Britain, Scotland Sign Deal For Independence Referendum

[theblether]

So, to translate that into English:

It was simply to show us all, and me in particular, how much better educated you are.

Well, you failed; all you did was show us how smug and self satisfied you are.

BTW, I have researched the subject and do know the many and varied reasons for the Act of Union; I wonder if you do. One thing is for sure, neither the Scottish nor the English proponents of the Act were motivated by altruism!

They were in it for what they personally could get out of it; a bit like someone we know; hint, initials AS.

PS

For someone who complained a few posts back about being insulted, you're very free with the insults yourself; have been throughout this topic, in fact!

Double standards, like AS again!

Trust me, I've not been insulting on this topic.

I just don't feel the need to interact with and educate people such as yourself who have consistently arrived on the scene with a big pair of bovver boots on. You just toddle off and consult with Google again, eventually the penny will drop.

[endure]

Some of these posts are crossing the line into baiting. Please refrain and stick to the subject.

[folium]

Indeed, a strong argument for maintaining the union.

So, your many comments on the Act, such as

It would be better that some of you actually studied the real reason for the Act of Union and why it has a direct relevance upon this debate

are actually supporting the union?

And i thought you were a nationalist!

I'm not an idiot, I know why the Act Of Union came about, and I know the benefits of the Union. I am of the opinion that the Union has run it's course, and it has run it's course due to a complete failure of the Unionist parties.

And yet you think that we can find a better government within the confines of our own limited nation than can be found in the whole of the United Kingdom? Within a limited nation that views the world as it's oyster, and government a parochial backwater for deadwoods? In days of old the brightest talents in Scotland were away administering and trading in foreign lands, establishing world-class brands like Cathay Pacific in sleepy fishing villages... and the same remains true today. No offence intended, but do you really think that you will be able to tempt the governmental equivalents of Sir Alex Feguson back north of the Tweed?

SC

Excellent post.

Your mention of Cathay Pacific is very appropriate. While Cathay Pacific itself was established by an American and an Aussie post WW2, it soon came under the wing of the Swire Group. This still family owned group was the classic combination of gritty Yorkshire entrepreneurial ability plus the engineering ability of Scotts, the Greenock based shipbuilder. Similar story to the other Hong Kong taipan, Jardine Matheson. Simply put two excellent examples of British drive and determination, in other words: "United we conquer"......

Edited December 9, 2012 by folium

[theblether]

^^

Oh yes the days of glorious Empire. The days before Thatcher decided that manufacturing had to be slaughtered and the banks had to be set free, the days when we truly were united and not using parts of the Kingdom as testing beds for loony ideas.

Incidentally it's amusing your using two early Scottish drug dealers as beacons for free trade, at least we still excel at that.

[folium]

^^

Oh yes the days of glorious Empire. The days before Thatcher decided that manufacturing had to be slaughtered and the banks had to be set free, the days when we truly were united and not using parts of the Kingdom as testing beds for loony ideas.

Incidentally it's amusing your using two early Scottish drug dealers as beacons for free trade, at least we still excel at that.

You are a tad myopic about the state of manufacturing and banking in the UK, which does betray your geographically peripheral viewpoint. And who was throwing around accusations of hyperbole....?

BTW while the fiendish Scottish Jardines and English Dents were major opium dealers, the Swires/Scotts kept out of that business so be careful with labelling people as drug dealers without a shred of evidence. You should take a look at the Swire/Scotts of Greenock story as it continues today and is no harking back to Empire day nonsense just two driven British families continuing a success story over 300 years.

One more time....."united we conquer". Glad to hear you appreciate that amazing memorial at Spean Bridge, I completely relate to what it is all about.

I presume you are talking about the Nelson Memorial on Glasgow Green as again it represents what the British can achieve (even it was only the RN)!! Believe Nelson had 5 Scottish captains at Trafalgar, 33% of his sailors were Scottish and his physician was likewise also from north of the Tweed.

Hope that you know more about Trafalgar than many Scottish folk:

http://news.bbc.co.u...and/4343866.stm

Just kidding...actually I have a sneaking suspicion you are banging on about another son of Greenock, who had the odd bright idea. But don't forget that his bright ideas would never have seen the light of day to the extent they did without the good business/engineering skills of his English business partner, both of whom now grace the reverse of the 50 quid note. Almost worth another "united we...."!

