Jump to content

Scotland to become independent in March 2016 if referendum passes


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

What the hell are you drinking?

​ good old fashioned human values ,,,,,not really fashionable to care for your fellow man in today's recent modern politics and directly linked to why so many Scots are waking up not just them selves, but others as well.....

See the mess of England now and i would say that is a main reason why people are living in Thailand and not the UK

And the No debate is the same nothing new at all.

Aye the UNITED KINGDOM that was disillusion in 1707 and still is today

j

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What the hell are you drinking?

​ good old fashioned human values ,,,,,not really fashionable to care for your fellow man in today's recent modern politics and directly linked to why so many Scots are waking up not just them selves, but others as well.....

See the mess of England now and i would say that is a main reason why people are living in Thailand and not the UK

And the No debate is the same nothing new at all.

Aye the UNITED KINGDOM that was disillusion in 1707 and still is today

j

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeer, why do you talk about England's stuff, it is STILL a union, the UK, so now your saying the UK's problems have nothing to do with the Scot's............laugh.png ,

Link to post
Share on other sites

What the hell are you drinking?

​ good old fashioned human values ,,,,,not really fashionable to care for your fellow man in today's recent modern politics and directly linked to why so many Scots are waking up not just them selves, but others as well.....

See the mess of England now and i would say that is a main reason why people are living in Thailand and not the UK

And the No debate is the same nothing new at all.

Aye the UNITED KINGDOM that was disillusion in 1707 and still is today

j

Can not agree with you more, England is certainly in a mess, thanks to Tony WMD Blair and

Gordon BIGOT Brown. Two of Scotland's finest.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

What the hell are you drinking?

​ good old fashioned human values ,,,,,not really fashionable to care for your fellow man in today's recent modern politics and directly linked to why so many Scots are waking up not just them selves, but others as well.....

See the mess of England now and i would say that is a main reason why people are living in Thailand and not the UK

And the No debate is the same nothing new at all.

Aye the UNITED KINGDOM that was disillusion in 1707 and still is today

j

Can not agree with you more, England is certainly in a mess, thanks to Tony WMD Blair and

Gordon BIGOT Brown. Two of Scotland's finest.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

The UK is a democracy - regardless of where Blair or Brown came from, they could not have done very much at all without English MPs supporting them. Are you really all just gullible, innocent sheep who were taken advantage of?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeer, why do you talk about England's stuff, it is STILL a union, the UK, so now your saying the UK's problems have nothing to do with the Scot's............laugh.png ,

All the achievements were British, except when they were Scottish, all the problems are English.

I don't want to see my country torn apart, and although I feel sorry for people who feel disenfranchised in their own country, I don't think that secession is the right answer for Fife. Nor Scotland.

SC

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wigantojapan,

Your posts are making less and less sense; but there are some points I have managed to sort from the chaff and take issue with.

I provide a link to Education Scotland showing the Scottish perspective the history of the Union and that the Scottish Parliament did enter into the Union voluntarily and that's not good enough for you. No doubt because it shatters several of your illusions.

Once more you have again failed or deliberately chosen to avoid the question.....

you yourself 7 by 7 said that it was voluntary..not me not anyone else but YOU

And all the history books; I just gave you one example.

I also said that the ordinary Scottish people had no say in the matter; but neither did the ordinary English nor Welsh; something you seem happy to ignore.

I then replied is that what they teach you in ENGLISH SCHOOLS

As my link shows, it's what they teach in Scottish schools as well!

You obviously know little about the subject, I suggest Acts of Union: The creation of the United Kingdom by Allan I. Macinnes, Professor of Early Modern History at the University of Strathclyde as a good starting point.

The idea of political union in addition to the existing union of crowns was championed by Queen Anne; a Stuart and a Scot.

Yet again, like, for example, your earlier assertion that the majority of the 6000 civilian employees at Faslane probably commute all the way from England and back every day; you are digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole 7 by 7

​Where did i say anywhere that people commute ? far less commute to England,,,,,,Was never said

What i did say was that it is not 6000 Scots employed at Faslane,,, which you did say
.
You failed to grasp the simple fact that Scotland is a multi cultural country and welcomes people from all over the world and in that fact having a workforce of 6000 Scots is ......... you can fill in the gaps,,,,,no mention of commute or going back to England

So you obviously don't believe immigrants, especially any who may work at Faslane, are Scottish.

How many generations does someone's family need to have lived in Scotland before they are Scottish in your opinion?

Im happy that you are happythe unionists support wars of any kind far less wars that were fought again only for the profit of the few at the expense of many

im happy that the yes vote never ever supported the war in Iraq or weapons of mass destruction.

Where have I said that I supported Blair's war in Iraq?

What I did say was that I supported the Falklands war.

It seems you didn't.

Which is strange for someone so keen on self determination; very odd that you seem happy for the Falkland Islanders to be subject to foreign rule achieved by an act of aggression!

