Britain, Scotland Sign Deal For Independence Referendum

[StreetCowboy]

Scotlands independence is a highly emotive issue for many - including a lot of people who are not personally involved, but who feel that nationalism or "empire-ism" is a "good thing". Inevitably there are more commentaries than truths, so making a judgement is, to say the least, difficult. Perhaps people need to look at their own motives for believing Scotland should or should not be independent.

Statistics can be used to prove anything. Discovering what makes people want YES or NO is much more interesting.

I'll start the ball rolling by saying that the united kingdom is a politically manufactured anachronism which ignores cultural values and differences. So I will vote YES

It's not politically manufactured, it came about because the King of Sdcotland became the King of England, and the subsequent inheritors wanted to cement that union. The Union came about because two neighbouring and similar countries, having once unified, wanted to cement that union.

SC

[phuketjock]

Scotlands independence is a highly emotive issue for many - including a lot of people who are not personally involved, but who feel that nationalism or "empire-ism" is a "good thing". Inevitably there are more commentaries than truths, so making a judgement is, to say the least, difficult. Perhaps people need to look at their own motives for believing Scotland should or should not be independent.

Statistics can be used to prove anything. Discovering what makes people want YES or NO is much more interesting.

I'll start the ball rolling by saying that the united kingdom is a politically manufactured anachronism which ignores cultural values and differences. So I will vote YES

Thank you for that.

As it is such an emotive issue it is possible to argue that the key point of debate prior to making a decision is to consider all the consequences of deciding one way or the other.

IMHO the long term consequences of independence would be highly detrimental at the very least on the financial/economic front, as a geographically peripheral nation with a small population and a shrinking revenue stream, would be very vulnerable to economic problems. Thus I would (at least today, based on my current understanding of the issues), vote with my wallet rather than my heart and thus vote NO.

jpinx

To address your comments dirtectly I would say that all nations are political constructs, anachronistic or otherwise, and unless you happen to live in a tiny nation with an utterly homogenous poulation, all nations are guilty of ignoring to some degree the cultural values and differences of at least some of their population. Do all the residents of Marchmont/Morningside, Springburn/Maryhill, Kirkwall/Lerwick share the same cultural values and differences, could any government represent all their interests?

Folium how does this equate to " a shrinking revenue stream " ?

"Interestingly in the light of the independance debate, Scotland receives no net subsidy

Using Aberdeen University split of the oil and gas revenues ( which gives Scotland 83% )

the oil and gas revenues exactly cancel out the fiscal transfers from the non oil section "

" Scotland's accounts of revenue and expenditure, based on Treasury data, show that it is not a ward of the state, grossly subsidised from Westminster. In fact it performs better than all regions outside the south-east of England, and has done particularly well in the past decade (see chart). In 2010-11 Scotland's GDP was £145 billion ($225 billion) including a geographical share of North Sea oil and gas, around 10% of Britain's, with 8.4% of the population."

[jpinx]

Thank you for that.

As it is such an emotive issue it is possible to argue that the key point of debate prior to making a decision is to consider all the consequences of deciding one way or the other.

IMHO the long term consequences of independence would be highly detrimental at the very least on the financial/economic front, as a geographically peripheral nation with a small population and a shrinking revenue stream, would be very vulnerable to economic problems. Thus I would (at least today, based on my current understanding of the issues), vote with my wallet rather than my heart and thus vote NO.

jpinx

To address your comments dirtectly I would say that all nations are political constructs, anachronistic or otherwise, and unless you happen to live in a tiny nation with an utterly homogenous poulation, all nations are guilty of ignoring to some degree the cultural values and differences of at least some of their population. Do all the residents of Marchmont/Morningside, Springburn/Maryhill, Kirkwall/Lerwick share the same cultural values and differences, could any government represent all their interests?

The consequences are two-fold -- those which follow a yes vote and those which follow a no vote.

Judging consequences accurately would be a fine trick when you consider history. I think we can safely say that politicans have no interest in consequences other than those which get them re-elected, so I am certainly not going to be listening to any of them.

Voting "with your wallet" as you aptly put it is akin to the same short-term-ism which afflicts the politicans. Voting with your heart is laudable enough, but voting with a balance of these would probably be well classed as voting with your head. Finances and economics are not the be and end all of our future. Such a view is exactly that which has lead us thus far into the monetary pickle known as the euro-zone. Fortunately we are spared the worst of the effects for now.

