Britain, Scotland Sign Deal For Independence Referendum

[nontabury]

@Folium

"Drivel. Reform of the UNSC, which is long overdue as the Permanent Members reflect the winners of WW2 (plus France, sadly), is more than likely to see an enlargement rather than a replacement. Turkeys rarely vote for Christmas. The G4 group (Germany, India, Japan & Brazil) is supported by the UK as new Permanent Members but opposed by regional rivals such as Italy, Pakistan etc. if Scotland goes independent this will have no impact on this debate."

Just plain wrong, there has been an undercurrent of resentment against the UK veto building for a while, and attempts by the EU to take control of the seat.

http://www.scribd.co...ecurity-Council

If your going to use derogatory terms such as "drivel" you better make sure what follows is correct. The entire standing of the UK will go into flux if Scotland gains Independence. Just read the summary and weep eh?

To be fair I forgot about Devenport, I was under the impression it was a maintenance yard similar to Rosyth rather than a fully operational submarine base did say that I'm not an expert on the matter. I'll take it you can confirm that Devenport is currently a fully operational Nuclear Sub base?

Here's some links for you re Faslane........

http://local.stv.tv/...ndent-scotland/

http://www.defencema...ry.asp?id=20012

There seems to be a deep seated concern about losing Faslane, what can I say? The biggest single negotiation after independence will be the future of Faslane.....that seems dramatic to me and the only person that seems to think it will easy to relocate the Subs is you......go figure

Re The Russians, they have been seeking a warm weather port for hundreds of years, that was the primary drive of the Crimean War and the primary reason why they are so supportive of the Syrian Assad regime. If your an expert on this issue then you know how important that issue has been to Russian political thinking since the days of the Tzars. It was relevant to exp[lain why wielding the Veto is so important, you know the same Veto that the EU are trying to take control of?

Your last comment shows how little you know about British history.......maybe it would be better for you to go study it and come back with an explanation as to why England was so determined to absorb Scotland. Let me tell you, it wasn't an act of charity

Still not convinced that the loss of Scotland would jeopardise the UK's UNSC permanent member status. As 7by7 pointed out Russia lost far more with the break up of the Soviet Union but maintained its status.

Devonport currently houses the Trafalgar nuclear submarines and co-hosts the new Astute subs (though they are due to relocate to Faslane in 2017). It does not have a nuclear weapons facility like Coulport and if the Vanguard subs had to relocate from Faslane they would have to use the facilities at King's Bay, Georgia. The removal of nuclear subs from Faslane would have an enormous impact on Scotland's economy as it currently employs directly and indirectly 11,000 people.

On the need for history lessons perhaps you should look into the impact of the Darien Scheme and how it helped enable the Act of Union in 1707.

I'm not saying that the United Nations status would be automatically lost, I am saying that there are moves afoot to unseat the UK and anything that diminishes the standing of the UK will be seized upon by the many opponents that we have.

Russia is not a good comparison, Russia after the break up was still a major nuclear power and easily the greatest threat to Western safety, there was no way they were going to lose the Veto without causing an intolerable diplomatic incident.

Re the subs......it's already been pointed out that will be a burning political issue in this election, and one which Salmond will find hard to win.

Re the history lessons on Scottish history.......you are joking Folium, I am fully aware of the Darien Scheme and the Alien Act.....you are not seriously proposing that the Darien Disaster was the primary drive behind England's desire to subsume Scotland are you?

The Alien Act is not taught in Scottish schools.........and you need to look deeper into why England was determined to subsume Scotland......the reason is obvious.

Looks like we will differ on most of these issues, such is life...

Here's a thought, which of these will happen first:

1. Independence for Scotland

2. Scotland qualifying for the World Cup Finals.

3. The Tories winning 5 seats in Scotland

4. Steely Dan converts to Islam.

Just as Scotland entered the Union for economic reasons (amongst others), so economic logic and a clear understanding of which side the bread is buttered, will keep them in the Union.