The parts of your post I have deleted and ignored I simply could not understand.

I suggest that you take more water with it before posting again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can not agree with you more, England is certainly in a mess, thanks to Tony WMD Blair and
Gordon BIGOT Brown. Two of Scotland's finest.

They were just following on from Margaret Thatcher who to this day is greatly dspised in Scotland and her alone is a reason among many why people want do want independence.

The Daily mail and the like to spin that Scottish people have a chip on their shoulder because of events in the long and distant past

​No Scottish people have grievances and distaste for politics imposed on them that don't sit comfortably at all with what a balanced spiritual human is

​These politics came to the forefront of modern Britain under Thatcher and has continued and is continuing to this day

so yes i agree with you that Blair .Brown made a mess of both Scotland and the rest of the UK

The englsh voters turned against Thatcher remember after 18 years that led to the Blair .brown led government

Scottish voters had never voted for Thatcher NEVER and yes they did vote in a Blair government alongside the English Welsh and nirish vote

Now Scotland does not vote in ANY OF THEM

The value of the labour party today is the same value of the Tory party

The one great achievement of Britain in modern times was the NHS

something everyone in Britain could be rightly proud

Apolitical decision that was done in the interest of the whole of society and everyone benefited and quite rightly so

Thatcher started the demolition of the NHS ,,Blair brown and now Cameron have continued that.

And if anyone sais otherwise well possibly they can pay for their hospital treatment ,or medicine as that is clearly needed.

​The Scots with open minds know that this is not a question of personal politics regarding party or an individual

its not about Alex Salmond though the English based media has continuously spun that tale,,and unfortunately on here also the comments have confirmed that people believe that

Scotland can stand on its own economically,,even the Unionists are saying that why didn't they say in the first place

The apathy of the voters they were relying on

Well sorry this has energized people and Scots people are looking at the Political arguments .

the unonists go on about Security and the risk to Scotland and the Uk if Scotland says yes

How is that all the weapons of mass destruction All will be in England so they will be armed to the teeth,,,so who is going to attack England

From where is the attack going to come from,,land,,sea,,outer space.

Who is going to attack Scotland our old enemy England..Denmark

the russians going to sneak in the back door unseen when Nato countries surround us

All of a sudden all the terrorists of the world are going to come to Scotland because a shift in the Government

See how many terrorists London has welcomed with all their security

Again scare mongering rubbish,,tabloid gutterpress and yet people believe it

Trade no one is going to trade with Scotland now another unionist scare mongering tactic

all of a sudden even the English are going to stop trading with Scotland putting themselves their families their suppliers all at risk to unemployment because of a change of government

wont happen trade will continue between the 2 countries

​Man you could go on and on and on like i said people today feel more comfortable and are more happier living in Scotland and thats with all the burden that a UK government puts on it.

Its been a slow road and slowly Scotland will get independence

There is only hate and discontentment in the Union model

The union model will continue to protect the rich .We know who the government advisers are..we know who they work for and for you who dont know you can find out

CND was a great organisation to find out who funds what and for what reasons

Greenpeace also friends of the earth, war on poverty Faslane peace camp etc etc .

..They dont get a lot of national press coverage but they are run by professional people with the heart and minds to live in a more caring world.

The unionist live in a world of war,separation,share holders preferences,financial institutes preferences..awarding the rich and attacking the poor

government backed tax avoidance schemes written by government advisers.

Scotland has a real chance to detach themselves away from all that greed,and mental pollution and attacks against the basic core of humanity that..we should care for others .

right that's me out of here apart from posting links to videos i feel can educate myself and others,

My time has run on this forum to be dragged down to the level of school boy politics.

the no vote has offered nothing new to the Scots

Their advisers are trying to revise what they can do as the momentum has swung

They are career politicians nothing more nothing less and they don't even have the best interests of The UK in their hearts and minds far less Scotland

Link to post
Share on other sites

Scotland was an independent country until 1707 when the English parliament, using a mixture of quite open blackmail and less open bribery, persuaded a powerful group of Scottish aristocrats to vote for the union of the English and Scottish parliaments.

As taught in Scottish schools and university.

The incumbent, Queen Anne having no surviving issue and the 'Hanoverian succession' being a politically engineered move to ensure that the English monarch would be a Protestant) by making sure it would apply to Britain as a whole i.e. to make sure that the (Roman Catholic) Jacobites could not ascend the throne in Scotland while a Hanoverian sat on the English throne.

The main instrument of English blackmail was the Alien Act of 1705, passed by the English parliament. This astounding act presumed to legislate for Scotland even though Scotland was, at the time, a foreign country. The Alien Act stated that the Scots must accept the Hanoverian succession in SCOTLAND (remember Scotland was an independent nation at this time) or begin negotiations for a union of the English and Scottish parliaments by Christmas day 1705 or else the three main Scottish exports to England (cattle, linen and coal) would be banned and Scots not already living in England would be treated as aliens. .

sorry i majored in Scottish History and i don't need you to patronizing recommendation

by Allan I. Macinnes, Professor of Early Modern History at the University of Strathclyde as a good starting point..

