PDA

View Full Version : Scots 'Want an Independence Vote'



Nachtengel
Wednesday, July 1st, 2009, 01:09 AM
An opinion poll commissioned by BBC Scotland has shown a clear majority (58%) of Scots want a referendum on independence next year.

The poll also suggests support for the Union outstrips that for independence from the UK.

However, the poll found the percentage of people saying they support independence varies widely depending on how the question is phrased.

The Scottish Government wants to hold a referendum on the issue in 2010.

The poll of 1,010 people, carried out between 22 and 24 June by ICM, found 58% of respondents were in favour of the idea of holding a referendum next year on whether Scotland should become independent, with only 37% against.

When asked "In a referendum on independence for Scotland, how would you vote?", 38% responded that they believed Scotland should become an independent country, with 54% saying they did not believe it should become independent.

However, the pollsters also asked a separate question asking whether people agreed or disagreed that "the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state" - the preferred wording of the Scottish Government for a future referendum.

In this case, 42% agreed with the statement, with 50% opposed.The poll also asked which of a range of scenarios were closest to people's views of how Scotland should be governed.

Under this wording, only 28% backed the option of Scotland becoming independent of the rest of the UK, with 47% in favour of remaining in the UK, with the Scottish Parliament able to make some decisions about the level of taxation and government spending in Scotland.

A further 22% said Scotland should remain part of the UK, with decisions about the level of taxation and spending in Scotland made by the UK Government.

Finally, respondents were asked whether they believed it was likely or unlikely Scotland would become completely independent from the UK within the next 20 years.

The results showed that 10% thought it was very likely and 28% believed it was quite likely.

However, a larger percentage were not so sure, with 34% responding that it was quite unlikely and 24% believing independence was very unlikely.

Continued:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/8125041.stm

triedandtru
Wednesday, July 1st, 2009, 08:53 PM
I hope they get it.

saxonblood
Thursday, July 2nd, 2009, 10:45 PM
The SNP are a disaster for Scotland, if they take Scotland out of the union it will be so much easier for Scotland, and the rest of the UK to be swallowed under the tide of mass immigration and the EU leviathan.

:(

triedandtru
Thursday, July 2nd, 2009, 10:49 PM
The SNP are a disaster for Scotland, if they take Scotland out of the union it will be so much easier for Scotland, and the rest of the UK to be swallowed under the tide of mass immigration and the EU leviathan.

:(

Touche. Although it seems like the EU might already be getting its way in that sense. Fortunately the currency hasn't changed yet to the euro.

Renwein
Friday, July 3rd, 2009, 12:49 AM
The SNP are a disaster for Scotland, if they take Scotland out of the union it will be so much easier for Scotland, and the rest of the UK to be swallowed under the tide of mass immigration and the EU leviathan.

:(

I'm not sure I agree, it's true the SNP are pro-immigrant for instance but splitting the countries would increase national 'awareness', particularly in England (English identity has tended to be swamped by 'British' identity). So that could benifit both peoples. Besides at present England already is swamped by mass immigration, so I don't see how that could get worse, in fact it might get better if a break-up of the union causes more English to consider themselves as an independant entity.

Also, Scots, Welsh etc. have never voted for 'real' ethnic nationalist parties (BNP, NF) and tend to see them as 'arms of 'the English' out to control them (I've no idea why, when these parties often campaign for local identity, unlike the scottish so-called 'national' party which promotes immigration etc), because SNP, Plaid Cymru etc. already cater to their nationalist 'instincts' and take the votes of people with those inclinations. I think if they all seperated, it would enhance nationalist feelings in each area, the proportion of 'real' nationalist votes would be higher in an independant England than is in Britain, and all three would would be able to field and elect factions/parties to combat the EU's 'vision' of Europe (and new space would open for these views in Scotland / Wales if PC or SNP had achieved separation), rather than just one small 'group' for the country as a whole.