1st No 1

2nd. No 3

3rd. No 4

4th. And by a large margin No 2

[theblether]

No 7x7, you don't own it (Scottish infrastructure).....England as an entity doesn't exist outside the history books and being a regional sub-division of the country known as the United Kingdom. You are a British citizen, not an English citizen. I am a British citizen, not a Scottish citizen. So don't be allowing palpably wrong arguments to enter into this debate, the English paid for nothing, the British paid for everything.

Then, following your argument, Scotland also does not exist as an entity anymore, except as a sub division of the UK. Therefore the Scottish people have no claim on British embassies and consulates. They are owned by the United Kingdom and if Scotland leaves the UK then it gives up any claim it may have upon them.

A minor point, anyway.

As already discussed, there are far more serious reasons why leaving the union would, in the long term, be disastrous for the Scottish people.

As a supporter (member?) of the SNP I wonder if you could answer a question for me?

It's no big deal as far as the independence argument goes; but I am curious.

Would an independent Scotland remain in the Commonwealth and would it keep the Queen as head of state?

She is half Scottish, after all.

yes and yes....thanks for asking.

[theblether]

@Folium

"Drivel. Reform of the UNSC, which is long overdue as the Permanent Members reflect the winners of WW2 (plus France, sadly), is more than likely to see an enlargement rather than a replacement. Turkeys rarely vote for Christmas. The G4 group (Germany, India, Japan & Brazil) is supported by the UK as new Permanent Members but opposed by regional rivals such as Italy, Pakistan etc. if Scotland goes independent this will have no impact on this debate."

Just plain wrong, there has been an undercurrent of resentment against the UK veto building for a while, and attempts by the EU to take control of the seat.

http://www.scribd.co...ecurity-Council

If your going to use derogatory terms such as "drivel" you better make sure what follows is correct. The entire standing of the UK will go into flux if Scotland gains Independence. Just read the summary and weep eh?

To be fair I forgot about Devenport, I was under the impression it was a maintenance yard similar to Rosyth rather than a fully operational submarine base did say that I'm not an expert on the matter. I'll take it you can confirm that Devenport is currently a fully operational Nuclear Sub base?

Here's some links for you re Faslane........

http://local.stv.tv/...ndent-scotland/

http://www.defencema...ry.asp?id=20012

There seems to be a deep seated concern about losing Faslane, what can I say? The biggest single negotiation after independence will be the future of Faslane.....that seems dramatic to me and the only person that seems to think it will easy to relocate the Subs is you......go figure

Re The Russians, they have been seeking a warm weather port for hundreds of years, that was the primary drive of the Crimean War and the primary reason why they are so supportive of the Syrian Assad regime. If your an expert on this issue then you know how important that issue has been to Russian political thinking since the days of the Tzars. It was relevant to exp[lain why wielding the Veto is so important, you know the same Veto that the EU are trying to take control of?

Your last comment shows how little you know about British history.......maybe it would be better for you to go study it and come back with an explanation as to why England was so determined to absorb Scotland. Let me tell you, it wasn't an act of charity

Still not convinced that the loss of Scotland would jeopardise the UK's UNSC permanent member status. As 7by7 pointed out Russia lost far more with the break up of the Soviet Union but maintained its status.

Devonport currently houses the Trafalgar nuclear submarines and co-hosts the new Astute subs (though they are due to relocate to Faslane in 2017). It does not have a nuclear weapons facility like Coulport and if the Vanguard subs had to relocate from Faslane they would have to use the facilities at King's Bay, Georgia. The removal of nuclear subs from Faslane would have an enormous impact on Scotland's economy as it currently employs directly and indirectly 11,000 people.

On the need for history lessons perhaps you should look into the impact of the Darien Scheme and how it helped enable the Act of Union in 1707.

I'm not saying that the United Nations status would be automatically lost, I am saying that there are moves afoot to unseat the UK and anything that diminishes the standing of the UK will be seized upon by the many opponents that we have.

Russia is not a good comparison, Russia after the break up was still a major nuclear power and easily the greatest threat to Western safety, there was no way they were going to lose the Veto without causing an intolerable diplomatic incident.

Re the subs......it's already been pointed out that will be a burning political issue in this election, and one which Salmond will find hard to win.