Link to post
Share on other sites

...

How many generations does someone's family need to have lived in Scotland before they are Scottish in your opinion?

...

I think, according to the Scottish Government, you need to be 16 or over, an EU citizen and resident in Scotland. I used to be Scottish, but according to the voter eligibility criteria I became British, and British alone, in 1990. I'm still proud of having been Scottish, no matter that Alex Salmond and his government try to take that away from me, and I might apply for a Scottish passport if that becomes necessary.

SC

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Alien Act stated that the Scots must accept the Hanoverian succession in SCOTLAND (remember Scotland was an independent nation at this time) or begin negotiations for a union of the English and Scottish parliaments by Christmas day 1705 or else the three main Scottish exports to England (cattle, linen and coal) would be banned and Scots not already living in England would be treated as aliens. .

If Scotland wanted to remain an independent country and not part of a political union with England, why should it not have been treated as a foreign country?

It seems that Scots wanted all the benefits of the Union but none of the responsibilities.

Not much has changed in 307 years!

Edit:

To be fair, that should be 'some Scots.'

Edited by 7by7
Link to post
Share on other sites

If Scotland wanted to remain an independent country and not part of a political union with England, why should it not have been treated as a foreign country?



It seems that Scots wanted all the benefits of the Union but none of the responsibilities.



Not much has changed in 307 years!




and when was the Union here is a big hint when it wasnt



The Alien Act stated that the Scots must accept the Hanoverian succession in SCOTLAND (remember Scotland was an independent nation at this time) or begin negotiations for a union of the English and Scottish parliaments by Christmas day 1705 or else the three main Scottish exports to England (cattle, linen and coal) would be banned and Scots not already living in England would be treated as aliens. .



remember Scotland was an independent nation at this time..A historical Fact.



why should it not have been treated as a foreign country? 7 by 7 reply




BEGIN negotiations for a union of the English and Scottish parliaments by Christmas day 1705 or else the three main Scottish exports to England (cattle, linen and coal) would be banned and Scots not already living .



The Union,the agreed Union as you know, as you are so well read and educated on the subject matter was when?



Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it really so hard to understand why Scotland wants needs independence when you

see this happening??

Source: http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/-6-billion-cut-from-welfare-budget-b3e.aspx

£6 billion cut from welfare budget

Downloads

07/04/2014 10:50

Analysis shows full impact of Westminster cuts still to come.

Reforms to the welfare system could see Scottish welfare spending reduced by around £6 billion over the six years to 2015-16, new analysis published today shows.

The reforms will see a reduction in support for families, children and those with disabilities.

The majority of the total reduction in welfare expenditure in Scotland, nearly 70 per cent, is expected to be in 2014-15 and 2015-16.

The largest reductions in expenditure are from the changes to how benefits are uprated, tax credits and child benefit.

Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said:

“We are committed to mitigating against the harmful effects of Westminster welfare reforms where we can - but the majority of the cuts are still to come.

“These changes to the budget will not only impact on the most vulnerable in our society, they will also set our progress on tackling poverty back by at least ten years.

“Child Poverty Action Group has suggested that, after housing costs have been taken into account, 100,000 more children in Scotland will be pushed into poverty by 2020 because of these reforms.

“And according to the Trussell Trust, the number of people using food banks is increasing with 56,000 people needing help between April 2013 and February 2014.

“We want to develop a society that not only provides fair support and decent opportunities for all but also protects the vulnerable in our society. The only way to guarantee that is to have possession of the powers to deliver it. Only then can we finally stop these reforms from harming people who need our help.”

Another nail in the "NO" campaign coffin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

£6 billion cut from welfare budget Wheres your back bone man only 6 billion why of course a reason to vote no,,,,

,100,000 more children in Scotland will be pushed into poverty by 2020 because of these reforms. no bother we will be like our mothers and gran mothers vote no

And according to the Trussell Trust, the number of people using food banks is increasing with 56,000 people needing help between April 2013 and February 2014.

And that's not including the number of folks who are going around food skips at the backs of supermarkets in the main streets

Well they are all scroungers anyway so they deserve vote no......

we have to support the inequalities and the poor English folks as well who are using the food banks don't we,,,

for the security of the country against the French and stop the poles and the Catholics taking over and eating our food it is a no no no

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The UK Treasury has been accused of cooking up arguments against a post-Yes currency union after it was forced to admit it had no evidence of discussions having taken place between its own senior civil servant and Chancellor George Osborne

Reports in today's Sunday Herald 06/04/2014 a Freedom of Information request stating that there is no paper trail detailing how Treasury Permanent Secretary Sir Nick Macpherson arrived at the decision to rule out a currency union,

Link to post
Share on other sites

The amount of Scots people who have been prescribed anti anxiety pills has increased dramatically since the referendum debate started

this has resulted in mass shortages in certain areas but the pharmaceutical companies have responded equally impressively by doubling the price and Reconstruction the packets size as well as the strength of each pill.

pharmacists have been told to charge the speakers of not proper English exuberant prices and off course the office of fair trade has enforced this under the direct order of i couldnaecareatuppenceaboutwefareandthesufferingoahthemenwimmenandbairns representative of the im all right jack smug party

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it really so hard to understand why Scotland wants needs independence when you

see this happening??