Edited December 9, 2012 by folium

[theblether]

You know perfectly well that Jardine Mathieson were drug dealers

[folium]

You know perfectly well that Jardine Mathieson were drug dealers

Do try and actually read the post above....

[folium]

While you may think this is good news given some of your views on the print media, it does highlight some of the issues of viability in a relatively small market.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-19600860

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-20643803

And it looks like we have seen another memorable week of posturing, puffing and backtracking from Scottish politicians re Levenson...no surprises there.

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/opinion/comment/euan-mccolm-inaction-on-press-is-louder-than-words-1-2682351

[theblether]

You know perfectly well that Jardine Mathieson were drug dealers

Do try and actually read the post above....

Oooops sorry....I overlooked that....apologies.

[Richard W]

One thing has puzzled me about the discussions on the topic. Is the the question to be about the departure of Scotland from the United Kingdom or of the dissolution of the union? If the union is to be dissolved, should Northern Ireland be united with Scotland or with England? I presume it is accepted that Berwick upon Tweed and the Isle of Man will go with England. However, what of the overseas territories?

The nationality question is interesting. Prior to the Alien Act 1705, was there a common citizenship of England and Scotland? I've seen reports that the courts had held that there was by virtue of allegiance to a common monarch, though that principle has explicitly not been upheld during the dissolution of the British Empire.

If there are to be separate citizenships, I would expect citizenship deriving from birth in the UK to go by the relative place of birth, with provision for dual citizenship. Leave to remain and naturalisation would presumably be based on place of residence, with the precise rules chosen to maximise revenue without appearing perverse. It wouldn't hurt to make leave initially apply to both England and Scotland, as it would usually resolve itself as leave for England or for Scotland within a couple of years, but whether it would be done that way is another matter. What will be done with other British nationals, particularly those without leave to enter the UK, is another matter. Secession would dump them on England and Northern Ireland: dissolution would be an interesting question.

Try reading my Post again,I was hoping for some sensible information, as to the difference between the English and Scottish Parliamentary systems,and not one of your usual stock in trade,put downs.

I apologise if MAJIC has already understood the situation. The nature of the differences had been touched on in this thread before MAJIC asked his question.

The UK has a parliament. Additionally, three of the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom have their own assemblies or parliaments; England does not. The elections of MPs to the parliament of the United Kingdom and of SMPs to the Scottish Assembly are held independently; there is no connection between the votes cast for these body, and the electoral franchises are different. One may, for example, give practical effect to an assessment that the SNP is fit to run Scottish domestic affairs but is not to be trusted with the defence of the realm. Moreover, the dates of the elections to the parliaments are different.

[theblether]

While you may think this is good news given some of your views on the print media, it does highlight some of the issues of viability in a relatively small market.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...siness-19600860

http://www.bbc.co.uk...siness-20643803

And it looks like we have seen another memorable week of posturing, puffing and backtracking from Scottish politicians re Levenson...no surprises there.

http://www.scotsman....words-1-2682351

If AS has a fault it is that he is always looking to do something distinct and different. I did say earlier I wasn't happy about his attitude on this issue, and I must say I'm a lot happier now.

Anyway this is all phoney war BS.......in saying that I am concerned that he can't resist the temptation to dive into every battle head first, he really needs to understand that it will be better for us if he goes relatively quiet for a while and allows events to unfold.

This battle won't start until April 2014, all he has to do until then is keep a steady ship.

[folium]

While you may think this is good news given some of your views on the print media, it does highlight some of the issues of viability in a relatively small market.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...siness-19600860

http://www.bbc.co.uk...siness-20643803

And it looks like we have seen another memorable week of posturing, puffing and backtracking from Scottish politicians re Levenson...no surprises there.

http://www.scotsman....words-1-2682351

If AS has a fault it is that he is always looking to do something distinct and different. I did say earlier I wasn't happy about his attitude on this issue, and I must say I'm a lot happier now.

Anyway this is all phoney war BS.......in saying that I am concerned that he can't resist the temptation to dive into every battle head first, he really needs to understand that it will be better for us if he goes relatively quiet for a while and allows events to unfold.

This battle won't start until April 2014, all he has to do until then is keep a steady ship.

Fat chance given the personality involved!