Re the history lessons on Scottish history.......you are joking Folium, I am fully aware of the Darien Scheme and the Alien Act.....you are not seriously proposing that the Darien Disaster was the primary drive behind England's desire to subsume Scotland are you?

The Alien Act is not taught in Scottish schools.........and you need to look deeper into why England was determined to subsume Scotland......the reason is obvious.

Looks like we will differ on most of these issues, such is life...

Here's a thought, which of these will happen first:

1. Independence for Scotland

2. Scotland qualifying for the World Cup Finals.

3. The Tories winning 5 seats in Scotland

4. Steely Dan converts to Islam.

Just as Scotland entered the Union for economic reasons (amongst others), so economic logic and a clear understanding of which side the bread is buttered, will keep them in the Union.

When do you intend to actually answer the question you were asked? It's really quite embarrassing that the English ( sub division ) of the UK don't know why the UK was formed.

[theblether]

I was asked to get involved in this thread........i didn't want to as the level of ignorance is disgraceful. I won't be replying to any more messages except pm's.

Some of you guys need to familiarize yourselves with history. You really don't have a clue.

Disgrace.

[folium]

As with any relationship, consummated or otherwise, the motives of the 2 parties cover a whole multitude of bases and sins.

What the English intentions were are pretty obvious and mainly involve the succession issue (Act of Settlement etc).

My point was what the Scottish motivation was. Why did they agree to the union when many were opposed? Any thoughts?

[endure]

Why is it necessary to know what happened several hundred years ago to inform our actions today? What happened then is gone. How far back do we have to dig? 10 years? 200? 300? 1000? Admittedly there are folks who seem to revel in past injustices - let them.

[folium]

Why is it necessary to know what happened several hundred years ago to inform our actions today? What happened then is gone. How far back do we have to dig? 10 years? 200? 300? 1000? Admittedly there are folks who seem to revel in past injustices - let them.

Sadly so much of what has informed debate in Ireland for tha past few decades has been shaped by events from centuries past. In Scotland again perceived past grievances and issues shape current debate and are grist to the mill for operators such as Alex Salmond.

[nontabury]

No 7x7, you don't own it (Scottish infrastructure).....England as an entity doesn't exist outside the history books and being a regional sub-division of the country known as the United Kingdom. You are a British citizen, not an English citizen. I am a British citizen, not a Scottish citizen. So don't be allowing palpably wrong arguments to enter into this debate, the English paid for nothing, the British paid for everything.

Then, following your argument, Scotland also does not exist as an entity anymore, except as a sub division of the UK. Therefore the Scottish people have no claim on British embassies and consulates. They are owned by the United Kingdom and if Scotland leaves the UK then it gives up any claim it may have upon them.

A minor point, anyway.

As already discussed, there are far more serious reasons why leaving the union would, in the long term, be disastrous for the Scottish people.

As a supporter (member?) of the SNP I wonder if you could answer a question for me?

It's no big deal as far as the independence argument goes; but I am curious.

Would an independent Scotland remain in the Commonwealth and would it keep the Queen as head of state?

She is half Scottish, after all.

yes and yes....thanks for asking.

How can you state that, as far as I'm aware the terms of the separation have not even started yet. I looked upon it as a divorce,the same as in a marriage,what your stating is that one side(Scotland), are setting out it's terms,and that the English will automatically agree,I think you will now find there is now so much ill feeling towards the Scots by many English people, that this cannot now be stated as a done thing,

[nontabury]

As with any relationship, consummated or otherwise, the motives of the 2 parties cover a whole multitude of bases and sins.

What the English intentions were are pretty obvious and mainly involve the succession issue (Act of Settlement etc).

My point was what the Scottish motivation was. Why did they agree to the union when many were opposed? Any thoughts?

In 1707 the majority of the Scots were not given the opportunity to vote on this issue, the exact same as the majority of the English people, so what,that's history.Yes,it's a pity people cannot live in the present and think about the future, some have to relate to past events. The world is becoming a smaller place by the year, yet some people prefer to return to their little tribes.