Source: http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/-6-billion-cut-from-welfare-budget-b3e.aspx

£6 billion cut from welfare budget

Are you really so ignorant that you think this just effects Scotland?

Cuts are going to be made across the board, in the whole of the UK.

No doubt Salmond and Sturgeon will say that an independent Scotland wouldn't need to make these cuts. They are promising tax cuts, but also talking about increasing welfare and creating thousands of government jobs. That's jobs paid for by the rest of the Scottish people!s

Reduce taxes, and increase government expenditure. Blair and Brown tried that, and the whole of the UK is still suffering because of it.

Not that the SNP really care that much.

As I posted earlier in this topic:

Here's an example of how much Salmond and his cronies actually care about the Scottish people.

One of their promises should they form the first government of an independent Scotland is to introduce free child care for all pre school children.

Nicola Sturgeon has been trumpeting this as a major benefit of Scottish independence; saying it will free women to return to the workplace and create thousands of jobs in childcare.

Guess what; the Scottish parliament already has the power to do this!

So, after 6 years in power, why has the SNP not yet done so?

When asked this question Sturgeon's reply was simple; the SNP did not want these women returning to work before independence as that would mean they'd be paying tax to Westminster!

The SNP care more about spiting Westminster than they do about Scottish mothers!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The amount of Scots people who have been prescribed anti anxiety pills has increased dramatically since the referendum debate started

this has resulted in mass shortages in certain areas but the pharmaceutical companies have responded equally impressively by doubling the price and Reconstruction the packets size as well as the strength of each pill.

But as these drugs are on prescription the person needing them will only pay the prescription charge; the rest being paid by the taxpayer (of whom most are English).

pharmacists have been told to charge the speakers of not proper English exuberant prices and off course the office of fair trade has enforced this under the direct order of i couldnaecareatuppenceaboutwefareandthesufferingoahthemenwimmenandbairns representative of the im all right jack smug party

Exuberant prices?

That's really, really happy ones, then!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

we have to support the inequalities and the poor English folks as well who are using the food banks don't we,,,

I have just been down to my local English one to collect this week's tub of caviar and case of champagne!

rolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gif

Edited by 7by7
Link to post
Share on other sites

We have more in common that unites us than divides us across the United Kingdom. Our shared culture is underpinned by the UK’s shared institutions, including our National Health Service.”

There is not, and never at any point in history has there been, a “UK NHS”

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anti-English: Scottish nationalism is motivated by hatred of the English.

The granddaddy of Unionist myths. It's rather like claiming that the anti-racism movement is motived solely by hatred of white people, women only want equality because they hate men, or gay people only want to get married because they hate Catholics.

This debate is about government and whether Scotland's interests are served by a parliamentary union which denies Scotland basic democratic control of many aspects of the administration of our country. It's not about England and the English at all.

There are legitimate, and serious, questions of democratic representation in Scotland under the Union. Although this concept may be difficult for Daily Telegraph readers to grasp, the desire for Scottish self-determination is not about England and the English. Shocking but true. England is not the centre of the Scottish universe, that would be Scotland. Perhaps that's what they're really objecting to.

BBC: You'll not get the BBC on telly after independence.

Some would argue not getting the BBC is a good thing. There's only so much Strictly Come Celebrity Weakest Link the human mind can take. With independence, there's at least a slight possibility we'd get celebrities we'd actually heard of. And then there's Jeremy Clarkson, who's a whole argument for independence all by himself.

Scotland contributes an annual total of approximately £230 million in licence fees to the BBC. Yet BBC Scotland has an annual budget of £120 million, an amount which is being cut. Scotland has 8.6% of the UK population but only receives 3.7 % of the BBC's programme making expenditure. (See here.) In addition, the BBC makes money from selling programmes to other broadcasters.

After independence Scotland would get its own national TV network. Assuming the licence fee system remained in place, the Scottish Broadcasting Corporation would have double the budget currently received by BBC Scotland. Scotland would also be in a position to sell its programming to other broadcasters and retain the revenues. This would allow the 'SBC' to buy in all those BBC programmes we actually like. Dr Who and David Attenborough being cuddled by gorillas would be safe for the nation.

