal day north of the border personally.

I'd be happy with Scottish independence. A Tory government probably makes it more likely.

Sorry, but the Welsh were rarely used as bowmen, for the simple reason that they were better employed as hobilars; light, scouting cavalry on mountain ponies. The warbow was of Welsh origin, but the massed ranks of bowmen at Agincourt, Crecy, Poitiers et al. were undoubtedly English.

But this isn't the 100 years war we're talking about. Edward the I "Hammer of the Welsh" used Welsh longbowmen in his Scottish campaigns.

Sounds rather like a normal day north of the border personally.

Aren't we actually getting colder weather than them at the moment? Excluding the Highlands, obviously.

I'd be happy with Scottish independence. A Tory government probably makes it more likely.

In a way I suppose it does.

Well everyone stop harping on about the nationality of William Wallace's troops?

It was just a bunch of French aristocrats leading whatever troops they could grab against another bunch of French aristocrats and they're multinational troops.

You're upsetting this Scotsman.

Sounds rather like a normal day north of the border personally.
:P

But this isn't the 100 years war we're talking about. Edward the I "Hammer of the Welsh" used Welsh longbowmen in his Scottish campaigns.

Even then, English bowmen outnumbered Welsh; I confess I've never looked, but I'm certain C13th Welsh demographics, following the campaigns of Edward I, could not have provided bowmen in the quantities used.

Well everyone stop harping on about the nationality of William Wallace's troops?

We're actually arguing about the nationalities of Edward's troops.

We're actually arguing about the nationalities of Edward's troops.
Either or, it makes no difference; multinational troops led by a Frenchman.

Seeing as they actually called themselves Norman, spent most of their time in France and in on case even tried to sell London, I'd say they were pretty French.

Ok, so the King was French, doesn't make Robert Bruce French. I realize that at one point in history over there you were Scottish, Saxon, Welsh, or worse, but that still qualifies as British. And besides, if you thought you could get away with selling a whole city you wouldn't try?
Bruce was born in Scotland and thought of himself as Scottish, even it it was only to be declared King of Scotland; which makes him Scottish going by the same definition you gave for the King being French.

Even then, English bowmen outnumbered Welsh; I confess I've never looked, but I'm certain C13th Welsh demographics, following the campaigns of Edward I, could not have provided bowmen in the quantities used.

Maybe shortbowmen, but I thought, seeing as Wales had only just been subjugated, that all, or at least most, of the longbowmen were Welsh?

We're actually arguing about the nationalities of Edward's troops.

Yeah.

And they came from all over Britian, including Scotland... making them British :p.

You're wrong. The war was England vs Scotland.

Huh . . .funny after claiming to know so much about that particular war too . . . .The English did actually employ welsh and Scottish troops both. the "war" (if it was a war . . .probably closer to an uprising 'till robert the bruce came along) was fought between Scottish highlanders and Scottish lowlanders, the English and the welsh. Eventually the scotts got french backing but that was a while later. So technically it was Scotts vs. British.

Ok, so the King was French, doesn't make Robert Bruce French. I realize that at one point in history over there you were Scottish, Saxon, Welsh, Norman, or worse, but that still qualifies as British. And besides, if I thought I coul get away with selling a whole city I wouldn't try?

Sorry, but your lacking either an appreciation of early medieval history, or the subtlety to use it.

Prior to 1066, the England was, ethnically, either Anglo-Saxon, or Norse, both in aristocracy and commonality. The economic, political and diplomatic milieu in which the nation operated was that of the North Sea.Thereafter, the nobility were French in though, language and action; England was an appendage to an extant Robertian kingdom in Normandy, involved thence in continental politics. Only with the early C13th collapse of Angevin France, and consequential necessity for the Plantagenet dynasty to inhabit, and focus upon, England, did England become the focus of policy.

Maybe shortbowmen, but I thought, seeing as Wales had only just been subjugated, that all, or at least most, of the longbowmen were Welsh?

Possibly, although I suspect this would simply heavily limit the number of longbows in the army.