Trying to keep postings here short enough to read without dozing off

Edited my typos - it's getting late

Edited November 21, 2012 by jpinx

[jpinx]

Scotlands independence is a highly emotive issue for many - including a lot of people who are not personally involved, but who feel that nationalism or "empire-ism" is a "good thing". Inevitably there are more commentaries than truths, so making a judgement is, to say the least, difficult. Perhaps people need to look at their own motives for believing Scotland should or should not be independent.

Statistics can be used to prove anything. Discovering what makes people want YES or NO is much more interesting.

I'll start the ball rolling by saying that the united kingdom is a politically manufactured anachronism which ignores cultural values and differences. So I will vote YES

You're obviously an English nationalist. When James VI assumed the throne of England, there was no-one more pleased than the Scots. We need to remember that oil will run out, but we will always have our English serfs

SC.

Your assessment of my political views is very far from the mark, but forgivable since I play the devil's advocate to some extent.

The oil will indeed run out, but something else will have arrived before then. - or do you have such little faith in destiny? "England's oil" will run out too -- maybe that concerns you more? Fortunately the vote is confined to voters registered in Scotland or the Empire would certainly "Strike Back"

Edited November 21, 2012 by jpinx

[jpinx]

Scotlands independence is a highly emotive issue for many - including a lot of people who are not personally involved, but who feel that nationalism or "empire-ism" is a "good thing". Inevitably there are more commentaries than truths, so making a judgement is, to say the least, difficult. Perhaps people need to look at their own motives for believing Scotland should or should not be independent.

Statistics can be used to prove anything. Discovering what makes people want YES or NO is much more interesting.

I'll start the ball rolling by saying that the united kingdom is a politically manufactured anachronism which ignores cultural values and differences. So I will vote YES

It's not politically manufactured, it came about because the King of Sdcotland became the King of England, and the subsequent inheritors wanted to cement that union. The Union came about because two neighbouring and similar countries, having once unified, wanted to cement that union.

SC

Whoa cowboy The union was a convenience to England and certain anglophiles in Scotland after the English had defeated the Scots. There was no wish amongst the Scots at the time to join England, as even a cursory read of history will show you.

[folium]

Scotlands independence is a highly emotive issue for many - including a lot of people who are not personally involved, but who feel that nationalism or "empire-ism" is a "good thing". Inevitably there are more commentaries than truths, so making a judgement is, to say the least, difficult. Perhaps people need to look at their own motives for believing Scotland should or should not be independent.

Statistics can be used to prove anything. Discovering what makes people want YES or NO is much more interesting.

I'll start the ball rolling by saying that the united kingdom is a politically manufactured anachronism which ignores cultural values and differences. So I will vote YES

Thank you for that.K

As it is such an emotive issue it is possible to argue that the key point of debate prior to making a decision is to consider all the consequences of deciding one way or the other.

IMHO the long term consequences of independence would be highly detrimental at the very least on the financial/economic front, as a geographically peripheral nation with a small population and a shrinking revenue stream, would be very vulnerable to economic problems. Thus I would (at least today, based on my current understanding of the issues), vote with my wallet rather than my heart and thus vote NO.

jpinx

To address your comments dirtectly I would say that all nations are political constructs, anachronistic or otherwise, and unless you happen to live in a tiny nation with an utterly homogenous poulation, all nations are guilty of ignoring to some degree the cultural values and differences of at least some of their population. Do all the residents of Marchmont/Morningside, Springburn/Maryhill, Kirkwall/Lerwick share the same cultural values and differences, could any government represent all their interests?

Folium how does this equate to " a shrinking revenue stream " ?

"Interestingly in the light of the independance debate, Scotland receives no net subsidy

Using Aberdeen University split of the oil and gas revenues ( which gives Scotland 83% )

the oil and gas revenues exactly cancel out the fiscal transfers from the non oil section "

" Scotland's accounts of revenue and expenditure, based on Treasury data, show that it is not a ward of the state, grossly subsidised from Westminster. In fact it performs better than all regions outside the south-east of England, and has done particularly well in the past decade (see chart). In 2010-11 Scotland's GDP was £145 billion ($225 billion) including a geographical share of North Sea oil and gas, around 10% of Britain's, with 8.4% of the population."