But if you really can't live without Nicholas Witchell on the 6 O'Clock news gushing on about how maaarvellous Charles and Camilla are, just do what they do in the Republic of Ireland. Those within range simply get an additional antenna and point it at the nearest UK transmitter to receive the full Freeview package. Those outside that range get a satellite dish. Sky viewers in Ireland get the full BBC output. If you prefer not to give any money to Rupert Murdoch, and who could blame you for that, with a generic satellite decoder you can pick up all the free to air broadcasts, including all the main UK channels. You'd also be able to watch Downtown bleedin Abbey even when STV shows something else. And you'd not have to pay a licence fee to the BBC for the privilege either. Of course people would laugh and point fingers at you for wanting to watch Nicholas Witchell, but that happens now anyway.

Benefits: An independent Scotland couldn't afford to pay the bill for everyone on benefits.

This myth was put about by leader of the Scottish Tories, Ruth Davidson the Action Krankie. Her great strengths are abseiling, kick-boxing and making a face like a lemon whenever anyone mentions "independence" or "Tory irrelevance". Ruth is deeply concerned about the ability of an independent Scotland to pay its welfare benefits bill, because after independence she'll be unemployable.

Ruth said that the amount Scotland spends on welfare benefits is greater than the amount we receive in taxation from North Sea Oil. So we wouldn't be able to afford bus passes and old age pensions.

Ruth can tie ropes together, but either she struggles to cope with joined up thinking or she imagines Scottish voters do. Her statement rests upon the bizarre notion that no one in the country pays any taxes at all and we have no industries, economic activity or employment, except the oil.

The whisky industry alone contributes £800 million annually to the Scottish economy, then there's tourism, manufacturing, the financial sector, and all the other jobs that have so far managed to avoid the swingeing cuts being imposed by Westminster.

So as you get up out of bed to go to work of a morning, remember that Ruth thinks you don't have a job at all. Since her own job as leader of a non-existent party is pretty much a non-job, it's easy to see why she's confused.

Course the reason that Scotland has a high benefits bill in the first place is because of Westminster economic policies that see fit to dump thousands of Scots on the scrapheap of unemployment. Ruth's party wants to reduce the benefits bill by forcing people with terminal cancer to go on work experience interviews, where they'll be told to inform potential employers there's no problem with a short-term contract. The Tories also intend to force unemployed people work for free for private companies even though slavery is illegal. Ruth forgot to mention those bits.

Scotland receives less from the Union than it contributes, according to the UK government's own figures: see Subsidies. We more than pay our own way already, we more than pay for the benefits received by inhabitants of Scotland. According to the most recent Government Expenditure and Revenues Statistics (GERS), the annual benefit bill is a lower proportion of Scottish revenue than it is across the UK as a whole. All benefits paid out in Scotland total 40% of all revenues collected from Scotland. Across the UK as a whole, the benefits bill makes up 42% of all expenditure. This means that Scotland can more easily afford to pay decent benefits to its citizens than the UK as a whole is able to. We don't depend on Westminster to foot our unemployment bill, we only depend on Westminster to create mass unemployment in the first place. That's something Tories have historically been quite good at.

It needs to be pointed out that in the GERS figures a notional share of expenses for "UK national expenditure" is allocated to Scotland even though these monies are not spent in Scotland. The London Olympics and the high speed railway between London and Birmingham are deemed to be "national expenditure". Scotland is also allocated a share of the cost of Trident and an overblown defence budget which is wasted on aircraft carriers without planes and the cancellation of Nimrod after spending billions on the project. The GERS figures don't represent the government expenditure of an independent Scotland accurately, they portray a worst case Westminster scenario. In reality we'd be considerably better off.

After independence we'd have more to spend on state pensions if we choose, not less. We would not have to force terminal cancer patients to go on job training schemes either. We could afford these things because we would no longer be paying for Westminster politicians' egos and their desire to strut their funky stuff on the stage of world politics doing Tarzan impressions like the Action Krankie swinging from a Trident. (See: Defence)


  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Anti-English: Scottish nationalism is motivated by hatred of the English.

The granddaddy of Unionist myths. It's rather like claiming that the anti-racism movement is motived solely by hatred of white people, women only want equality because they hate men, or gay people only want to get married because they hate Catholics.

This debate is about government and whether Scotland's interests are served by a parliamentary union which denies Scotland basic democratic control of many aspects of the administration of our country. It's not about England and the English at all.

There are legitimate, and serious, questions of democratic representation in Scotland under the Union. Although this concept may be difficult for Daily Telegraph readers to grasp, the desire for Scottish self-determination is not about England and the English. Shocking but true. England is not the centre of the Scottish universe, that would be Scotland. Perhaps that's what they're really objecting to.

Reading through your bigoted rants on this thread, I think you've proved the truth.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Link to post
Share on other sites

The A to Z of Unionist Myth....

Bombing airports: Scotland's airports would be bombed by England.