Astrid Runa
Monday, July 6th, 2009, 07:11 PM
Too damn right we do.
We deserve independance.
I think we're more or less sick of being mistaken for the English and being told that we're the same as England.
It's not just that, though. We're losing our identity. Kids in schools aren't being taught Gaelic. We're not being taught Scotland's history. Why? Because the British Government have control over what we learn in school. Education is a reserved power, not a devolved one.
If we broke away from England completely, then we'd have control over what happened in our country. Nobody will be able to tell us how to run our country.
You have no idea how annoying it is being told that you're English when you're not. It's like calling a Canadian an American. We find it extremly annoying, and I can guarantee that if you go to Glasgow and call a Scotsman and Englishman, then you;re gonnae get a Gelsgae kiss faster than you can say "Odin".
P.s: I prefer the SNP to Labour, personally. At least SNP are against Nuclear Power....
Hail Alba...

Siebenbürgerin
Monday, July 6th, 2009, 07:44 PM
We're losing our identity. Kids in schools aren't being taught Gaelic.
Hmm, but isn't this just the identity of some Scottish people, but not all? Because what about Scots, the Germanic language spoken in the Lowlands?


Scots is a Germanic language closely related to English and spoken by about 1.5 million people in Scotland. Scots is descended from the language of the Angles who settled in northern Britain, in an area now known as Northumbria and southern Scotland, in the 5th century AD. The language was originally know as 'Inglis' and has been influenced by Gaelic, Norse, Latin, Dutch, Norman French, Standard French and English.

By the 14th century Scots was the main language of Scotland and was used in literature, education, government and in legal documents. This was the period when Scots literature began to take off and notable literary works include Barbour's Brus, Whyntoun's Kronykil and Blin Harry's Wallace.

After the union of the Scottish and English parliaments in 1707, English became the language of government and of polite society in Scotland, though the vast majority of people continued to speak Scots. English also began to replace Scots as the main written language in Scotland.

Since the 1990s there has been limited use of Scots in education, the media and in literature. In 1983 a Scots translation of the New Testament was published and 1985 the saw the publication of the SNDA's Concise Scots Dictionary.

Scots is also known as braid Scots, Doric, Scotch or Lallans. Some people classify it as a dialect of English, and while it is closely related to English dialects spoken in Northumbria, it has had it's own literary tradition since the 14th century. Today there is a continuum of speech ranging from broad Scots to Scottish Standard English and many people switch between different parts of the continuum depending on circumstances.

The UK government accepts Scots as a regional language under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, and the Scottish Executive recognises and respects Scots (in all its forms) as a distinct language, and does not consider the use of Scots to be an indication of poor competence in English.

The source:
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/scots.htm

RoyBatty
Monday, July 6th, 2009, 08:06 PM
Too damn right we do.
We deserve independance.
I think we're more or less sick of being mistaken for the English and being told that we're the same as England.
It's not just that, though. We're losing our identity. Kids in schools aren't being taught Gaelic. We're not being taught Scotland's history. Why? Because the British Government have control over what we learn in school. Education is a reserved power, not a devolved one.
If we broke away from England completely, then we'd have control over what happened in our country. Nobody will be able to tell us how to run our country.
You have no idea how annoying it is being told that you're English when you're not. It's like calling a Canadian an American. We find it extremly annoying, and I can guarantee that if you go to Glasgow and call a Scotsman and Englishman, then you;re gonnae get a Gelsgae kiss faster than you can say "Odin".
P.s: I prefer the SNP to Labour, personally. At least SNP are against Nuclear Power....
Hail Alba...

Us "nasty Englanders" would be only too happy to give you your independence. Nothing on earth would make us happier.

No more Scottish Knight Templars / Masons running the country and stealing the coffers bare, no more $$$$ handouts to pay for Scotland, no more Scots in our parliament while we can't reciprocate, no more whining in our ears about freedom.