Either or, it makes no difference; multinational troops led by a Frenchman.

wait who ate you claiming was a Frenchman exactly?

I realize that at one point in history over there you were Scottish, Saxon, Welsh We still are.

or worse What's that supposed to mean?

but that still qualifies as British.

But it's incredibly stupid to use the term British when all the different nations and minorities were fighting each other for independence.

And besides, if you thought you could get away with selling a whole city you wouldn't try?

Not the capital city of my country.

thought of himself as Scottish

Says who?

which makes him Scottish going by the same definition you gave for the King being French.

Only if he spoke Gaelic etc.

wait who ate you claiming was a Frenchman exactly?

All English and a lot of the Scottish nobility.

Possibly, although I suspect this would simply heavily limit the number of longbows in the army.

I'm not so sure. Wales and England's population's weren't nearly so different in terms of numbers as they are now.

I'm not so sure. Wales and England's population's weren't nearly so different in terms of numbers as they are now.

In all honesty, I haven't a clue about high medieval demograhics.

wait who ate you claiming was a Frenchman exactly?
The aristocrats who were fighting one another during Edward's campaign.

Edward himself and his Plantagenet cronies, obviously, along with much of the 'Scottish' nobility.


Only if he spoke Gaelic etc.
There's never been a point in history when the Scots (to use an anachronistic term to describe those in the past living in what we today call Scotland) all spoke Gaelic.

It was only those in the Highlands, the north-east that did/do so. Identifying whether someone was Scottish due to whether they spoke Gaelic is flawed. And anyways, it's only in the 17-1800s that we can truly speak of a 'Scottish people'.

Seeing as Britain is an island, you can't be from Ireland and still British any more then you can be from French Guiana and European.

You can if you have British citizenship. The term British isn't just a geographic description, its also one of nationality.

Never mind the fact that while Ireland isn't part of Great Britian, it is still one of the British Isles.

We still are.

No your not. You might like to think you are but your really not. Its a lot like these crazy people in my country claiming to be Irish or German.


What's that supposed to mean?


Joke option, or maybe Norse. Aint' sure myself.


But it's incredibly stupid to use the term British when all the different nations and minorities were fighting each other for independence.


Why? They all lived in Britain!


Not the capital city of my country.


They were French, I'd gladly sell London too. Hell I'd sell Harrisburg, or Washington DC.


Says who?


Says him when he wanted to be King, says the Scottish when they declare him a great hero.


Only if he spoke Gaelic etc.

Can you prove he didn't?

Can you prove he didn't?
He was probably born around Ayrshire, so he probably didn't.

See my post above.

He was probably born around Ayrshire, so he probably didn't.

See my post above.

Ok, but you yourself said not all Scots spoke Gealic so that seems like its not a requirement.

No your not. You might like to think you are but your really not. Its a lot like these crazy people in my country claiming to be Irish or German.

How would you know? There wasn't lots of "blood-mixing", people that lost wars just got forced out.

Ok, but you yourself said not all Scots spoke Gealic so that seems like its not a requirement.
Aye, my point exactly.

How would you know? There wasn't lots of "blood-mixing", people that lost wars just got forced out.

Because you all settled down into a singular national identity (except the Scots but they are just following historical precident) hundreds of years ago. Same thing here, they might like to pretend to be from somewhere else, they are American.

Ok, but you yourself said not all Scots spoke Gealic so that seems like its not a requirement.

Did he speak Scots as his first language then?

Did he speak Scots as his first language then?

I would not be surprised to find that he learned it at the same time as he learned French. But you must remember this was a time in history were French was a de facto language and most European Nobility learned it and/or Italian.

Because you all settled down into a singular national identity

No we didn't.

But you must remember this was a time in history were French was a de facto language and most European Nobility learned it and/or Italian.

You talk so much shit, I'm amazed your mouth can cope with it. French was the de facto language in England, Scotland and France, nowhere else. Nobody learnt Italian, because the Italians had little to no influence on the world stage. They weren't even unified.

All English and a lot of the Scottish nobility.

And how would u back up that claim?