Data for 2010-11 are history. What I have been saying ad nauseam is that the major concern is the long term revenue stream. Hydrocarbons are very volatile in terms of pricing ( see recent impact of shale gas on natural gas pricing in the US), and the widely- accepted assumption re N. Sea oil/gas is that they are in long term decline. How then will Scotland be able to afford the generous spending programme?

[jpinx]

Scotlands independence is a highly emotive issue for many - including a lot of people who are not personally involved, but who feel that nationalism or "empire-ism" is a "good thing". Inevitably there are more commentaries than truths, so making a judgement is, to say the least, difficult. Perhaps people need to look at their own motives for believing Scotland should or should not be independent.

Statistics can be used to prove anything. Discovering what makes people want YES or NO is much more interesting.

I'll start the ball rolling by saying that the united kingdom is a politically manufactured anachronism which ignores cultural values and differences. So I will vote YES

Thank you for that.K

As it is such an emotive issue it is possible to argue that the key point of debate prior to making a decision is to consider all the consequences of deciding one way or the other.

IMHO the long term consequences of independence would be highly detrimental at the very least on the financial/economic front, as a geographically peripheral nation with a small population and a shrinking revenue stream, would be very vulnerable to economic problems. Thus I would (at least today, based on my current understanding of the issues), vote with my wallet rather than my heart and thus vote NO.

jpinx

To address your comments dirtectly I would say that all nations are political constructs, anachronistic or otherwise, and unless you happen to live in a tiny nation with an utterly homogenous poulation, all nations are guilty of ignoring to some degree the cultural values and differences of at least some of their population. Do all the residents of Marchmont/Morningside, Springburn/Maryhill, Kirkwall/Lerwick share the same cultural values and differences, could any government represent all their interests?

Folium how does this equate to " a shrinking revenue stream " ?

"Interestingly in the light of the independance debate, Scotland receives no net subsidy

Using Aberdeen University split of the oil and gas revenues ( which gives Scotland 83% )

the oil and gas revenues exactly cancel out the fiscal transfers from the non oil section "

" Scotland's accounts of revenue and expenditure, based on Treasury data, show that it is not a ward of the state, grossly subsidised from Westminster. In fact it performs better than all regions outside the south-east of England, and has done particularly well in the past decade (see chart). In 2010-11 Scotland's GDP was £145 billion ($225 billion) including a geographical share of North Sea oil and gas, around 10% of Britain's, with 8.4% of the population."

Data for 2010-11 are history. What I have been saying ad nauseam is that the major concern is the long term revenue stream. Hydrocarbons are very volatile in terms of pricing ( see recent impact of shale gas on natural gas pricing in the US), and the widely- accepted assumption re N. Sea oil/gas is that they are in long term decline. How then will Scotland be able to afford the generous spending programme?

Two points

1. Prices rise and fall ad nauseum, but the revenue does not depend on the price of oil - it depends on the taxes, which are not tied to the price of oil.

2. The "generous spending programme" is ill-defined and so full of hyperbole that it is impossible to quantify. Whatever reforms are implemented will be subject to the same annual budget reviews as currently are administered by the UK treasury, with the power to tweak taxes on oil, income, VAT, etc, included.

[phuketjock]

Scotlands independence is a highly emotive issue for many - including a lot of people who are not personally involved, but who feel that nationalism or "empire-ism" is a "good thing". Inevitably there are more commentaries than truths, so making a judgement is, to say the least, difficult. Perhaps people need to look at their own motives for believing Scotland should or should not be independent.

Statistics can be used to prove anything. Discovering what makes people want YES or NO is much more interesting.

I'll start the ball rolling by saying that the united kingdom is a politically manufactured anachronism which ignores cultural values and differences. So I will vote YES

Thank you for that.K

As it is such an emotive issue it is possible to argue that the key point of debate prior to making a decision is to consider all the consequences of deciding one way or the other.

IMHO the long term consequences of independence would be highly detrimental at the very least on the financial/economic front, as a geographically peripheral nation with a small population and a shrinking revenue stream, would be very vulnerable to economic problems. Thus I would (at least today, based on my current understanding of the issues), vote with my wallet rather than my heart and thus vote NO.

jpinx

To address your comments dirtectly I would say that all nations are political constructs, anachronistic or otherwise, and unless you happen to live in a tiny nation with an utterly homogenous poulation, all nations are guilty of ignoring to some degree the cultural values and differences of at least some of their population. Do all the residents of Marchmont/Morningside, Springburn/Maryhill, Kirkwall/Lerwick share the same cultural values and differences, could any government represent all their interests?