Please believe me when I say that it isn't us (ordinary people) who are holding you hostage in the UK. It's the ruling elites. Don't blame us for your problems. If you really want freedom, put your money where your mouthes are and go vote for it.

beowulf wodenson
Friday, July 10th, 2009, 05:19 PM
If only the people of Dixie's states were ready for a vote on secession and independence again......good for Scotland if secession from the UK is the will of the people there. :thumbup


Too damn right we do.
We deserve independance.
I think we're more or less sick of being mistaken for the English and being told that we're the same as England.
It's not just that, though. We're losing our identity. Kids in schools aren't being taught Gaelic. We're not being taught Scotland's history. Why? Because the British Government have control over what we learn in school. Education is a reserved power, not a devolved one.
If we broke away from England completely, then we'd have control over what happened in our country. Nobody will be able to tell us how to run our country.
You have no idea how annoying it is being told that you're English when you're not. It's like calling a Canadian an American. We find it extremly annoying, and I can guarantee that if you go to Glasgow and call a Scotsman and Englishman, then you;re gonnae get a Gelsgae kiss faster than you can say "Odin".
P.s: I prefer the SNP to Labour, personally. At least SNP are against Nuclear Power....
Hail Alba...

In a sense much the same has happened to us in the South since 1865. The United States government and Northern yankee states have attempted to impose their culture, version of history, ways of government on the Southland ever since Appomattox. Our children are taught in school to be ashamed of their own ancestors and history, of the Confederacy and men that fought for her independence, that the Confederate veteran fought for the preservation of slavery alone. I have 17 relatives, grandfathers, uncles, and cousins that fought for the Confederacy, some of which died in the service. I'm very proud of that and raising my kids the same way.
The Southern white man is still denigrated and discriminated against today by pop (anti) culture on television, movies, academia, "Civil Rights" laws, etc. The war 'ain't" over.
Yet, the Southern states are still a distinct section and culture in America. If we are to preserve our liberties and any vestige of constitutional government and states rights we must seek our independence again, I believe. Secesh, hell yeah.
For all you foreign folk, come South and call somebody a "yank" and you'll get to enjoy some Southern "hospitality" for sure....;)
Hail Alba, Hail Dixie, any nation and culture that strives for freedom and self-determination!

Alizon Device
Friday, July 10th, 2009, 05:48 PM
This whole debate is the wrong way round.
It's the English who should be seeking independence from Scotland and maybe even Wales.

The person responsible for the shackling together of England and Scotland was a Scotsman, King James VI.

The person who started the process of Wales' absorption into England was a Welshman, Henry VII. The person who completed the carrying out of the death of Wales as a country, relegating it to a principality of England was his son, Henry VIII.

We English had no say in the matter!

And as for the subject of who rules the United Kingdom, we English have far more right to feel unrepresented than the Scots.

Here is a list of the Top 5 most powerful leaders in the UK...

1. Gordon Brown (Scot) Prime Minister
2.Alastair Darling (Scot) Chancellor of the Exchequer
3. Lord Mandelson (Jew) First Secretary of State
4. David Miliband (Jew) Foreign Secretary
5. Jack Straw (Jew) Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice

Where is the English voice? We have no-one!

Astrid Runa
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 01:04 AM
This whole debate is the wrong way round.
It's the English who should be seeking independence from Scotland and maybe even Wales.

The person responsible for the shackling together of England and Scotland was a Scotsman, King James VI.

The person who started the process of Wales' absorption into England was a Welshman, Henry VII. The person who completed the carrying out of the death of Wales as a country, relegating it to a principality of England was his son, Henry VIII.

We English had no say in the matter!

And as for the subject of who rules the United Kingdom, we English have far more right to feel unrepresented than the Scots.

Here is a list of the Top 5 most powerful leaders in the UK...

1. Gordon Brown (Scot) Prime Minister
2.Alastair Darling (Scot) Chancellor of the Exchequer
3. Lord Mandelson (Jew) First Secretary of State
4. David Miliband (Jew) Foreign Secretary
5. Jack Straw (Jew) Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice

Where is the English voice? We have no-one!