You talk so much shit, I'm amazed your mouth can cope with it.
Oh!

No need for flames.

Oh!

No need for flames.

I was attacking the post.

You talk so much shit, I'm amazed your mouth can cope with it. French was the de facto language in England, Scotland and France, nowhere else. Nobody learnt Italian, because the Italians had little to no influence on the world stage. They weren't even unified.

nobility only. (also Latin). The common language of England and Scotland both was English not french . .. only the nobility spoke french and even then it was by no means the "de facto language"

And how would u back up that claim?

Wow, you certainly don't know much about medieval politics, do you?

Wait, Scotland's going to be independent? When did this happen?

nobility only. (also Latin). The common language of England and Scotland both was English not french . .. only the nobility spoke french and even then it was by no means the "de facto language"

I meant for the nobility, sorry.

Wow, you certainly don't know much about medieval politics, do you?

And how would you back up that claim? (you hadn't actually backed it up yet . . .you'd also have to define what, exactly you meant by french (born in france, trained in france simply spoke french?)

Wait, Scotland's going to be independent? When did this happen?

The SNP controls the Scottish parliament, and their leader has promised a referendum by 2011.

I meant for the nobility, sorry.
Its all good. More of a minor point

I was attacking the post.
Um:
"You talk so much shit, I'm amazed your mouth can cope with it."
That's a fairly wide attack on a post.

Folks need to calm down, we're delving into murky history, with few sources on either side. There's no need to start spewing vitriol.



Wait, Scotland's going to be independent? When did this happen?
It hasn't.

Cameron's just, novely, stating his position.

No we didn't.

The United Kingdom is not a single national identity? The British Empire was not a single national identity? The fact that you all live under the same government with the same laws and all drive on the same side of the road begs to differ.

And how would you back up that claim?

With the fact that when William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066, he replaced all the English nobles with Norman and French ones.

Um:
"You talk so much shit, I'm amazed your mouth can cope with it."
That's a fairly wide attack on a post.

Folks need to calm down, we're delving into murky history, with few sources on either side. There's no need to start spewing vitriol.


agreed

The United Kingdom is not a single national identity? The British Empire was not a single national identity? The fact that you all live under the same government with the same laws and all drive on the same side of the road begs to differ.

Actually, each of the different countries has its own legislation, and national parliament. You lose.

With the fact that when William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066, he replaced all the English nobles with Norman and French ones.
yes . .. yes he did (except for replacing nobles. . .he may have replaced some or even most but all seems. .. highly doubtful) .. three hundred years before the first Scottish war of independence. That is the time period were talking about right? I mean if you retain your original nationality for three hundred years, the Americans are all British (as are us Canadians), Taiwan is entirely Chinese, and most of the middle east is actually the ottoman empire. . . . Also Williamthe conqueror? He was born . . .in England . . .(though only technically. England owned Normandy at that point.)

Actually, each of the different countries has its own legislation, and national parliament. You lose.
To be fair, neither of you are completely in the right.

Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales do all have their own legislative assemblies, with the Scottish being the most powerful, but there are laws that apply to the entirity of the UK and many issues, such as defence, that neither Holyrood, Stormont nor Cardiff have any say in.

yes . .. yes he did .. three hundred years before the first Scottish war of independence.
200, and the nobles still all spoke French.

Also Richard the conqueror? He was born . . .in England . . .

Richard the Conqueror doesn't exist. If you mean William the Conqueror, you're wrong, if you mean Richard the Lionheart, he only spent 7 months of his entire life in England, and couldn't speak English.

To be fair, neither of you are completely in the right.

Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales do all have their own legislative assemblies, with the Scottish being the most powerful, but there are laws that apply to the entirity of the UK and many issues, such as defence, that neither Holyrood, Stormont nor Cardiff have any say in.

I suppose I did generalise a bit too much, but it is stupid calling us all 1 nationality.

You talk so much shit, I'm amazed your mouth can cope with it. French was the de facto language in England, Scotland and France, nowhere else.

What makes this funny is I'm not even talking. I'm typing; and you are getting pissed off about something as trivial as me calling the Englsih army back in 1305 British.