Folium how does this equate to " a shrinking revenue stream " ?

"Interestingly in the light of the independance debate, Scotland receives no net subsidy

Using Aberdeen University split of the oil and gas revenues ( which gives Scotland 83% )

the oil and gas revenues exactly cancel out the fiscal transfers from the non oil section "

" Scotland's accounts of revenue and expenditure, based on Treasury data, show that it is not a ward of the state, grossly subsidised from Westminster. In fact it performs better than all regions outside the south-east of England, and has done particularly well in the past decade (see chart). In 2010-11 Scotland's GDP was £145 billion ($225 billion) including a geographical share of North Sea oil and gas, around 10% of Britain's, with 8.4% of the population."

Data for 2010-11 are history. What I have been saying ad nauseam is that the major concern is the long term revenue stream. Hydrocarbons are very volatile in terms of pricing ( see recent impact of shale gas on natural gas pricing in the US), and the widely- accepted assumption re N. Sea oil/gas is that they are in long term decline. How then will Scotland be able to afford the generous spending programme?

And did some finacial times journalist tell you this or was it your crystal ball, assumption and conjecture

again folium, yes the oil will eventually run out but not you nor I or anyone else for that matter can predict

with any accuracy when that will be and it will run out all over the world, so does that mean the whole world

economy will collapse, I don't think so. Political and journalistic predictions are fairly notorious for not actually

happening. Scotland is already one of the leaders of wind power in europe and have been investigating the

feasability of wave power for many years. The Scots are famous for their inventiveness, I am sure you have

heard, so don't you worry about us folium we will do just fine, hell we have kept the English in check for a while

now.

Edited November 21, 2012 by phuketjock

[ScotsExpat]

A couple of Points of Order....

In an earlier comment, someone quoted that King James VI was the first King of Britain.. Incorrect. He held the position of King of Scotland AND King of England concurrently. He inherited the English throne from Liz I in 1603. The state that became known as the Kingdom of Great Britain didn't exist until over 100 years later..

The 1707 Act of Union was NOT a nationally-held referendum, therefore one cannot say that the nation wished to 'cement' its union alliance with its neighbours. It is, generally seen, as a means to an end for many of Scotland priviliged few..

Losses on the Darian scheme which, again generally accepted, was in no small part affected by the actions or inactions of King William, that lovely neighbour of ours, were rumoured to be covered by the English. The amount of 'funding money', or as many Scots saw it bribery, that flowed over the border in the time leading up to and after the Union with England Act of 1707 was substantial. Remember, the Union with Scotland Act had been passed by the English parliament a year earlier. There was a lot of pressure on those in England who had mooted the idea of the Union to see it through...

This was not a nations people cementing a bond with a neighbour, it was the sale of a country by its impoverished estate owners...

[jpinx]

A couple of Points of Order....

In an earlier comment, someone quoted that King James VI was the first King of Britain.. Incorrect. He held the position of King of Scotland AND King of England concurrently. He inherited the English throne from Liz I in 1603. The state that became known as the Kingdom of Great Britain didn't exist until over 100 years later..

The 1707 Act of Union was NOT a nationally-held referendum, therefore one cannot say that the nation wished to 'cement' its union alliance with its neighbours. It is, generally seen, as a means to an end for many of Scotland priviliged few..

Losses on the Darian scheme which, again generally accepted, was in no small part affected by the actions or inactions of King William, that lovely neighbour of ours, were rumoured to be covered by the English. The amount of 'funding money', or as many Scots saw it bribery, that flowed over the border in the time leading up to and after the Union with England Act of 1707 was substantial. Remember, the Union with Scotland Act had been passed by the English parliament a year earlier. There was a lot of pressure on those in England who had mooted the idea of the Union to see it through...

This was not a nations people cementing a bond with a neighbour, it was the sale of a country by its impoverished estate owners...

Thanks for taking the trouble to highlight the main points.

Unfortunately too many people refuse to acknowledge such facts and pursue their own agenda regardless - politicans not excepted

[ScotsExpat]

A couple of Points of Order....

In an earlier comment, someone quoted that King James VI was the first King of Britain.. Incorrect. He held the position of King of Scotland AND King of England concurrently. He inherited the English throne from Liz I in 1603. The state that became known as the Kingdom of Great Britain didn't exist until over 100 years later..