Pah! Gordon Brown is a traitor.
And dinnae you complain to me about "Having no say in the matter".
You had plenty of say in the matter!
What about England trying to take over Scotland?
What about English soldiers killing anyone who spoke Gaelic?
What about us Scots having virtually no freedom since England invaded our country and bent us to their will?! Huh?
And as soon as we fight back, all we hear is bloody complaints exactly like yours.
I'll tell you what, missy.
When England gets invaded, and anyone who speaks English is killed, and you have virtually no freedom for nearly 3 Centuries, then you can complain about having no say in the matter.
You could have given us our independance at any time you wanted. But have you? No! You havn't! We're still shackled to England, and very soon, we are going to get tired of it!

Now, I'm going to bed.
It is 1am and I am tired.
Good morning.

Svartljos
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 02:11 AM
Has Scotland benefited more by being a part of Great Britain, or has England benefited more by forming a union with Scotland? A quarter of Scots are employed by the government, so it was probably the other way around. Would Scotland be better off economically outwith the UK or within it? I Don't know about that. Technically the Scots do have more sovereignty over their nation than the English do over theirs.


Pah! Gordon Brown is a traitor.
And dinnae you complain to me about "Having no say in the matter".
You had plenty of say in the matter!
What about England trying to take over Scotland?
What about English soldiers killing anyone who spoke Gaelic?
What about us Scots having virtually no freedom since England invaded our country and bent us to their will?! Huh?
And as soon as we fight back, all we hear is bloody complaints exactly like yours.
I'll tell you what, missy.
When England gets invaded, and anyone who speaks English is killed, and you have virtually no freedom for nearly 3 Centuries, then you can complain about having no say in the matter.
You could have given us our independance at any time you wanted. But have you? No! You havn't! We're still shackled to England, and very soon, we are going to get tired of it!


How does a modern individual of England have a say in whether or not the Crowns of Scotland and England should have united in the 1600s or an act of union should have been passed a hundred years thereafter? No mainstream political party in England advocates a separate Scotland afaik and neither does the BNP, I think many people just don't really care about the issue in England.

England trying to take over Scotland? Well, that happened a lot in the past, neighbouring countries always fight. Considering how different the Celtic Scots were to the English, it's not surprising. England and Scotland especially had a history of being at war, and borders shifted a lot. Ever hear of the Reivers? It went both ways did it not? It has been relatively peaceful between Scotland and England versus in for example Northern Ireland, or, what happened on the continent in the past one hundred years.

Killing people who speak Gaelic? Well, that doesn't sound very nice, but not everyone in Scotland speaks Gaelic, and Lallans Scots is just as important of a language in Scotland, historically. Killing all people who speak English doesn't sound like a great idea to me for the Gaelic speaking Scots to go about, since well fewer than 100.000 people speak it.

England has had just as much freedom being in the Union as Scotland has, well, less lately since they haven't got their own parliament nor do they control their own taxes, and as pointed out right now the pm is an unelected Scot who nobody likes (well, he was elected, just not as PM).

Anyway, I don't live in the UK, but even if I did, I would not really care whether or not England and Scotland or Wales or Northern Ireland stayed united. I do like the Scots, in fact I think its a very beautiful country and has a wonderful history, I just would support their desire to leave the union if I had a choice (which if a referendum is held only the Scots would have the choice of voting in). Unfortunately for you, the SNP love foreigners.

Anyway, an independent Scotland, I would not despise. It would be interesting to see. I feel the same way about the French in my own country by the way.

RoyBatty
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 10:29 PM
To all the Scots.... vote for your independence, obtain it and leave. Please. Do us all a favour. :thumbup

Alizon Device
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 11:05 PM
I'll tell you what, missy.
Please don't call me 'missy'. Most men would take it as an ad hominem. ;)

I chose my user name in honour of a brave young 17th century Lancashire heathen lass, who was cruelly hanged from the neck at Lancaster Castle during the reign of that Scottish dickhead, James I.