[bigbamboo]

As with any relationship, consummated or otherwise, the motives of the 2 parties cover a whole multitude of bases and sins.

What the English intentions were are pretty obvious and mainly involve the succession issue (Act of Settlement etc).

My point was what the Scottish motivation was. Why did they agree to the union when many were opposed? Any thoughts?

In 1707 the majority of the Scots were not given the opportunity to vote on this issue, the exact same as the majority of the English people, so what,that's history.Yes,it's a pity people cannot live in the present and think about the future, some have to relate to past events. The world is becoming a smaller place by the year, yet some people prefer to return to their little tribes.

Or maybe it's because the world is becoming so homogenised that people want to retain their cultural identity.

[StreetCowboy]

...

Or maybe it's because the world is becoming so homogenised that people want to retain their cultural identity.

I think you'll find more people voting for independence than attend ceilidhs or can recount the tale of Tam O' Shanter.

I hope that those who think they are interested in their cultural identity will be away down to Meggetland tomorrow for the Scotland v England Knights rugby. For those of us not living close enough to attend, you'll be disappointed to hear it's not being shown on satellite. Surprisingly, nor is the Wales v England first XIII game, though you can catch live commentary on the BBC radio, I think.

SC

[theblether]

No 7x7, you don't own it (Scottish infrastructure).....England as an entity doesn't exist outside the history books and being a regional sub-division of the country known as the United Kingdom. You are a British citizen, not an English citizen. I am a British citizen, not a Scottish citizen. So don't be allowing palpably wrong arguments to enter into this debate, the English paid for nothing, the British paid for everything.

Then, following your argument, Scotland also does not exist as an entity anymore, except as a sub division of the UK. Therefore the Scottish people have no claim on British embassies and consulates. They are owned by the United Kingdom and if Scotland leaves the UK then it gives up any claim it may have upon them.

A minor point, anyway.

As already discussed, there are far more serious reasons why leaving the union would, in the long term, be disastrous for the Scottish people.

As a supporter (member?) of the SNP I wonder if you could answer a question for me?

It's no big deal as far as the independence argument goes; but I am curious.

Would an independent Scotland remain in the Commonwealth and would it keep the Queen as head of state?

She is half Scottish, after all.

yes and yes....thanks for asking.

How can you state that, as far as I'm aware the terms of the separation have not even started yet. I looked upon it as a divorce,the same as in a marriage,what your stating is that one side(Scotland), are setting out it's terms,and that the English will automatically agree,I think you will now find there is now so much ill feeling towards the Scots by many English people, that this cannot now be stated as a done thing,

You're right.....it hasn't even started yet but we are aware of some of the positions that the SNP will take in the negotiations, therefore we are aware that the Queen will be retained as Head of State.

We are also aware the negotiations will be fraught, I don't know where you got the impression otherwise? If you read the link about Faslane, it states that the UK may insist on the subs remaining in situ as part of the settlement. We know we are not going to get everything we ask for, and we don't expect it either, but every good negotiation begins with a wish list and ends with a compromise.

[theblether]

Why is it necessary to know what happened several hundred years ago to inform our actions today? What happened then is gone. How far back do we have to dig? 10 years? 200? 300? 1000? Admittedly there are folks who seem to revel in past injustices - let them.

I think it's more relevant for the English to understand what happened in that period rather than the Scots. The tragic thing is that no one has offered an answer yet. Google must be broken today.

Anyway, without getting involved in a flaming competition, what the English set out to achieve, they succeeded, and for the betterment of both countries. I have stated already that I think there will be a No vote, there are plenty of people in Scotland who are proud to be British.

I do genuinely believe though that if people would look at that period of history and understand what happened then a lot of the Anti-Scots bigotry we see on the thread would disappear.

[transam]

Why go through all this shit when the union has been great for a small land mass in a big world. Doesn't make sense to me . The EU took on board poor countries that the UK is taking care of, so what happens if Scotland alone can't do it's thing ?.

To me it looks like one mans ego, which we have seen in the last century as just one mans ego.

Must add, l am proud to meet a Scot, he is a Scot, same as l am English, but we always stand shoulder to should to maintain our crucial roll in the world as a country UNITED.