The 1707 Act of Union was NOT a nationally-held referendum, therefore one cannot say that the nation wished to 'cement' its union alliance with its neighbours. It is, generally seen, as a means to an end for many of Scotland priviliged few..

Losses on the Darian scheme which, again generally accepted, was in no small part affected by the actions or inactions of King William, that lovely neighbour of ours, were rumoured to be covered by the English. The amount of 'funding money', or as many Scots saw it bribery, that flowed over the border in the time leading up to and after the Union with England Act of 1707 was substantial. Remember, the Union with Scotland Act had been passed by the English parliament a year earlier. There was a lot of pressure on those in England who had mooted the idea of the Union to see it through...

This was not a nations people cementing a bond with a neighbour, it was the sale of a country by its impoverished estate owners...

Thanks for taking the trouble to highlight the main points.

Unfortunately too many people refuse to acknowledge such facts and pursue their own agenda regardless - politicans not excepted

I felt it was time to inject some real facts into the debate, as opposed to the political soundbites being proffered as fact...

[draggons]

At least we're getting the chance to decide either YES or NO to independence.

[jpinx]

At least we're getting the chance to decide either YES or NO to independence.

Voters registered in Scotland can vote, but Scottish voters in England and around the world are dis-enfranchised, probably by personal choice. If it comes to a tight vote there will be a lot of acrimony both ways - much like US presidential pantomimes .-- I mean elections

[phuketjock]

At least we're getting the chance to decide either YES or NO to independence.

Voters registered in Scotland can vote, but Scottish voters in England and around the world are dis-enfranchised, probably by personal choice. If it comes to a tight vote there will be a lot of acrimony both ways - much like US presidential pantomimes .-- I mean elections

I must say I am more than a little frustrated by the fact that I will not be eligible to vote on the future of my country. I was born and brought up in Scotland and spent all my working life in the service of a British company, working in many locations all over the world, including England and Scotland. The irony is I decided to retire to Thailand for various reasons, one of the main ones being that my pension, not large by any means, gives me a reasonably, not quite comfortable, decent standard of living here in Thailand. I would not be able to maintain anything like that level on the same pension in Scotland or indeed UK. But as said it is my choice, but why should I, or in fact any Scot in similar circumstances, be denied the right to vote on the future of our country simply because we are trying to do the best we can to spend our twylight years at the highest standard of living that we can afford.

The salt in the wound is that any Tom, Dick, or Harry from anywhere in the world who happens to have registered in Scotland in 2014 will be eligible to vote. I personally find this way beyond bizarre!!! Acrimony is way too mild a wprd.

By the way I am paying UK tax on my pension and I served in the armed forces should anyone wish to know.

Edited November 23, 2012 by phuketjock

[jpinx]

I must say I am more than a little frustrated by the fact that I will not be eligible to vote on the future of my country. I was born and brought up in Scotland and spent all my working life in the service of a British company, working in many locations all over the world, including England and Scotland. The irony is I decided to retire to Thailand for various reasons, one of the main ones being that my pension, not large by any means, gives me a reasonably, not quite comfortable, decent standard of living here in Thailand. I would not be able to maintain anything like that level on the same pension in Scotland or indeed UK. But as said it is my choice, but why should I, or in fact any Scot in similar circumstances, be denied the right to vote on the future of our country simply because we are trying to do the best we can to spend our twylight years at the highest standard of living that we can afford.

The salt in the wound is that any Tom, Dick, or Harry from anywhere in the world who happens to have registered in Scotland in 2014 will be eligible to vote. I personally find this way beyond bizarre!!! Acrimony is way too mild a wprd.

By the way I am paying UK tax on my pension and I served in the armed forces should anyone wish to know.

I understand you well and sympathise with that situation. It is a shame that people such as yourself are excluded, unless you have a family address that you can register from?

Edited November 23, 2012 by jpinx

[MAJIC]

At least we're getting the chance to decide either YES or NO to independence.