Sometime in the future, there will be a ceremony to award a bunch of red white and blue sour grapes to the most outrageous and ridiculous scare threat made by Unionists during the independence campaign. Peter Fraser, former Conservative Solictor General and latterly Lord Advocate, has already made his bid for the prize.

In March 2012, Pete claimed that England could be forced to bomb Scottish airports after independence. According to Pete, who was sober at the time, Scotland would be undefended and Glasgow airport would be taken over by evil-doers who'd use it to launch air strikes on England. In order to defend itself, Westminster would be forced to order bombing raids to flatten the Paisley area. Apparently he was being serious, although there were those who believed Pete had been taking lessons on guerrilla comedy from Ali G.

Pete thinks that an independent Scotland would have no defences at all. In fact this is pretty much the situation we find ourselves in under the Union. In December 2011, storms forced a Russian fleet to take shelter in the Moray Firth. In a country with normal defences, naval vessels would have been ordered to shadow the Russkies immediately, but because Scotland has no navy, a ship had to be sent from Portsmouth, leading to a delay of over 24 hours.

Scotland has one of the longest coastlines in Europe, yet due to Westminster defence cuts our sole naval capacity - apart from the UK's nuclear subs and their attendant protection - consists of two tiny patrol boats and an inflatable crocodile. Scotland has no long range marine surveillance capability, no naval helicopters, no maritime electronic intelligence operations, no means to screen for undersea threats and no way to conduct long range search and rescue operations. We are already undefended, thanks to Westminster.

With independence, Scotland would control its own defence. The money we send to Westminster, where it's squandered on expensive toys that don't work, aircraft carriers without aircraft to put on them, unusable weapons of mass destruction, and foreign wars that serve no purpose, would be spent on giving Scotland a modern defence capacity appropriate to the needs of a small northern European nation. (See Defence) Denmark, Norway, and Sweden all manage just fine without being taken over by evil baddies who want to launch airstrikes on neighbouring countries. Scotland would do just fine too, and England has nothing to worry about.

Mind you, it's quite possible that Westminster would order a bombing raid because it is inhabited by mental giants like Pete who confuse Balerno with Baghdad. But this being the case it's even more likely that they'd bomb Middlesborough by mistake.

Border controls: There would be border controls and we'd need passports to visit Newcastle.

The anti-independence parties want us to believe there would be an electrified fence, a moat and magic towers with long-haired princesses guarded by a dragons all along the border. Sadly for those of us for whom being strip-searched by big burly men sounds like ideal Saturday night entertainment, this is untrue.

There are no passport controls between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Neither are there passport controls between the UK and the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, which are not only outside the UK, they're not even a part of the EU.

The anti-independence parties claim that Scotland would be forced to join the Schengen free travel area after independence, meaning we'd be able to visit Paris and Lisbon without passports, but we'd need a passport to go to the Metro Centre in Newcastle for a Saturday shopping trip.

Membership of the Schengen area is not a precondition of EU membership. Romania and Bulgaria are EU members, but are not members of Schengen. Since Scotland's only land frontier with the EU is our border with England, part of the British Isles Common Travel Area, we'd continue to remain a part of the existing Common Travel Area.

But if you do fancy being strip-searched by big burly men, well there are nightclubs for that sort of thing.

Border disputes: There will be disputes about the border between Scotland and England.

The short answer to this one is: "No, there won't" accompanied by a sigh and rolling the eyes. Unlike many nations which don't have independence, the territorial extent of Scotland is not a matter of dispute. Scotland is the territory to which Scots Law applies, and it's marked on every map.

Another clue is on every road into the country, where there's a big sign saying "Welcome to Scotland / Fàilte gu Alba", with the obligatory gaggle of tourists legs akimbo so they're in two countries at once, getting a photie taken to show to Auntie Yoko in Kyoto. They can do that because everyone knows exactly where the border lies. Even Auntie Yoko in Kyoto knows.

Scotland is considerably more fortunate than many nations without a state. Basque and Catalan nationalists have the problem that the lands inhabited by Basques and Catalans are divided into a number of regions spread across parts of Spain and France, and even a town in Sardinia in the case of Catalan speakers.

There are no territories or regions outside Scotland which are inhabited by people who regard themselves as Scots and which Scots claim to be a part of Scotland. Many people in Northern Ireland claim Scottish heritage, just as many in Scotland claim Irish heritage, but Scots don't claim Belfast is a part of Scotland any more than Irish people claim that Glasgow is really a part of Ireland.

The Isle of Man and some parts of northern England used to be Scottish. But "used to be" isn't the same as "is". Baldy men used to have hair, as I know from sad personal experience, but no one would say I'm hairy.

There is the matter of Berwick. The truth is that for most people - that would be just about everyone outside of Berwick - the matter of Berwick doesn't matter that much. It's ancient history, and no one wants to revisit the 15th century, except David Starkey and he's only interested in England anyway.
cide to vote no.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Braveheart: The woad to independence.