You know; the one who thought it would be great idea to marry his native Scotland and poor old England into one homogenous blob of an island. :P

http://www.pendlewitches.co.uk/content.php?page=alizon


Has Scotland benefited more by being a part of Great Britain, or has England benefited more by forming a union with Scotland? Would Scotland be better off economically outwith the UK or within it? I Don't know about that.
I believe that once you have read the BBC article in the link below, you will know all you need to make the unequivocal conclusion that Scotland is getting a hell of a lot more out of this dysfunctional marriage, than England. :(

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7196486.stm


Free university tuition, free personal care for the elderly, free prescriptions on the way. Has Scotland become the land of the free at the expense of Britain's other nations and regions?




What was a political fix over 30 years ago to keep ministers quiet is now being used to transfer huge quantities of money into Scotland when they're needed in the English regions

Even political dregs know the whole thing is unfair... :|

Sigurd
Friday, July 31st, 2009, 12:25 AM
Has Scotland benefited more by being a part of Great Britain, or has England benefited more by forming a union with Scotland? A quarter of Scots are employed by the government, so it was probably the other way around. Would Scotland be better off economically outwith the UK or within it? I Don't know about that. Technically the Scots do have more sovereignty over their nation than the English do over theirs.

This is not a question of economy, this is a question of identity, first and foremost.

What you have now is devolution. It is evident that devolution was only a poltical move by the Labour party. They started to rapidly gain support when they organised the first referendum in 1979; and where so strong in the 1997 General election, that the Conservatives managed to return naught to Westminster. The referendum was successful, but it is really Westminster that is still in charge: Holyrood has limited powers which are subordinate to Westminster anyway, and worse, extremely limited budget; but when Labour are criticized they just point at that achievement and members of the public are appeased. Interestingly enough, devolution was the perfect move for the Labour party to drain support both from the (unionist) Conservatives and the (separatist) SNP.

The bad thing about the SNP is that whilst it calls itself "Nationalist" and strides for the preservation of Scottish cultural identity, they at the same time follow a very leftist path and would water down the heritage of the country.

So it really comes down to consider what would be the lesser evil for the Scottish public - stay in an England-centred union or be independent with values lost at first? A question that, by the way, also poses itself when treating with the Sinn Fein (though the SNP are way less militant, and not as leftist as their Irish counterparts.)

That is the political context dealt with. So what are the general pro's and contra's?

The pro's,
-A folk gaining the ability to be its own sovereign again;
-The ability to strengthen its own culture,
-Preserve the Gaelic language more than it would be possible in the union.
-Perserve the Scots language more than it would be possible in the union, where it is deemed a "stray English dialect" rather than a language of its own, as would be linguistically correct.
-An increased ability to "dodge" English laws; easier to preserve the unique legal system.
-An increased international academic importance for Scotland, especially the renowned and excellence universities of St. Andrews, Aberdeen and Edinburgh who have ever since the union stood in the shadow of "Oxbridge".
-More specific tourism (Edinburgh becoming its new London) will bring new prosperity to the people.

The contra's:
-The economy; the coal and lead mines are finished, the fishing industry has pretty much collapsed, even the North Sea oil is declining.
-Loss of the monarchy. Before the union, there was a King/Queen of Scotland. It is unlikely that such would be installed, and besides the loss of tradition, it would make it easier for the parliament to manipulate everything, especially in the current constitutional framework.
-The thus arising need of legislative reform in a unique legal system, which under political shortsight could have catastrophical consequences.
-The country would lose its high court of civil appeal (House of Lords).

So really, judging from the above, it is evident, that the Scots prefer to be independent for a feeling of national consciousness rather than for benefits it would have for them. Which is good, as a new national consciousness arising can well be used to create a strong Nationalist movement proper in Scotland, making it an exemplary outpost in Europe. In fact the pros benefit the common good rather than personal good; which sounds very promising.

Personally, I favour the idea of Scottish independence over it remaining with the United Kingdom and most people with a regard to heritage would as well. In fact, most proud Scots I know are more likely to use Article XIX as paper for wiping their backsides than to read it. ;)

So the question is not whether Scotland should be independent, it should be without question: A folk deserves to be its own sovereign, without qualifications. The only question that remains to be asked is the question of when. This is because there is a far greater threat at the gates than breaking up a union between states, but instead the demographic and social existence of both are at stake.