Voters registered in Scotland can vote, but Scottish voters in England and around the world are dis-enfranchised, probably by personal choice. If it comes to a tight vote there will be a lot of acrimony both ways - much like US presidential pantomimes .-- I mean elections

I must say I am more than a little frustrated by the fact that I will not be eligible to vote on the future of my country. I was born and brought up in Scotland and spent all my working life in the service of a British company, working in many locations all over the world, including England and Scotland. The irony is I decided to retire to Thailand for various reasons, one of the main ones being that my pension, not large by any means, gives me a reasonably, not quite comfortable, decent standard of living here in Thailand. I would not be able to maintain anything like that level on the same pension in Scotland or indeed UK. But as said it is my choice, but why should I, or in fact any Scot in similar circumstances, be denied the right to vote on the future of our country simply because we are trying to do the best we can to spend our twylight years at the highest standard of living that we can afford.

The salt in the wound is that any Tom, Dick, or Harry from anywhere in the world who happens to have registered in Scotland in 2014 will be eligible to vote. I personally find this way beyond bizarre!!! Acrimony is way too mild a wprd.

By the way I am paying UK tax on my pension and I served in the armed forces should anyone wish to know.

There are worse injustices than not being able to vote,in the Referendum,because you are not living there. Such as no annual Pension increases also because of not being resident in the UK. (assuming your scottish state pension rules are the same as Englands)

[phuketjock]

At least we're getting the chance to decide either YES or NO to independence.

Voters registered in Scotland can vote, but Scottish voters in England and around the world are dis-enfranchised, probably by personal choice. If it comes to a tight vote there will be a lot of acrimony both ways - much like US presidential pantomimes .-- I mean elections

I must say I am more than a little frustrated by the fact that I will not be eligible to vote on the future of my country. I was born and brought up in Scotland and spent all my working life in the service of a British company, working in many locations all over the world, including England and Scotland. The irony is I decided to retire to Thailand for various reasons, one of the main ones being that my pension, not large by any means, gives me a reasonably, not quite comfortable, decent standard of living here in Thailand. I would not be able to maintain anything like that level on the same pension in Scotland or indeed UK. But as said it is my choice, but why should I, or in fact any Scot in similar circumstances, be denied the right to vote on the future of our country simply because we are trying to do the best we can to spend our twylight years at the highest standard of living that we can afford.

The salt in the wound is that any Tom, Dick, or Harry from anywhere in the world who happens to have registered in Scotland in 2014 will be eligible to vote. I personally find this way beyond bizarre!!! Acrimony is way too mild a wprd.

By the way I am paying UK tax on my pension and I served in the armed forces should anyone wish to know.

There are worse injustices than not being able to vote,in the Referendum,because you are not living there. Such as no annual Pension increases also because of not being resident in the UK. (assuming your scottish state pension rules are the same as Englands)

There is no such entity as a Scottish state pension MAJIC and I will suffer the same as you when I reach State pension age

in August next year, I signed the online petition on this subject a while ago. but many people are not aware that all you have

to be is British to sign, and want to of course, you do not have to be retired or living overseas to avail yourself of the

privilige.

jpinx I sent you a pm.

Edited November 23, 2012 by phuketjock

[onionluke]

I am Scottish . I have lived my adult life overseas . If I am not elligible for a vote and the result is YES I might as well apply for a Chinese ( Hong Kong SAR ) passport .

[jpinx]

I am Scottish . I have lived my adult life overseas . If I am not elligible for a vote and the result is YES I might as well apply for a Chinese ( Hong Kong SAR ) passport .

You claim to be Scottish, but you are what your passport says you are

[onionluke]

I am Scottish . I have lived my adult life overseas . If I am not elligible for a vote and the result is YES I might as well apply for a Chinese ( Hong Kong SAR ) passport .

You claim to be Scottish, but you are what your passport says you are

Yes , I am Scottish and I carry a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland passport .

[StreetCowboy]

I am Scottish . I have lived my adult life overseas . If I am not elligible for a vote and the result is YES I might as well apply for a Chinese ( Hong Kong SAR ) passport .

You claim to be Scottish, but you are what your passport says you are

My passport just says I'm British, it doesn't comment on whether I am Scottish or not, nor whether I am an alcoholic, or many other things. I do comply with SRU regulations (though not quality standards)

SC

[transam]

I am English and don't like being called British. Noooooooo disrespect to the Welsh, Scots or Irish.

Why, cos l rather folk know l am English at not perhaps ''really'' from a far off country who don't ''really'' like England. .

[jpinx]

The whole can of worms about nationalities is the root of so many problems. No country is "genuine". The boundaries are political and the people are mongrels of every invasion since god-knows-when .