PS rumbled your Glasgow Green riddle eh?

[StreetCowboy]

One thing has puzzled me about the discussions on the topic. Is the the question to be about the departure of Scotland from the United Kingdom or of the dissolution of the union? If the union is to be dissolved, should Northern Ireland be united with Scotland or with England? I presume it is accepted that Berwick upon Tweed and the Isle of Man will go with England. However, what of the overseas territories?

The nationality question is interesting. Prior to the Alien Act 1705, was there a common citizenship of England and Scotland? I've seen reports that the courts had held that there was by virtue of allegiance to a common monarch, though that principle has explicitly not been upheld during the dissolution of the British Empire.

If there are to be separate citizenships, I would expect citizenship deriving from birth in the UK to go by the relative place of birth, with provision for dual citizenship. Leave to remain and naturalisation would presumably be based on place of residence, with the precise rules chosen to maximise revenue without appearing perverse. It wouldn't hurt to make leave initially apply to both England and Scotland, as it would usually resolve itself as leave for England or for Scotland within a couple of years, but whether it would be done that way is another matter. What will be done with other British nationals, particularly those without leave to enter the UK, is another matter. Secession would dump them on England and Northern Ireland: dissolution would be an interesting question.

Try reading my Post again,I was hoping for some sensible information, as to the difference between the English and Scottish Parliamentary systems,and not one of your usual stock in trade,put downs.

I apologise if MAJIC has already understood the situation. The nature of the differences had been touched on in this thread before MAJIC asked his question.

The UK has a parliament. Additionally, three of the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom have their own assemblies or parliaments; England does not. The elections of MPs to the parliament of the United Kingdom and of SMPs to the Scottish Assembly are held independently; there is no connection between the votes cast for these body, and the electoral franchises are different. One may, for example, give practical effect to an assessment that the SNP is fit to run Scottish domestic affairs but is not to be trusted with the defence of the realm. Moreover, the dates of the elections to the parliaments are different.

the referendum will be on secession. The United Kingdom will carry on as before, but with fewer MPs in Westminster and no MSPs. I imagine that the Scottish MPs will be able to apply their talents more productively elsewhere, and I hope that our MSPs will be able to carry out their greater responsibilities without additional cost, though I fear I may hope in vain.

SC

EDIT: Until the EU membership is resolved, I doubt anyone will be churlish enough to impose restrictions on the residency of their neighbours.

I very much doubt that the Isle of Man will take Scotland's place in the United Kingdom - there has been no mention of it to date; I expect it to continue outside the kingdom, and outside the EU, along with the Channel Islands (as far as I know). I would expect that most of the towns and cities of England and Scotland will remain in the countries that they find themselves currently. Has there been any comment from the SFA on how Berwick Rangers would be treated? I can see no reason to change the current arrangements.

SC

Edited December 10, 2012 by StreetCowboy

[folium]

One thing has puzzled me about the discussions on the topic. Is the the question to be about the departure of Scotland from the United Kingdom or of the dissolution of the union? If the union is to be dissolved, should Northern Ireland be united with Scotland or with England? I presume it is accepted that Berwick upon Tweed and the Isle of Man will go with England. However, what of the overseas territories?

The nationality question is interesting. Prior to the Alien Act 1705, was there a common citizenship of England and Scotland? I've seen reports that the courts had held that there was by virtue of allegiance to a common monarch, though that principle has explicitly not been upheld during the dissolution of the British Empire.

If there are to be separate citizenships, I would expect citizenship deriving from birth in the UK to go by the relative place of birth, with provision for dual citizenship. Leave to remain and naturalisation would presumably be based on place of residence, with the precise rules chosen to maximise revenue without appearing perverse. It wouldn't hurt to make leave initially apply to both England and Scotland, as it would usually resolve itself as leave for England or for Scotland within a couple of years, but whether it would be done that way is another matter. What will be done with other British nationals, particularly those without leave to enter the UK, is another matter. Secession would dump them on England and Northern Ireland: dissolution would be an interesting question.

Try reading my Post again,I was hoping for some sensible information, as to the difference between the English and Scottish Parliamentary systems,and not one of your usual stock in trade,put downs.

I apologise if MAJIC has already understood the situation. The nature of the differences had been touched on in this thread before MAJIC asked his question.