Since you are going to start this rather than try and show any shread of proof I am done.

That is the time period were talking about right? I mean if you retain your original nationality for three hundred years...
Thing is, there was, comparitively, very little inbreeding between the Norman aristocracy and the Anglo-Saxon commoners. It's fair, if my memory serves me well, to say that those who owned the land were ethnically different to those who worked on the land.



I suppose I did generalise a bit too much, but it is stupid calling us all 1 nationality.
I agree that nationality is a weird term and, especially in light of the hostory of the British Isles, a clumsy term to describe the people who live here.

200, and the nobles still all spoke French.



Richard the Conqueror doesn't exist. If you mean William the Conqueror, you're wrong, if you mean Richard the Lionheart, he only spent 7 months of his entire life in England, and couldn't speak English.
Did mean William and Normandy was owned by England at the time (though only technically, the king of England was born of a English father and Norman mother) . . .and its two hundred and forty something so technically your right lol

Thing is, there was, comparitively, very little inbreeding between the Norman aristocracy and the Anglo-Saxon commoners. It's fair, if my memory serves me well, to say that those who owned the land were ethnically different to those who worked on the land.

Even so, my point holds. There was very little interbreeding between the US'ians (or canadians) and native Americans so following those rules Canadians are all british (or french) and the Americans are all Brits.

To be fair, neither of you are completely in the right.

Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales do all have their own legislative assemblies, with the Scottish being the most powerful, but there are laws that apply to the entirity of the UK and many issues, such as defence, that neither Holyrood, Stormont nor Cardiff have any say in.
exactly. In most ways those three are closer to provincial (I'm Canadian we have provinces lol so that how I think of it but state might fit just as well) governments, capable of making certain decisions but deferring in larger ones to a "national" government.

If anyone's interested the last poll was 38% in favour of negotiated independance, 40% against.

But this thread was one of the funniest and fullest of bullshit I've seen in a long time.

Robert the Bruce was Norman, so again you fail.

*very lame joke*

But you just said his name was Robert. :D

Since you are going to start this rather than try and show any shread of proof I am done.

Thing is, if you re-read the thread, you haven't back up any except for 1 of your claims, whereas I've backed up mine.

Did mean William and Normandy was owned by England at the time (though only technically, the king of England was born of a English father and Norman mother) . . .and its two hundred and forty something so technically your right lol

In that case his father was a Norman, you're talking rubbish, and he wasn't born in England. Get your facts right.

Obama has offered Scotland full statehood within the United States.

What's this? It looks to me that Cameron has grown a spine...

First Minister Alex Salmond said Scotland's constitutional future was not up to David Cameron.



Translation: Fuck off.

Good the for Scots. I hope that even if the tories do win, they dont let Cameron stop them from getting their independence.

Translation: Fuck off.

Good the for Scots. I hope that even if the tories do win, they dont let Cameron stop them from getting their independence.

Erm, even though the latest poll shows more scots oppose than support it?

Erm, even though the latest poll shows more scots oppose than support it?

Then it wont happen. It should be up to the Scotish people whether it happens or not. Not the PM in London.

conservative party = epic fail

The solution to Scottish independence movement is simple. Kick the Germans out of the Buckingham palace, then reinstate the Stewarts as the royal family.

Erm, even though the latest poll shows more scots oppose than support it?


But, that's under a Labour government. If the Tories came to power the support for independence in Scotland would undoubtedly increase - let's just say us Scots aren't the Conservatives' biggest fans - and there is opinion polls data somewhere which backs that statement up, but at the moment I can't be bothered to find it.:p

I really dont see how it could be in your best interests really...

I mean, if Scotland secedes from the United Kingdom...theyll just be another little nobody on the world stage....

Like the next Romania or something, lol...

Obama has offered Scotland full statehood within the United States.

Albania did think about it, I read that somewhere, lol...

I really dont see how it could be in your best interests really...

I mean, if Scotland secedes from the United Kingdom...theyll just be another little nobody on the world stage....