Gibson's Law, if a Unionist mentions Braveheart in a discussion about Scottish independence, they've already lost the argument and you are at liberty to guffaw at such braying nonsense. But for some it's far more comforting to imagine that Scots are so gullible and easily led that we only want independence because of a Holywood movie that involved lots of people getting stabbed. The same sort of people usually believe that Scots are especially keen on stabbing, so there's a kind of poetic circularity to it all.

But back in the land of the grown-ups, a Unionist who goes on about Braveheart is behaving like a talking donkey, because they saw one in Shrek.

NEW British identity: After independence, Scots can no longer share in a British identity.

According to Labour leader Ed Miliband in a speech made in London in June 2012, Scots will lose any sense of a British identity after independence. Ed made these remarks during a speech in June 2012 when he also confessed to resembling plasticene man Wallace of Wallace and Grommit. Ed got it 50% right, he was spot on about Wallace, but sadly wide of the mark in in comments about the Scots and identity. Perhaps it was because instead of the faithful and resourceful Grommit at his side, Ed's got Johann Lamont. Johann is unclear on the difference between Scottish independence and the Curse of the Wererabbit.

After independence, Scots will transform into 15 foot tall bunnies who steal vegetables. Ed believes the Caledonian Werebunnies will prevent the village of Middle Englandshire-on-Acid from punching above its weight and winning the prize for the largest parsnip that's shaped like something rude. Apparently this is a terribly un-British thing to do and Scots will never be welcome at the village fete again. So that's us telt.

Many Scots will react with a shrug to Ed's claim that it's only the political union of parliaments which creates a sense of Britishness. A growing number of Scots don't feel British at all. Most of the rest report feeling more Scottish than British, and for many of these people a British identity is rather like a Latin identity, only with embarrassing self-consciousness when doing the samba. Others say that Britishness should be like feeling Scandinavian

Ed displayed that fine grasp of political history possessed by policy wonks with a politics degree from Oxbridge. He got his history sadly wrong, and while history is done and dusted, in this case history disproves Ed's assertion. 'Britishness' was invented as a marketing ploy by the Scottish king James VI, after he inherited the English throne in 1603. Jaimie decided that instead of being Jaimie the Saxt King o Scots and James I King of England, which didn't look nice on letterheadings, he'd be King of Great Britain, which was a whole lot shorter plus he got to design a new flag, thus creating endless opportunities for the manufacturers of commemorative tea-towels and ornamental bric-a-brac. All this was 104 years before anyone thought about a Union of Parliaments, that didn't happen until 1707.

The referendum debate is a debate about the 1707 Union. The Union of 1603 will remain intact. Scots who feel that Britishness is a part of their identity can continue to feel so after independence. Your personal feelings are not for politicians to decide.

Ed's assertion that British identity depends upon Westminster may also come as something of a surprise to the inhabitants of the Isle and Man and the Channel Islands. The islands are Crown Dependencies, and although British are entirely self-governing. The make their own laws, raise their own taxes, and have their own parliaments. The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not even a part of the EU. Despite this, the islanders maintain that Britishness is an important part of their identity.

Ed's remark that only Westminster can allow people to develop a particular personal identity is an example of that same arrogant presumption which allows Westminster politicians to solemnly inform us that our English and Welsh friends and relatives will become foreigners to us if Scotland votes for independence. It takes some gall for anyone to assert that they can decide for us how close we feel to our own families and friends.

Westminster politicians are further up themselves than Jedward's hair, and display about the same amount of talent. They're so up themselves that they actually believe they have the power to wave a magic wand and determine how us common folk think and feel. No wonder Westminster has been described as Hogwarts on steroids, but the only similarity between the two is that their magic powers of mind control are equally fictional.

Brussels rule: With independence we'd just be swapping London rule for rule from Brussels and Berlin.

This is the UKIP argument, but it's often repeated by europhobic Conservatives. Anyone who believes that Brussels would exert greater control over an independent Scotland than Westminster currently does also believes that a person who joins a a darts club loses more personal autonomy than a granny whose arm was twisted into giving power of attorney to an avaricious relative who proceeded to raid the bank account and flog off the family inheritance before putting arsenic in her Ovaltine. The only difference between Scotland under Westminster and a whodunnit is that we already know whodunnit. We don't need Hercule Poirot to tell us it was Westminster.

Brussels does not collect all UK taxation and then decide how much it's going to give back. Westminster does that to Scotland. Brussels doesn't even set the rate of VAT, Westminster does that. Brussels doesn't have the power to insist we keep nuclear warheads on the Clyde. Westminster does that. We wouldn't have had to ask Brussels for permission to regulate our broadcasters, but we had to ask Westminster's permission to set up a Gaelic language TV channel, because Conservative MPs from Surrey need to be consulted before punters in Portree can watch Gaelic soaps. Brussels wouldn't have been able to commit a Scottish defence force to the invasion of Iraq, but Westminster tells us what countries we'll go to war with. Brussels doesn't have the power to tell us how much the state pension for the elderly would be or what administrative hoops disabled people have to go through in order to get benefits, only Westminster does.