The UK has a parliament. Additionally, three of the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom have their own assemblies or parliaments; England does not. The elections of MPs to the parliament of the United Kingdom and of SMPs to the Scottish Assembly are held independently; there is no connection between the votes cast for these body, and the electoral franchises are different. One may, for example, give practical effect to an assessment that the SNP is fit to run Scottish domestic affairs but is not to be trusted with the defence of the realm. Moreover, the dates of the elections to the parliaments are different.

the referendum will be on secession. The United Kingdom will carry on as before, but with fewer MPs in Westminster and no MSPs. I imagine that the Scottish MPs will be able to apply their talents more productively, and I hope that our MSPs will be able to carry out their greater responsibilities without additional cost, though I fear I may hope in vain.

SC

Interesting thought re MSPs and Scottish Westminster MPs.

The next UK General Election on May 7 2015. If by some bizarre fluke AS wins his referendum and talks with London begin what will happen in this election re the Scottish Westminster MPs?

Also what will all the redundant Westminster Scottish MPs do re a job? Bet they, nor many of the weaker MSPs will not be voting for independence!

Edited December 10, 2012 by folium

[nontabury]

Indeed, a strong argument for maintaining the union.

So, your many comments on the Act, such as

It would be better that some of you actually studied the real reason for the Act of Union and why it has a direct relevance upon this debate

are actually supporting the union?

And i thought you were a nationalist!

I'm not an idiot, I know why the Act Of Union came about, and I know the benefits of the Union. I am of the opinion that the Union has run it's course, and it has run it's course due to a complete failure of the Unionist parties.

You seem to have omitted the fact that the political parties that you blame for the present problems in the UK, where for the most part under the premiership of Scotsman,and as I've already pointed out to you,one of the cabinets contained 16 Scotsman out of 19,that is approximately 77%, while the Scottish population only consist of approx 8% of the total UK population.

Edited December 10, 2012 by nontabury

[nontabury]

Indeed, a strong argument for maintaining the union.

So, your many comments on the Act, such as

It would be better that some of you actually studied the real reason for the Act of Union and why it has a direct relevance upon this debate

are actually supporting the union?

And i thought you were a nationalist!

I'm not an idiot, I know why the Act Of Union came about, and I know the benefits of the Union. I am of the opinion that the Union has run it's course, and it has run it's course due to a complete failure of the Unionist parties.

An addition to my previous post,you would be better off, and be more able to produce a far greater convincing argument,if you where to put forward the greater benefits to the people of England,Wales and northern Ireland in the event of independence from the moaning Scots.

[theslime]

Scotland first then Wales then Ulster which was a dastardly set up to begin with. Yippee

[theblether]

Scotland first then Wales then Ulster which was a dastardly set up to begin with. Yippee

Entirely an English idea, you must be very proud.

[StreetCowboy]

Indeed, a strong argument for maintaining the union.

So, your many comments on the Act, such as

It would be better that some of you actually studied the real reason for the Act of Union and why it has a direct relevance upon this debate

are actually supporting the union?

And i thought you were a nationalist!

I'm not an idiot, I know why the Act Of Union came about, and I know the benefits of the Union. I am of the opinion that the Union has run it's course, and it has run it's course due to a complete failure of the Unionist parties.

You seem to have omitted the fact that the political parties that you blame for the present problems in the UK, where for the most part under the premiership of Scotsman,and as I've already pointed out to you,one of the cabinets contained 16 Scotsman out of 19,that is approximately 77%, while the Scottish population only consist of approx 8% of the total UK population.

I would imagine that some of the weaker British parties will try and pander to the xenophobic vote, and we will find our opportunities greatly diminished.

SC

[theblether]

^^ That seems to be an issue in England, there's not much truck with that kind of thinking in Scotland and long may it continue.

Anyway......we're going round in circles here, I'll need to retire from the thread again as my shops are at peak season. If the thread is still open at Christmas time I'll have a look at joining back in.

See you later.

[StreetCowboy]

^^ That seems to be an issue in England, there's not much truck with that kind of thinking in Scotland and long may it continue.

...

What I meant was that the residual British may resent being governed by foreigners when we are no longer part of the United Kingdom, and then there will be fewer opportunities open to us. t

SC

[7by7]

Scotland first then Wales then Ulster which was a dastardly set up to begin with. Yippee

Entirely an English idea, you must be very proud.