Like the next Romania or something, lol...

unless they join the US then they step up to the next Texas. Aren't the off shore gas reserves in the north sea in Scottish waters. Really win win. They join US they become more important. And the US get more oil. and the UK gets rid of a bunch of Scots ?

unless they join the US then they step up to the next Texas. Aren't the off shore gas reserves in the north sea in Scottish waters. Really win win. They join US they become more important. And the US get more oil. and the UK gets rid of a bunch of Scots ?

I suppose......But how would that be in the best interests of Scots...Theyd have to let people like me vote for their government, lol...

unless they join the US then they step up to the next Texas. Aren't the off shore gas reserves in the north sea in Scottish waters. Really win win. They join US they become more important. And the US get more oil. and the UK gets rid of a bunch of Scots ?
The division of sea territories (and associated debts) would be one of the major negotiation sticking points. Along with what would happen if parts of the borders wanted to stay part of the UK (and treble the trickiness if the Shetland's did). It's all rather complicated.

The division of sea territories (and associated debts) would be one of the major negotiation sticking points. Along with what would happen if parts of the borders wanted to stay part of the UK (and treble the trickiness if the Shetland's did). It's all rather complicated.

well unless we talk England and Wales into joining the US as well.

then since it would half be the US subsuming you and the US half being subsumed by good ole UK. Maybe declare the revolutionary war a war against the Hanoverian dynasty not against the British herself. We might need to return the house of Stuart to the throne. Create a new currency backed by our foreign reserves and gold. Declare both our debts null and void.

Then as for government the lower house we use your system. and the upper house we use our system. maybe divide England into 4 states for the upper house purposes.

well unless we talk England and Wales into joining the US as well.

then since it would half be the US subsuming you and the US half being subsumed by good ole UK. Maybe declare the revolutionary war a war against the Hanoverian dynasty not against the British herself. We might need to return the house of Stuart to the throne. Create a new currency backed by our foreign reserves and gold. Declare both our debts null and void.

Then as for government the lower house we use your system. and the upper house we use our system. maybe divide England into 4 states for the upper house purposes.


MY GOD!!!! :eek:

This...this...England and America Territory Congealing Device...This Anglo-American Empire.....

COULD RULE THE WORLD!!!!

Along with what would happen if parts of the borders wanted to stay part of the UK

Parts of the Borders hate both the Scots and the English. But no-one pays attention to them anyway, so it's a moot point.

(and treble the trickiness if the Shetland's did).

I don't know for certain, but I'd imagine it would be the same as with the borders.

It's all rather complicated.

That's true.

MY GOD!!!! :eek:

This...this...England and America Territory Congealing Device...This Anglo-American Empire.....

COULD RULE THE WORLD!!!!

yeah, mostly because doing all that would throw all the rest of the currencies in the world down the shitter.
You mean all my reserves of American dollars and British pounds are only worth the paper they are printed on ? :nod:
You mean my reserves of US and British Debt are only worth the paper they are printed on? :nod:
you mean my Currency is only worth the paper it is printed on ? :nod:
what currency is worth anything ?
The pounds dollar.
Why is it the pounds dollar ? Because it is worth several pounds of any other printed currency.

either that or i spend way too much time thinking about this.

but it was fun to watch and its fun to post pictures of half naked Faux Scots killing British soldiers (who are actually marines) and shouting for thier fleedom.

I found it arousing...in a manly way, of course.

Bugger Cameron. At the same time, Scotland is too much of a mess at the moment to be a real country (problems with RBS and all), and EU membership would make it a waste of time.

Frankly, I want to see Scotland independent, if only because we could use some spicing up of the map of Europe.

Frankly, I want to see Scotland independent, if only because we could use some spicing up of the map of Europe.
EUGH. Fuck Balkanisation.

Frankly, I want to see Scotland independent, if only because we could use some spicing up of the map of Europe.

Well you are about due for another Continent wide war.
I am thinking an EU civil war. about 3 or 4 more treaties into it just as you start to solidify as a federation some vital members try to jump ship perhaps with some debt to the EU.

this time Russia and the US form an alliance just to make sure the mess doesn't go nuclear, and to make sure no one outside the EU gets involved.