[Khonwan]

I’ve just came across this thread. I was a card-carrying member of SNP twenty-odd years ago and still support independence. I’m less interested in analyzing whether Scotland will be better off financially after independence since I believe that we should simply reclaim our ability to decide every aspect of our country. The Thatcher years of “look after yourself and <deleted> your neighbours” and her imposition of a tax (“poll tax”) introduced only in Scotland initially (in breach of the Act of Union, in my opinion) despite the election of even one Conservative MP in Scotland is the only rational I need for independence to ensure the governing of the people of Scotland by the people of Scotland.

[StreetCowboy]

I am English and don't like being called British. Noooooooo disrespect to the Welsh, Scots or Irish.

Why, cos l rather folk know l am English at not perhaps ''really'' from a far off country who don't ''really'' like England. .

Our anglophobia wold be so much more convincing if we had fewer English friends. The exceptions prove to be the rule.

SC

[transam]

I am English and don't like being called British. Noooooooo disrespect to the Welsh, Scots or Irish.

Why, cos l rather folk know l am English at not perhaps ''really'' from a far off country who don't ''really'' like England. .

Our anglophobia wold be so much more convincing if we had fewer English friends. The exceptions prove to be the rule.

SC

Followed my family history back to 1200 and something, seems we were Normans.

BUT, my eyes have two colours so a bit of native English l think .

[jpinx]

I am English and don't like being called British. Noooooooo disrespect to the Welsh, Scots or Irish.

Why, cos l rather folk know l am English at not perhaps ''really'' from a far off country who don't ''really'' like England. .

Our anglophobia wold be so much more convincing if we had fewer English friends. The exceptions prove to be the rule.

SC

Followed my family history back to 1200 and something, seems we were Normans.

BUT, my eyes have two colours so a bit of native English l think .

There's no such thing as "native English" - you're clutching at straws. When you consider the number of times the islands were raided and conquered you will realise that "English" is a myth. Celts, Romans, Vikings, Dutch, Germans, Normans, etc have all been there.

As an aside - did you realise that the Normans are actually Vikings?

[nontabury]

Scotlands independence is a highly emotive issue for many - including a lot of people who are not personally involved, but who feel that nationalism or "empire-ism" is a "good thing". Inevitably there are more commentaries than truths, so making a judgement is, to say the least, difficult. Perhaps people need to look at their own motives for believing Scotland should or should not be independent.

Statistics can be used to prove anything. Discovering what makes people want YES or NO is much more interesting.

I'll start the ball rolling by saying that the united kingdom is a politically manufactured anachronism which ignores cultural values and differences. So I will vote YES

It's not politically manufactured, it came about because the King of Sdcotland became the King of England, and the subsequent inheritors wanted to cement that union. The Union came about because two neighbouring and similar countries, having once unified, wanted to cement that union.

SC

Whoa cowboy The union was a convenience to England and certain anglophiles in Scotland after the English had defeated the Scots. There was no wish amongst the Scots at the time to join England, as even a cursory read of history will show you.

And as I've already posted,the English people also did not vote on this union,only the so called elite people in Scotland and England. The exact same can be said when the clans of Scotland came together,only the chieftains decided.

If you look to earlier posts by Gentleman Jim ( post 120 & 122)he explained the evolution of Scotland and in fact most countries in the world far better than I can.

Edited November 27, 2012 by nontabury

[nontabury]

The whole can of worms about nationalities is the root of so many problems. No country is "genuine". The boundaries are political and the people are mongrels of every invasion since god-knows-when .

Exactly, It's a pity SOME people do not realise that it's 2012. If we decided to go back to the beginning, you could correctly state that we are all Kenyans or Ethiopians, but SOME people wish to pick a certain date from history and forget that the world and it's people are evolving all the time.I'm all for keeping our cultural differences even if this includes the Haggis, but the world is moving forward,and all the dinosaur's will be left behind.

P.S the origins of the Haggis,some experts say that it originated in Lancashire others believe China.

[jpinx]

..........

P.S the origins of the Haggis,some experts say that it originated in Lancashire others believe China.

Bagpipes are arguably Pakistani and kilts Greek. Gaelic is a celtic language coming from the same roots as modern sanskrit. Whiskey was first distilled in Ireland. The list is endless, but Queen Victoria's era seemed to put all that right