[theblether]

Why is it necessary to know what happened several hundred years ago to inform our actions today? What happened then is gone. How far back do we have to dig? 10 years? 200? 300? 1000? Admittedly there are folks who seem to revel in past injustices - let them.

Sadly so much of what has informed debate in Ireland for tha past few decades has been shaped by events from centuries past. In Scotland again perceived past grievances and issues shape current debate and are grist to the mill for operators such as Alex Salmond.

You'll find that this story has it's true beginning on the day that Labour gerrymandered the voting structure, and that the true bitterness set in during the 1980's. It wasn't that long since the Conservative's were the biggest party in Scotland, in fact Winston Churchill was the MP for Dundee for years.

So no, it's not 1314 or 1707 all over again and to believe that is to underestimate the true reason why the Tories have almost disappeared from Scotland, and why the SNP has been elected to rule the country twice in succession.

[smokie36]

Why is it necessary to know what happened several hundred years ago to inform our actions today? What happened then is gone. How far back do we have to dig? 10 years? 200? 300? 1000? Admittedly there are folks who seem to revel in past injustices - let them.

I think it's more relevant for the English to understand what happened in that period rather than the Scots. The tragic thing is that no one has offered an answer yet. Google must be broken today.

Anyway, without getting involved in a flaming competition, what the English set out to achieve, they succeeded, and for the betterment of both countries. I have stated already that I think there will be a No vote, there are plenty of people in Scotland who are proud to be British.

I do genuinely believe though that if people would look at that period of history and understand what happened then a lot of the Anti-Scots bigotry we see on the thread would disappear.

In addition perhaps the English on the thread might consider that its not for historical reasons that many Scots now wish for independence. Rather it is for political and social reasons.

We lived through the long years of the '80's having been betrayed several times by the Conservatives. They now have no fair mandate to rule in Scotland. We do not wish for this type of go vernment north of the border. Our values are not the same as our cousins in England. That does not mean we should hate each other. Far from it.

What we do want will be determined by a new election following independence, which I believe Scotland WILL choose, unlike theblether.

[theblether]

Why go through all this shit when the union has been great for a small land mass in a big world. Doesn't make sense to me . The EU took on board poor countries that the UK is taking care of, so what happens if Scotland alone can't do it's thing ?.

To me it looks like one mans ego, which we have seen in the last century as just one mans ego.

Must add, l am proud to meet a Scot, he is a Scot, same as l am English, but we always stand shoulder to should to maintain our crucial roll in the world as a country UNITED.

It's not one man's ego Transam, the SNP were on the rise for years before Salmond was out of University , our best Westminster election results were in 1974 when he was an unknown. I've been an SNP supporter since before I had heard of him.

However there are plenty of people who agree with you in Scotland and there is a middle ground that I could happily live with that doesn't involve full Independence, but we need to be given, and need to take, more responsibilty for ourselves.

@Smokie, <deleted> I'm trying to lull them into a false sense of security!!!

Edited October 27, 2012 by theblether

[smokie36]

@theblether.....we're divided <deleted>....we'll nivir achieve anythin' fighting like this....

[transam]

Why go through all this shit when the union has been great for a small land mass in a big world. Doesn't make sense to me . The EU took on board poor countries that the UK is taking care of, so what happens if Scotland alone can't do it's thing ?.

To me it looks like one mans ego, which we have seen in the last century as just one mans ego.

Must add, l am proud to meet a Scot, he is a Scot, same as l am English, but we always stand shoulder to should to maintain our crucial roll in the world as a country UNITED.

but we need to be given, and need to take, more responsibility for ourselves.

But why. ?

[smokie36]

Why go through all this shit when the union has been great for a small land mass in a big world. Doesn't make sense to me . The EU took on board poor countries that the UK is taking care of, so what happens if Scotland alone can't do it's thing ?.

To me it looks like one mans ego, which we have seen in the last century as just one mans ego.

Must add, l am proud to meet a Scot, he is a Scot, same as l am English, but we always stand shoulder to should to maintain our crucial roll in the world as a country UNITED.

but we need to be given, and need to take, more responsibility for ourselves.