Well you are about due for another Continent wide war.
I am thinking an EU civil war. about 3 or 4 more treaties into it just as you start to solidify as a federation some vital members try to jump ship perhaps with some debt to the EU.

this time Russia and the US form an alliance just to make sure the mess doesn't go nuclear, and to make sure no one outside the EU gets involved.
1,200 points and no characters over 150?

EUGH. Fuck Balkanisation.
Don't you want to experience foreign intervention designed to rip you country apart, followed by ethnic cleansing by all internal parties?

You freedom hater! :p

Erm, even though the latest poll shows more scots oppose than support it?

But when the Tories get in I expect more will support independence.

Aren't the off shore gas reserves in the north sea in Scottish waters.

No.

this time Russia and the US form an alliance just to make sure the mess doesn't go nuclear

So British and French nukes don't exist then?

Erm, even though the latest poll shows more scots oppose than support it?
When was this poll taken?



The solution to Scottish independence movement is simple. Kick the Germans out of the Buckingham palace, then reinstate the Stewarts as the royal family.
Hmmm.

You might please the teuchters up north who think Charlie's still got a chance at the throne, but I'd wager the majority of Scots are republicans.



Bugger Cameron. At the same time, Scotland is too much of a mess at the moment to be a real country (problems with RBS and all), and EU membership would make it a waste of time.
Waste of time in what way?

And, don't all countries have problems with their banking systems?



1,200 points and no characters over 150?
Aye.

Standard force organisation chart.

When was this poll taken?
.

Last Week
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2487786.0.scotland_on_a_knifeedge.php

Last Week
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2487786.0.scotland_on_a_knifeedge.php

"The poll asked 971 adults how they would vote in a referendum on whether the Scottish government should open negotiations with Westminster on independence."

Not a very good poll, if it only asks that many people.

"The poll asked 971 adults how they would vote in a referendum on whether the Scottish government should open negotiations with Westminster on independence."

Not a very good poll, if it only asks that many people.

What do you actually know about polling? If sampled and weighted properly 1000 is a enough.

What do you actually know about polling? If sampled and weighted properly 1000 is a enough.

But it was a local poll.

But it was a local poll.

What?

What do you actually know about polling? If sampled and weighted properly 1000 is a enough.
Only very, very, rarely when discussing something as large as this. I wouldn't mind seeing their data set, etc. (Not that I'm asking, nor expecting, you to have this.)

But, if we are to take your poll at face-value, it sems to show that support for independence is growing slightly, that the population is roughly divided on the issue. Labour's talk that the "vast majority" of Scots don't want independence is bull.

Again, however, I'd want an actual referendum, not Labour or the Nats telling me what I think.

Only very, very, rarely when discussing something as large as this. I wouldn't mind seeing their data set, etc. (Not that I'm asking, nor expecting, you to have this.)
Not really. Most UK political polls are done on about 1000 people. Margin of Error for them is about 3% or so. I don't think they've released their dataset which is disheartening. And the yougov poll suggests the wording is very important to people.


But, if we are to take your poll at face-value, it sems to show that support for independence is growing slightly, that the population is roughly divided on the issue. Labour's talk that the "vast majority" of Scots don't want independence is bull.

Again, however, I'd want an actual referendum, not Labour or the Nats telling me what I think.

If you want to go in-depth, the support is returning to where it was before the banking crisis hit, which knocked it downwards.

I should note that a different polling company asked a similar but different question (a blunter version of the one above) came out with 29-55 against. Why this happened people aren't quite sure. Most probably a combination of an increase and a different methodology. One thing to note in polling is never compare results with one pollster with another as an indication of a trend.

When do you think the earliest prospect of a referendum is?

When do you think the earliest prospect of a referendum is?
We (I mean Scots) were promised one by the Nats in 2011... but who knows.

We (I mean Scots) were promised one by the Nats in 2011... but who knows.