Here, it must be noted that one battle should be fought at a time, and I would wager to say that, alas, perhaps independence should be carefully prepared within the next 30 years, at which stage the outside threat will have been eliminated, allowing both Scots and English to focus solely on the matter of independence from each other, without their very identity disintegrating right underneath their noses at the same time.

The common threat needs to be tackled first before Scots and English can fight it out --- otherwise, both will see the fates of the Vikings and Anglo-Saxons repeated, who decided to fight it out before the actual foreigner (the Vikings had settled much earlier, this was an internal North/South battle as well) to the island, the Normans, arrived and challenged the victorious Anglo-Saxons: And the outcome of that, we all know. ;)

Astrid Runa
Friday, July 31st, 2009, 01:03 AM
Has Scotland benefited more by being a part of Great Britain, or has England benefited more by forming a union with Scotland? A quarter of Scots are employed by the government, so it was probably the other way around. Would Scotland be better off economically outwith the UK or within it? I Don't know about that. Technically the Scots do have more sovereignty over their nation than the English do over theirs.



How does a modern individual of England have a say in whether or not the Crowns of Scotland and England should have united in the 1600s or an act of union should have been passed a hundred years thereafter? No mainstream political party in England advocates a separate Scotland afaik and neither does the BNP, I think many people just don't really care about the issue in England.

England trying to take over Scotland? Well, that happened a lot in the past, neighbouring countries always fight. Considering how different the Celtic Scots were to the English, it's not surprising. England and Scotland especially had a history of being at war, and borders shifted a lot. Ever hear of the Reivers? It went both ways did it not? It has been relatively peaceful between Scotland and England versus in for example Northern Ireland, or, what happened on the continent in the past one hundred years.

Killing people who speak Gaelic? Well, that doesn't sound very nice, but not everyone in Scotland speaks Gaelic, and Lallans Scots is just as important of a language in Scotland, historically. Killing all people who speak English doesn't sound like a great idea to me for the Gaelic speaking Scots to go about, since well fewer than 100.000 people speak it.

England has had just as much freedom being in the Union as Scotland has, well, less lately since they haven't got their own parliament nor do they control their own taxes, and as pointed out right now the pm is an unelected Scot who nobody likes (well, he was elected, just not as PM).

Anyway, I don't live in the UK, but even if I did, I would not really care whether or not England and Scotland or Wales or Northern Ireland stayed united. I do like the Scots, in fact I think its a very beautiful country and has a wonderful history, I just would support their desire to leave the union if I had a choice (which if a referendum is held only the Scots would have the choice of voting in). Unfortunately for you, the SNP love foreigners.

Anyway, an independent Scotland, I would not despise. It would be interesting to see. I feel the same way about the French in my own country by the way.

And why do you think barely anyone speaks Gaelic, huh?
Because it was banned by the English and anyone who spoke it was killed! It died because of that. Scotland lost it's mother-tongue because a bunch of power-hungry eejits wanted to expand their Kingdom.
Does that seem fair to you?
@ Sigurd.
Where the Hell have you been?

Sigurd
Friday, July 31st, 2009, 01:45 AM
Scotland lost it's mother-tongue because a bunch of power-hungry eejits wanted to expand their Kingdom.