If the UK decided to hold a referendum on leaving the EU, there would be an outcry if Brussels decided it would determine the timing and question of the vote, yet that's what Westminster wants to do in Scotland. Eurosceptics say within the EU we're dictacted to by an undemocratic superstate. Being dictated to by an undemocratic state is a perfect description of the situation of Scotland under the Union.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Anti-English: Scottish nationalism is motivated by hatred of the English.

The granddaddy of Unionist myths. It's rather like claiming that the anti-racism movement is motived solely by hatred of white people, women only want equality because they hate men, or gay people only want to get married because they hate Catholics.

This debate is about government and whether Scotland's interests are served by a parliamentary union which denies Scotland basic democratic control of many aspects of the administration of our country. It's not about England and the English at all.

There are legitimate, and serious, questions of democratic representation in Scotland under the Union. Although this concept may be difficult for Daily Telegraph readers to grasp, the desire for Scottish self-determination is not about England and the English. Shocking but true. England is not the centre of the Scottish universe, that would be Scotland. Perhaps that's what they're really objecting to.

Reading through your bigoted rants on this thread, I think you've proved the truth.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

There are too many posts on this thread for me to go through, so I have no idea to which of wigontojapan's post you are referring. Maybe he is a bigot; maybe he is not but either way, your suggestion that his statement is false is wholly offensive to me and, I am sure, many other right thinking people.

So please, either provide clear evidence that Scottish nationalism is motivated by hatred of the English, or refrain from making cheap, shoddy and ultimately useless comments like the one above.

You are not prepared to read the thread, yet you able to decide that it's not driven by hatred.

Amazing.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anti-English: Scottish nationalism is motivated by hatred of the English.

The granddaddy of Unionist myths. It's rather like claiming that the anti-racism movement is motived solely by hatred of white people, women only want equality because they hate men, or gay people only want to get married because they hate Catholics.

This debate is about government and whether Scotland's interests are served by a parliamentary union which denies Scotland basic democratic control of many aspects of the administration of our country. It's not about England and the English at all.

There are legitimate, and serious, questions of democratic representation in Scotland under the Union. Although this concept may be difficult for Daily Telegraph readers to grasp, the desire for Scottish self-determination is not about England and the English. Shocking but true. England is not the centre of the Scottish universe, that would be Scotland. Perhaps that's what they're really objecting to.

Reading through your bigoted rants on this thread, I think you've proved the truth.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

There are too many posts on this thread for me to go through, so I have no idea to which of wigontojapan's post you are referring. Maybe he is a bigot; maybe he is not but either way, your suggestion that his statement is false is wholly offensive to me and, I am sure, many other right thinking people.

So please, either provide clear evidence that Scottish nationalism is motivated by hatred of the English, or refrain from making cheap, shoddy and ultimately useless comments like the one above.

You are not prepared to read the thread, yet you able to decide that it's not driven by hatred.

Amazing.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

So you think that if I read through this thread, the scales will fall from my eyes and I will see that I have been mistaken all along; that my desire for Scottish independence is borne from a hatred of the English, a hatred that, until I read this thread and your illuminating comments, I was not even aware I possessed?

As far as I can see, the only bigot here is you.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I read Scots born MP George Gallaway is worried about a UK split. To me it seems he is over reacting (as usual) but interesting read.

Edited by transam
Link to post
Share on other sites

Abandoning the English: We'd abandon the English to decades of Tory rule.

Alex Salmond: Alex Salmond stirs up divisions.

Anti-English: Scottish nationalism is motivated by hatred of the English

BBC: You'll not get the BBC on telly after independence

Benefits: An independent Scotland couldn't afford to pay the bill for everyone on benefits

Bombing airports: Scotland's airports would be bombed by England

Border controls: There would be border controls and we'd need passports to visit Newcastle

Border disputes: There will be disputes about the border between Scotland and England

British identity: After independence, Scots can no longer share in a British identity

Brussels rule: With independence we'd just be swapping London rule for rule from Brussels and Berlin

nontabury

I am the biggest

Supporter of the "yes" campaign, as I know it's the only opportunity for the English to gain Independence.

It would be interesting as an education to which of the above do you side to if any?.

The above is arguments/discussions..points of view stated by both yes and no camps as any good bigot would supply don't you agree?

If none of the above links are why you are a supporter of the yes campaign ,there is a possibility i could provide them for you as the above is only at B in the A to Z of Unionists Myths,if you do not want to provide your reasons yourself.

I will provide all the debates of both sides of course and you are free to reply or not ,

So far on the 10 Unionists arguments and counter argument on the yes side you have responded to one

Anti-English: Scottish nationalism is motivated by hatred of the English..,

Is that your sole reason ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...