This isn't something I've taken particular interest in - I'm not sure why because it seems very interesting. Has there been any talk/speculation about how certain things would be split up? Oil, debts, bbc, military?

This isn't something I've taken particular interest in - I'm not sure why because it seems very interesting. Has there been any talk/speculation about how certain things would be split up? Oil, debts, bbc, military?
Faaaaaaaaaaar too early for that sorta thing.

Essentially, the referendum's going to be on whether the process of devolution should be taken further (though that's almost certainly not the way the question's is going to be framed). If the result comes out as a 'Yes' vote, a vote for independence, then it puts a duty on Westminster to seriously consider the process of breaking up the Union.

Which is why most parties have been very wary of even committing to the possibility of there being a referendum in the first place; though I feel this has played right into the SNP's hands.

As far as I'm aware, there's no legal obligation for Westminster to follow the wishes of the Scottish people, assuming we vote 'Yes'. It'd be more of a legitimacy argument; Parliament won't look too good if it's blatantly ignoring the wishes of 5,000,000(ish) pissed-off Scots.

Faaaaaaaaaaar to early for that sorta thing.

Essentially, the referendum's going to be on whether the process of devolution should be taken further (though that's almost certainly not the way the question's is going to be framed). If the result comes out as a 'Yes' vote, a vote for independence, then it puts a duty on Westminster to seriously consider the process of breaking up the Union.

Which is why most parties have been very wary of even committing to the possibility of there being a referendum in the first place; though I feel this has played right into the SNP's hands.

There haven't been official ones. I believe a few independently-minded citizens have written books on such things. On a side note, the duty would be a purely moral one. Iirc referendums have no legal standing or power over Parliament. It'd be a shock if a referendum came out in favour and was rejected, but not completely unthinkable. Especially if less than 50% of the pop voted for example.

It'd be a shock if a referendum came out in favour and was rejected, but not completely unthinkable. Especially if less than 50% of the pop voted for example.
In such a case, I'd see Labour dragging their feet.

Devolution is never a closed business; there'll always be calls for more or less autonomy from Westminster, until the day Scotland is independent or Holyrood is closed down.

Faaaaaaaaaaar too early for that sorta thing.

Essentially, the referendum's going to be on whether the process of devolution should be taken further (though that's almost certainly not the way the question's is going to be framed). If the result comes out as a 'Yes' vote, a vote for independence, then it puts a duty on Westminster to seriously consider the process of breaking up the Union.

Which is why most parties have been very wary of even committing to the possibility of there being a referendum in the first place; though I feel this has played right into the SNP's hands.

As far as I'm aware, there's no legal obligation for Westminster to follow the wishes of the Scottish people, assuming we vote 'Yes'. It'd be more of a legitimacy argument; Parliament won't look too good if it's blatantly ignoring the wishes of 5,000,000(ish) pissed-off Scots.

This does sound like Wesminster would have the upper hand in terms of negotiating how the union should be split.

There are arguments for both sides, I suppose. On the one hand, the accomplishments of the entire UK make a much more impressive list than those of the individual countries that make it up. On the other hand, Britain's significance in history is basically over now, so we might as well get it over with.

This does sound like Wesminster would have the upper hand in terms of negotiating how the union should be split.
They are the Man.

They are the Man.

Hmm. You get the debt, we get the oil?

There are arguments for both sides, I suppose. On the one hand, the accomplishments of the entire UK make a much more impressive list than those of the individual countries that make it up. On the other hand, Britain's significance in history is basically over now, so we might as well get it over with.

That ain't got nothing to do with nothing.

That ain't got nothing to do with nothing.

So, it does have something to do with nothing. Is this the concept of nothingness, or just a demonstration of a logically valid yet information-free statement? :p

Faaaaaaaaaaar too early for that sorta thing.

Essentially, the referendum's going to be on whether the process of devolution should be taken further (though that's almost certainly not the way the question's is going to be framed). If the result comes out as a 'Yes' vote, a vote for independence, then it puts a duty on Westminster to seriously consider the process of breaking up the Union.