But why. ?

I will answer this on a personal level and say because England has made such a pig's ear of their own country. We do not want that decay spreading north thanks very much.

Harsh perhaps but very true.

[theblether]

The why is that we have a different set of priorities from England, our social structure is different and our economy is different, to name but three examples. One prime example......a lot of us remember the mortgage rate being raised to 15%, that policy was put in place to cool some of the financial stresses that were affecting the South East, such as the housing boom back at the time.

The thing was, we didn't have the same boom in Scotland, and we didn't have the same stresses. We woke up one morning to find the mortgage had gone through the roof due to a localized South East England problem. I bet you there are guys from all over England reading this and saying, "That's right, it happened to my area too".

[theblether]

Why go through all this shit when the union has been great for a small land mass in a big world. Doesn't make sense to me . The EU took on board poor countries that the UK is taking care of, so what happens if Scotland alone can't do it's thing ?.

To me it looks like one mans ego, which we have seen in the last century as just one mans ego.

Must add, l am proud to meet a Scot, he is a Scot, same as l am English, but we always stand shoulder to should to maintain our crucial roll in the world as a country UNITED.

but we need to be given, and need to take, more responsibility for ourselves.

But why. ?

I will answer this on a personal level and say because England has made such a pig's ear of their own country. We do not want that decay spreading north thanks very much.

Harsh perhaps but very true.

Financially.......I blame Nigel Lawson for releasing the money supply, he created the debt bubble that eventually forked the country. There was nothing wrong with having to save up 10% downpayment for a house or renting your telly, now the entire country is being drowned in a sea of debt. To be fair some won out of it, but the price to be paid, and still being paid, is far too high.

The best move that Gordon Brown made was handing the Bank of England political Independence, the worst move was not shooting himself in the head 5 minutes later, I can't stand that pr*ck.

Edited October 27, 2012 by theblether

[smokie36]

The why is that we have a different set of priorities from England, our social structure is different and our economy is different, to name but three examples. One prime example......a lot of us remember the mortgage rate being raised to 15%, that policy was put in place to cool some of the financial stresses that were affecting the South East, such as the housing boom back at the time.

The thing was, we didn't have the same boom in Scotland, and we didn't have the same stresses. We woke up one morning to find the mortgage had gone through the roof due to a localized South East England problem. I bet you there are guys from all over England reading this and saying, "That's right, it happened to my area too".

I remember this well. My father struggled to pay the mortgage and my mother had to take on weekend work in spite of having two kids under five. Yours truly had to spend weekends looking after them.

Rough times for many people, who had taken reasonable precautions and had what now look like joke mortgages. Criminal.

[theblether]

The why is that we have a different set of priorities from England, our social structure is different and our economy is different, to name but three examples. One prime example......a lot of us remember the mortgage rate being raised to 15%, that policy was put in place to cool some of the financial stresses that were affecting the South East, such as the housing boom back at the time.

The thing was, we didn't have the same boom in Scotland, and we didn't have the same stresses. We woke up one morning to find the mortgage had gone through the roof due to a localized South East England problem. I bet you there are guys from all over England reading this and saying, "That's right, it happened to my area too".

I remember this well. My father struggled to pay the mortgage and my mother had to take on weekend work in spite of having two kids under five. Yours truly had to spend weekends looking after them.

Rough times for many people, who had taken reasonable precautions and had what now look like joke mortgages. Criminal.

It affected people all over the country, it was a tragedy and many of our English compatriots suffered badly too, I saw an article recently that suggested maybe it would be better if London was independent and let the rest of us get on with it. As a rule of thumb we share a similar economy and outlook with people North of the Watford Gap, I know plenty of Englishmen that have a real disdain for the influence and effect that London has on the country.

[nontabury]

Why go through all this shit when the union has been great for a small land mass in a big world. Doesn't make sense to me . The EU took on board poor countries that the UK is taking care of, so what happens if Scotland alone can't do it's thing ?.

To me it looks like one mans ego, which we have seen in the last century as just one mans ego.