In fact, en route to losing both of its mother tongues. Whilst Gaelic is starting to be protected and encouraged, Scots is by many still not deemed as a language of its own, but instead considered by many to be a mere dialect of English. The SNP is less wont to strengthen its heritage, because as a Germanic language it doesn't fit within their agenda of "Celtic Scotland" (which is BS - at no point in the past 1,000 years were there more speakers of Gaelic than of Scots, the clans who derive their names from Norman roots is about on par with those who go back to Gaelic roots, plus some with Anglo-Saxon or Norse roots)

That is even more dangerous than the fact that only approx. 60,000 are left that speak Gaelic as its mother tongue - as long as some cherish that heritage, and as long as it is useful to speak it locally, it will persist ... a good example for this would be the Ladin and Rumantsch speakers in some Alpine back valleys. And that is even with Ladin receiving remarkably little attention or protection, because the question of the German South Tyrolese, placed with Italy unrightfully, is more predominant in public and political conversation. Even the old Cimbrian dialect of German (a Middle-German rather than High-German Bavarian sub-dialect), spoken now by approx. 2,000 is clinging on despite no protection and several hundred years of oppression and attempts to weed it out.

If a language ends up being considered as a mere dialect of another, it starts to approximate towards that other language in vocabulary, grammar, syntax and intonation. We already see this taking root in some of the conurbations, essentially most of the larger cities already speak English with a Scottish accent rather than the proper brand of Scots indigenous to their area. Even in some of the larger countryside towns, the kids aren't familiar with their particular idiom of Scots any longer and wouldn't be able to read The Bruys even if you forced them.

The tragic thing is, mutual intelligibility between Scots and English does not help the matter - since both are caught within the same political entity of the United Kingdom, it's even more prone to become a dialect of English than let's say the likelihood of Danish or Norwegian becoming dialects of one another.

Svartljos
Friday, July 31st, 2009, 04:12 AM
And why do you think barely anyone speaks Gaelic, huh?
Because it was banned by the English and anyone who spoke it was killed! It died because of that. Scotland lost it's mother-tongue because a bunch of power-hungry eejits wanted to expand their Kingdom.
Does that seem fair to you?


Well, Gaelic wasn't the original language of the people living in Scotland anyway. I believe Pictish was displaced by most Gaelic speakers, so I don't know if you should try to hold that over the English's heads. As a person who finds more in common with the Germanic cultures, I worry a lot more about Scots (I especially have an affinity for the variation of Scots spoken in the *Shetland Islands, those islands are bloody cool :p) than I do about Gaelic anyway. Does it seem fair to me? Well, I don't feel like I should personally have to fight for the rights of Gaelic-Scots, however at the same time I don't discriminate against them either.

Anyway, Sigurd I do agree with you that culture is in a lot of cases more important than economy, and I do admire that Scots want to protect it (even if they've all bought into the whole Celtic thing and the left-wing wagon). I just wonder what sort of negative effects it would have on Scotland after leaving - would they become impoverished like some eastern European countries, and would they want the rest of the remaining UK to bail them out? Also, it would be too bad for them to lose the monarchy, I have no doubt in my mind that they would form a republic and leave the commonwealth. Would they remain in the EU (I see this as likely if they have the SNP holding the reigns)?

*On a side note, they've lost their mother tongue several times! Probably some sort of Celtic language, then replaced by a form of West-Norse (which I guess sooner or later formed Norn) which was replaced after being taken over by Scotland by Scots and is now being replaced by English.

Sigurd
Friday, July 31st, 2009, 01:47 PM
Well, I don't feel like I should personally have to fight for the rights of Gaelic-Scots, however at the same time I don't discriminate against them either.

Well, the heritage of Scotland is to near-equal degrees Celtic and Germanic, also differing on the region concerned. The highlands are almost exclusively Celtic, whilst the lowlands can be counted as within the Germanic sphere. Due to close proximity, and a Scottish identity growing that included both, Scotland is Celto-Germanic more so than other countries, where this label is an ethno-historical term rather than an actually ethnologically valid term for the present composition of its heritage.

As such, both the Celtic and Germanic heritage of Scotland deserve protection, and a Scot should aim to preserve both at once, regardless of whether he is a Highland Scot or a Lowland Scot.


I just wonder what sort of negative effects it would have on Scotland after leaving - would they become impoverished like some eastern European countries, and would they want the rest of the remaining UK to bail them out?