Which is why most parties have been very wary of even committing to the possibility of there being a referendum in the first place; though I feel this has played right into the SNP's hands.

As far as I'm aware, there's no legal obligation for Westminster to follow the wishes of the Scottish people, assuming we vote 'Yes'. It'd be more of a legitimacy argument; Parliament won't look too good if it's blatantly ignoring the wishes of 5,000,000(ish) pissed-off Scots.

Bloody hard to ignore you Sassenachs when you've foisted upon England a government it didn't elect itself, whilst retaining a Scottish assembly also.

You think theyd reinstate the Jacobite throne if they got independence, I think itd be interesting, lol...

wait til Me Gibson hears about this. He'll be right peed off. He'll be painting himself blue and rushing to England to prance about yelling, "Freedom!" at passing tories before we know it.

Sean Connery too must be annoyed, as surely he was a definite shoe-in for first King of New Scotland.

Sean Connery too must be annoyed, as surely he was a definite shoe-in for first King of New Scotland.

Is that a fortnight-a-year position? Because that's how long that chancer spends in Scotland.

GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.
Now excuse me, I have some business to attend to in the country I actually like.

Is that a fortnight-a-year position? Because that's how long that chancer spends in Scotland.


I thought he was just doing it in protest of Scotland not having Independence, and that he would move back once it was...

I thought he was just doing it in protest of Scotland not having Independence, and that he would move back once it was...

Hmm. Could you sign my petition? It's in protest of the decision to remove the word gullible from the dictionary.

Is that a fortnight-a-year position? Because that's how long that chancer spends in Scotland.
His first edict would be to move the throne to Spain.

Hmm. You get the debt, we get the oil?
And you keep spiking our porridge...


Bloody hard to ignore you Sassenachs when you've foisted upon England a government it didn't elect itself, whilst retaining a Scottish assembly also.
Right:

You guys are sassanachs (southerners), not us.
We voted in a British government; there's more to the UK than the Home Counties, y'know.
We're still under rule from Westminster, and thus should have representation there.
Though, there does indeed need to be a solution to the West Lothian question and an English parliament, if all's to be fair within the current system.

Hmm. Could you sign my petition? It's in protest of the decision to remove the word gullible from the dictionary.

lol, I suppose it is pretty Gullible.....But I dont want to have to cope with the thought that Sean Connery would lie to me, lol...

And you keep spiking our porridge...



Right:

You guys are sassanachs (southerners), not us.
We voted in a British government; there's more to the UK than the Home Counties, y'know.
We're still under rule from Westminster, and thus should have representation there.
Though, there does indeed need to be a solution to the West Lothian question and an English parliament, if all's to be fair within the current system.

Firstly, my mistake.

Secondly, I'd have no objection to the irregularities of the 2005 election if it were not for the fact that, whilst overruling the electoral decision of England, the Scots also retain an individual elective body. Frankly, the system is as democratically unjust and pro-Labour as one might expect, and to the detriment of the Union at large.

Incidentally, I concede there's far more to the UK than the Home Counties; where else can unsightly industrial and agrarian practices take place without imposing on your views?:tongue:

I'd have no objection to the irregularities of the 2005 election if it were not for the fact that, whilst overruling the electoral decision of England, the Scots also retain an individual elective body. Frankly, the system is as democratically unjust and pro-Labour as one might expect, and to the detriment of the Union at large.
I understand the frustation folks would feel at the West Lothian debacle, but Westminster is a British parliament, not an English one. Scottish voters didn't "overrul[e] the electoral decision of England", they contributed to an electoral majority for the Labour party; as sorry as that may be.

EDIT: Moreover, as it's been said before, Holyrood is not a seperate legislative body. There are many important issues, notably defence and the economy, on which Holyrood has little or no say, and thus Scots need representation at Westminster. It's not as if we have two legislative bodies, of equal power, that we vote on, nor is it the case that Scottish MPs are completely pointless (again, with the caveat that there probably should be less Scottish MPs, and an English devolved parliament).

The unfairness in the UK parliamentary system does not solely lie at the feet of us Scots.