Proud that the people of the six counties were allowed to remain part of the Union, which is what the majority of the people living there wanted at the time and still do?

Yes.

Edited December 10, 2012 by 7by7

[Richard W]

Proud that the people of the six counties were allowed to remain part of the Union, which is what the majority of the people living there wanted at the time and still do?

But if union with Britain is no longer possible, will they want union with England, or union with Scotland?

I recall that one of the arguments against thrusting independence on Northern Island was that the ensuing civil war would spill over into sectarian strife in Scotland. Should preserving peace in an independent Scotland be a driver of England's domestic policy?

[Richard W]

Until the EU membership is resolved, I doubt anyone will be churlish enough to impose restrictions on the residency of their neighbours.

I would expect Scotland to remain within the common travel area with the rest of the British Isles. However, the Scottish Borders Agency (or whatever) would hardly be entitled to grant leave to enter or remain in England, and vice versa. I presume Indefinite Leave to Remain in the UK currently lapses after a two year residence in the Republic of Ireland.

A potential issue would be one of security clearance - should Scottish citizens be allowed access to English secrets? There is also the issue of defence-related imports from the USA - would the US allow citizens of Scotland to be given access to items exported to the United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland?

I very much doubt that the Isle of Man will take Scotland's place in the United Kingdom - there has been no mention of it to date

I wasn't suggesting it would. However, its overlordship has vacillated between England and Scotland, making it a potential border dispute.

[MAJIC]

One thing has puzzled me about the discussions on the topic. Is the the question to be about the departure of Scotland from the United Kingdom or of the dissolution of the union? If the union is to be dissolved, should Northern Ireland be united with Scotland or with England? I presume it is accepted that Berwick upon Tweed and the Isle of Man will go with England. However, what of the overseas territories?

The nationality question is interesting. Prior to the Alien Act 1705, was there a common citizenship of England and Scotland? I've seen reports that the courts had held that there was by virtue of allegiance to a common monarch, though that principle has explicitly not been upheld during the dissolution of the British Empire.

If there are to be separate citizenships, I would expect citizenship deriving from birth in the UK to go by the relative place of birth, with provision for dual citizenship. Leave to remain and naturalisation would presumably be based on place of residence, with the precise rules chosen to maximise revenue without appearing perverse. It wouldn't hurt to make leave initially apply to both England and Scotland, as it would usually resolve itself as leave for England or for Scotland within a couple of years, but whether it would be done that way is another matter. What will be done with other British nationals, particularly those without leave to enter the UK, is another matter. Secession would dump them on England and Northern Ireland: dissolution would be an interesting question.

Try reading my Post again,I was hoping for some sensible information, as to the difference between the English and Scottish Parliamentary systems,and not one of your usual stock in trade,put downs.

I apologise if MAJIC has already understood the situation. The nature of the differences had been touched on in this thread before MAJIC asked his question.

The UK has a parliament. Additionally, three of the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom have their own assemblies or parliaments; England does not. The elections of MPs to the parliament of the United Kingdom and of SMPs to the Scottish Assembly are held independently; there is no connection between the votes cast for these body, and the electoral franchises are different. One may, for example, give practical effect to an assessment that the SNP is fit to run Scottish domestic affairs but is not to be trusted with the defence of the realm. Moreover, the dates of the elections to the parliaments are different.

the referendum will be on secession. The United Kingdom will carry on as before, but with fewer MPs in Westminster and no MSPs. I imagine that the Scottish MPs will be able to apply their talents more productively, and I hope that our MSPs will be able to carry out their greater responsibilities without additional cost, though I fear I may hope in vain.

SC

Interesting thought re MSPs and Scottish Westminster MPs.

The next UK General Election on May 7 2015. If by some bizarre fluke AS wins his referendum and talks with London begin what will happen in this election re the Scottish Westminster MPs?

Also what will all the redundant Westminster Scottish MPs do re a job? Bet they, nor many of the weaker MSPs will not be voting for independence!

Good point! and worse for the SNP,the votes of those that elected them in the first place,are hardly likely to shift their vote.

[Scott]

Personal attack and reply deleted.

Stay on topic.

[folium]

Scotland first then Wales then Ulster which was a dastardly set up to begin with. Yippee

Entirely an English idea, you must be very proud.