Had Scotland left the Union some 90-odd or 100 years ago, then it would perhaps became the sole most economically stable and richest nation within all of Europe: A booming fishing industry, one of the world leaders of lead-mining, one of the leading harvesters of granite ... and would have still discovered North-Sea Oil in the late 1970s without needing to give part of the revenue generated to the rest of the UK.

Since all these industries are in decline, it remains impossible to make a prediction - however there are other industries which may still be feasible. Tourism could play a large part, and be one of the main generators of revenue; anything gained there could be used to repair industries on decline, or to become the vanguard of a "revolution" of industries.

If anything, then after the decline of the copper, salt and silver industries in my native area of Tyrol, in Austria, we were much worse off ... till people discovered our mountains, we were left with naught but agriculture, this is why some valleys (such as the Ziller Valley) are colloquially known as "Jews" because of their aversion to spending.

And, if anything, then I would expect an independent Scotland to fare much better than most Eastern European states: Certainly much better than Bulgaria or Romania, and also much better than the Baltic States. The Baltic states were run down by Russia, so they had to essentially catch up a lot on infrastructure, both industrially and in terms of accessibility. Scotland already has an excellent infrastructure, and decades and centennia or expertise in a number of fields.

Whether Scotland would fare worse than in the Union, in economic terms - I cannot say, but it is well possible. It would however be reasonably minimal. It perhaps wouldn't have such a strong economy as let's say Norway, but it certainly wouldn't be as bad off as Bulgaria or even Spain. The national budget could be a more difficult issue.


Also, it would be too bad for them to lose the monarchy, I have no doubt in my mind that they would form a republic and leave the commonwealth.

It is possible, and actually it would be a shame. In my opinion, they should retain the monarchy and stay within the commonwealth, much like Australia, New Zealand or Canada have done.

That it would be considered an "English monarch" I doubt, Scots would be very keen to point out the Scottish heritage of the royal house. Remember, that having a joint monarch was not the leading step to Union, that final nail in the coffin was the "Carribean Fiasco", where essentially 1/4 of the Scottish budget went down the drain in her hope to become a colonial power.

It was 104 years between the union of monarchies and the union of the countries, so Scottish accession to the UK is not directly linked to having a joint ruler. This could be an option to disassociate from the UK without completely abandoning the links and friendly relation between the two countries.

Other than that, one could always pick a different line of the royal house, like where the English and inaugural Scottish monarch would be fourth cousins or something. :shrug


Would they remain in the EU (I see this as likely if they have the SNP holding the reigns)?

Most likely, yes. As to whether the EU would want them to re-join or automatically allow them as a member is a difficult question, as this is essentially a case without actual precedent.


*On a side note, they've lost their mother tongue several times! Probably some sort of Celtic language, then replaced by a form of West-Norse (which I guess sooner or later formed Norn) which was replaced after being taken over by Scotland by Scots and is now being replaced by English.

All these were very local, which is why Scotland has a richer linguistic heritage than most countries. West-Norse never fully superseded the use of Gaelic, and English certainly did not supersede Scots until the latter stages of the 20th century.

Svartljos
Friday, July 31st, 2009, 04:02 PM
All these were very local, which is why Scotland has a richer linguistic heritage than most countries. West-Norse never fully superseded the use of Gaelic, and English certainly did not supersede Scots until the latter stages of the 20th century.

Everything else aside, I never knew they ever spoke Gaelic in the Shetland Islands, and I don't think English has entirely superseded Scots there yet, except maybe in the youngest Generation. Then again, I'm only an armchair admirer of the place, I've never been there and have only ever met one person from the islands :p (although he was a pretty interesting character), so I don't know entirely everything about modern day life there. The folklore is pretty awesome though.

Sigurd
Friday, July 31st, 2009, 04:34 PM
and I don't think English has entirely superseded Scots there yet, except maybe in the youngest Generation.

The Shetlands are not an urban environment, but a very rural one. Most of the countryside bravely fights on to preserve the various dialects of Scots, but the cities are for the most part already a "lost case" and many people in the cities speak a "Scots accent of English". And with the cities having largely fallen, it is only a question of time until the countryside falls, too.