Must add, l am proud to meet a Scot, he is a Scot, same as l am English, but we always stand shoulder to should to maintain our crucial roll in the world as a country UNITED.

but we need to be given, and need to take, more responsibility for ourselves.

But why. ?

I will answer this on a personal level and say because England has made such a pig's ear of their own country. We do not want that decay spreading north thanks very much.

Harsh perhaps but very true.

I was just about to agree with you,then I remembered who made such a pig's ear out of our country. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown yes,those two Scotsmen. I also recall that in one Labour government, out of 19 cabinet members, 15 were Scots, 1 Welshman 3 Englishman.

As I've asked in a previous post,but you've not answered,I'll ask again. If there is a yes vote,

Who will put forward the most socialist policies, the SNP or the Labour Party.

[nontabury]

Financially.......I blame Nigel Lawson for releasing the money supply, he created the debt bubble that eventually forked the country. There was nothing wrong with having to save up 10% downpayment for a house or renting your telly, now the entire country is being drowned in a sea of debt. To be fair some won out of it, but the price to be paid, and still being paid, is far too high.

The best move that Gordon Brown made was handing the Bank of England political Independence, the worst move was not shooting himself in the head 5 minutes later, I can't stand that pr*ck.

Bloody hell, we finally agree on something,couldn't agree with you more.

[theblether]

To answer your question, the Labour Party will put forward the most socialist policies.

[smokie36]

Financially.......I blame Nigel Lawson for releasing the money supply, he created the debt bubble that eventually forked the country. There was nothing wrong with having to save up 10% downpayment for a house or renting your telly, now the entire country is being drowned in a sea of debt. To be fair some won out of it, but the price to be paid, and still being paid, is far too high.

The best move that Gordon Brown made was handing the Bank of England political Independence, the worst move was not shooting himself in the head 5 minutes later, I can't stand that pr*ck.

Bloody hell, we finally agree on something,couldn't agree with you more.

On these points we are all agreed. Crikey....all we need is a Welshman to clean the loos and the Union is safe.

[folium]

The why is that we have a different set of priorities from England, our social structure is different and our economy is different, to name but three examples. One prime example......a lot of us remember the mortgage rate being raised to 15%, that policy was put in place to cool some of the financial stresses that were affecting the South East, such as the housing boom back at the time.

The thing was, we didn't have the same boom in Scotland, and we didn't have the same stresses. We woke up one morning to find the mortgage had gone through the roof due to a localized South East England problem. I bet you there are guys from all over England reading this and saying, "That's right, it happened to my area too".

Without wishing to be too controversial I have always wondered why Scotland sees itself as something special.

Blather stresses different priorities ( such as?), different social structure and a different economy.

From a coldly objective viewpoint Scotland seems little different to other geographically peripheral ( in today's economy) areas such as the NE, NW, S. Wales and Ulster. It also shares with the same places a legacy of heavy industry plus textiles deindustrialization and all the socio-economic horrors that goes with it.

Ironically Scotland shares with the geographically core London and SE regions an over reliance on banking and financial services, but sadly picked the two albatrosses of RBS and BoS as the key players.

As previously mentioned by the Blather a better idea might be for independence for the UK element south of the Fosse Way (a still existing Roman road running from Exeter to Lincoln) as areas north of the Fosse Way certainly have different priorities, a different social structure and with some exceptions ( eg the financial players in Edinburgh), a different economy to the other side of the tracks.

Perhaps the Roman decision to initially use the Fosse Way as the extent of their interest in Britannia was not so foolish after all.

[endure]

Why is it necessary to know what happened several hundred years ago to inform our actions today? What happened then is gone. How far back do we have to dig? 10 years? 200? 300? 1000? Admittedly there are folks who seem to revel in past injustices - let them.

I think it's more relevant for the English to understand what happened in that period rather than the Scots. The tragic thing is that no one has offered an answer yet. Google must be broken today.

Why? What difference does it make today? I can understand why the Scots might want independence from the UK for any number of reasons but I fail to see how dragging something that happened 300 years ago into it will help. Dragging centuries old grievances into the present just causes more grief than necessary.