Slightly shaky grasp of history here.

The Scots or Scotti, originated from the northern half of Ireland in the first place and took over SW Scotland, and the favour was returned, with interest, in the 17th and 18th centuries via the Plantations in Ireland of Scottish settlers.

The resultant Scots-Irish have had a great impact on Irish history ever since and were also the source of many of the "Irish" emigrants to the USA. Being a Presbyterian/Protestant minority in the whole island of Ireland, partition was a popular idea with Scots-Irish as Ulster (with the exception of Fermanagh and Tyrone) was made up of 4 Protestant majority counties.

The Ulster Covenant of 1912 was drafted by Carson and Craig (the latter the first PM of N.Ireland), and they, plus Lord Londonderry, were the first three signatories; all are Scots-Irish.

The links between Scotland and Ireland date back to the prehistoric, which probably accounts for the presence of the Orange Order lodges in Scotland and the remaining undercurrent of sectarianism still witnessed at certain football matches....(see link below for a bizarre suggestion which underlines the connection)

So blaming England alone for the issues with Ulster is a little rich!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-19710873

Edited December 10, 2012 by folium

[StreetCowboy]

Scotland first then Wales then Ulster which was a dastardly set up to begin with. Yippee

Entirely an English idea, you must be very proud.

Slightly shaky grasp of history here.

The Scots or Scotti, originated from the northern half of Ireland in the first place and took over SW Scotland, and the favour was returned, with interest, in the 17th and 18th centuries via the Plantations in Ireland of Scottish settlers.

The resultant Scots-Irish have had a great impact on Irish history ever since and were also the source of many of the "Irish" emigrants to the USA. Being a Presbyterian/Protestant minority in the whole island of Ireland, partition was a popular idea with Scots-Irish as Ulster (with the exception of Fermanagh and Tyrone) was made up of 4 Protestant majority counties.

The Ulster Covenant of 1912 was drafted by Carson and Craig (the latter the first PM of N.Ireland), and they, plus Lord Londonderry, were the first three signatories; all are Scots-Irish.

The links between Scotland and Ireland date back to the prehistoric, which probably accounts for the presence of the Orange Order lodges in Scotland and the remaining undercurrent of sectarianism still witnessed at certain football matches....(see link below for a bizarre suggestion which underlines the connection)

So blaming England alone for the issues with Ulster is a little rich!

http://www.bbc.co.uk...reland-19710873

I think he was either blaming the English for the conquest and settlement of Ireland in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, or for the partition of 1921.

SC

[folium]

Scotland first then Wales then Ulster which was a dastardly set up to begin with. Yippee

Entirely an English idea, you must be very proud.

Slightly shaky grasp of history here.

The Scots or Scotti, originated from the northern half of Ireland in the first place and took over SW Scotland, and the favour was returned, with interest, in the 17th and 18th centuries via the Plantations in Ireland of Scottish settlers.

The resultant Scots-Irish have had a great impact on Irish history ever since and were also the source of many of the "Irish" emigrants to the USA. Being a Presbyterian/Protestant minority in the whole island of Ireland, partition was a popular idea with Scots-Irish as Ulster (with the exception of Fermanagh and Tyrone) was made up of 4 Protestant majority counties.

The Ulster Covenant of 1912 was drafted by Carson and Craig (the latter the first PM of N.Ireland), and they, plus Lord Londonderry, were the first three signatories; all are Scots-Irish.

The links between Scotland and Ireland date back to the prehistoric, which probably accounts for the presence of the Orange Order lodges in Scotland and the remaining undercurrent of sectarianism still witnessed at certain football matches....(see link below for a bizarre suggestion which underlines the connection)

So blaming England alone for the issues with Ulster is a little rich!

http://www.bbc.co.uk...reland-19710873

I think he was either blaming the English for the conquest and settlement of Ireland in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, or for the partition of 1921.

SC

And many of the 17th century Plantation settlers were Scottish, and it was largely their ancestors who insisted on a partition of Ireland rather than allow Home Rule for the whole island, which would have probably made the Troubles redundant. Hence Hume's request for Scots-Irish to be allowed to vote in the independence referendum.

[7by7]

I doubt very much that forcing the 6 counties into an Irish republic against their will would have made the troubles redundant!