PDA

View Full Version : Should Scotland Be Independent?



Angus
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 04:16 AM
This question has been around for ages. Many have said yes, while many others have said no. What do you think? Please explain your reasoning :)

I'll be sharing my humble opinion in a week or so.

SwordOfTheVistula
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 06:11 AM
Go Scotland!



























And take London with you

Schooneveld
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 03:57 PM
Why? England and Scotland share great history together and need each other in this troubled world. So why not try a federal or confederal state first before rushing into secession?

flâneur
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 06:46 PM
They are indepependant,they are a country in their own right with their own parliment.

If you mean should the English be free of the tax money we pour into Scotland every year to keep them on their feet,then my answer as a taxpayer on an economic level would be yes.....go to it bonny Scotland....Ireland went bankrupt in about five years so you should do it in about six.

Regarding them as part of the United Kingdom and ethnic brothers so to speak with close common ties i woud say that Scotland should remain with England.

Having said that and being English and listening to constant Scots/Irish/Welsh bickering and moaning about Englishmen in general and how hard they have had it under us etc etc and how much better they would be on their own......im deaf to such celtic lamentations now so they can do what they want as far as im concerned.
They are nothing without us Englsih and never have been....fame by association in a word.

The Scots/Irish/Welsh remind me of some Tuna farms i saw in Australia...massive netted ares in the open sea full of tuna....and every morning a man comes with a boat full of feed and throws it into the nets keeping the tuna fat...and safe in the nets.
Sometimes a tuna leaps out to freedom into the open sea and tries to go it alone.....he soon returns to the net trying to get back in,in the hope of free food and being safe from predators etc.....they soon die off and sink to the bottom.

Astrid Runa
Thursday, March 10th, 2011, 05:39 PM
Tommy, the only reason why Scotland are still under English rule is because Scotland has oil in the North Sea. The North Sea is Scottish Territory and if Scotland went independant, England wouldn't be able to touch it.

Face it. England needs Scotland to keep on it's feet, not the other way around.

Devils__Advocate
Friday, March 11th, 2011, 10:31 AM
Don't the Scottish have their own parliament, law and education system? It sounds like the Scottish have been rewarded under British rule whilst the English still suffer under British rule with still no political representation.

The Scottish still vote on matters English without the same applying to the English on matters Scottish.

It will be a grand day when the English finally throw off the oppressive mantle of British/Scottish oppression.

@Astrid Runa: You said: "The North Sea is Scottish Territory"

I can't help but ask where you got this information from?

http://www.mumm.ac.be/Assets/Pages/Atlas2007/NorthSeaBelgianArea_NL.gif

A few Scandinavians would have cross words to have you you about Scottish "dominance" of the North Sea. As well as these Scandinavians, a few English nationalists would pick a bone or two into your false assumption.

Putting aside the Scottish voting to take away the English border and create a larger chunk of the North Sea for Scotland, you have also had that Scot Blair making claims for England in 1999.

Personally, I prefer the pre-1963 border. Much fairer and more historically accurate.

http://i.imgur.com/rFzua.jpg

Ingvaeonic
Saturday, March 12th, 2011, 08:45 AM
In my opinion, not being a UK citizen, I would say Scottish independence would be a mistake. It seems to me that the constituent countries of the United Kingdom are stronger together than divided and alone, if I may venture an opinion. And I think most Scots and most English believe in the Union even if belief in the Union has diminished over recent years. I'm sure Scottish and English nationalisms are growing but whether these will result in a dissolution of the Union is another question.

I will add that if Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland get their own devolved legislatures under Tony Blair's very imperfect devolutionary plan and programme, then it is only right that England gets her own as well. The West Lothian question, as I understand it, can only be resolved by the establishment of a devolved English legislature on the same pattern as the other devolved legislatures.

Angus
Sunday, March 13th, 2011, 07:03 PM
They are indepependant,they are a country in their own right with their own parliment.

Hardly.

We arent even close to being our own country. I'll just take 2 minutes to give you some quick examples: The UK Parliament has complete power over us. They have control over our territory and borders. Its the UK Parliament, not the Scottish Parliament that regulates foreign / domestic trade. Everything our Parliament has control over (which isnt much) was "granted" to us by the UK Parliament.

If we were so close to being our own country, wouldnt we have Scottish embassies? ;).

We are in no way a "country in our own right." Which is utterly disgraceful.


They are nothing without us Englsih and never have been.
We did quite fine without your "help" for ages. Today's world would be no different.


The Scots/Irish/Welsh remind me of some Tuna farms i saw in Australia...massive netted ares in the open sea full of tuna....and every morning a man comes with a boat full of feed and throws it into the nets keeping the tuna fat...and safe in the nets.
Sometimes a tuna leaps out to freedom into the open sea and tries to go it alone.....he soon returns to the net trying to get back in,in the hope of free food and being safe from predators etc.....they soon die off and sink to the bottom. This coming from the guy who earlier called us your "ethnic brothers"?

Felixmoy
Sunday, March 13th, 2011, 08:42 PM
Scotland should be independent and they can develop as their own nation, and remain in economic-like union with rest of UK.

It is England that needs Scottland today, not the opposite. And they should let them go.

Offa of Angel
Sunday, March 13th, 2011, 09:40 PM
I support scottish independence as I want to see England primarily to be a free country on its own first.

Meister
Sunday, March 13th, 2011, 09:51 PM
As a Nationalist I am all for countries to be independent. Although I do wonder how independent any European country can be with the EU and for that matter any country at all while the U.N still exists.

Hamar Fox
Thursday, March 17th, 2011, 10:14 PM
It is England that needs Scottland today, not the opposite.

How so?


We arent even close to being our own country. I'll just take 2 minutes to give you some quick examples: The UK Parliament has complete power over us.

LOL, that would be the parliament that's given us three Scottish PM's in a row. The UK parliament is the Scottish parliament. But whiners are whiners. Scots will still consider themselves 'oppressed' no matter how obviously things are tilted in their favour.

Steinbrugge
Thursday, March 17th, 2011, 11:53 PM
Apparently if the Scottish votes had not been included in the English elections no labour government would have ever won an election..consequently we would not have had that turd blair or his crap successor intentionally fill our homeland with any old scum who wanted to come.... So let me answer the original question.. Should Scotland be independant? If it means that all Scots are permanently removed from positions of influence in my country...then yeah...you bet.. sooner the better !!!!

Wræcca
Thursday, March 17th, 2011, 11:57 PM
Pre 1707 England was an economic and military powerhouse whilst Scotland was completely bankrupt after the failed attempt to colonize Panama through the Darien Scheme. If it wasn't for the union and Mel Gibson Scotland would be about as famous as Kasakhstan (well before Borat)

... I wonder who has benefited more from the union?!

FREEEEE-DOMMMMMM!

Dankward
Friday, March 18th, 2011, 01:10 AM
From my german and germanic point of view I would like to see the whole UK beeing dissolved and Scotland as well as England as separate states. The whole entity of the UK and its predecessors were an anti-germanic and anti-european entity that served mainly plutocratic interests. Furthermore do I think that a german and an english state wouldn't have had the conflicts that the British Empire and the German Empire actually had. This is also important for the future.

Astrid Runa
Friday, March 18th, 2011, 01:20 PM
Apparently if the Scottish votes had not been included in the English elections no labour government would have ever won an election..consequently we would not have had that turd blair or his crap successor intentionally fill our homeland with any old scum who wanted to come.... So let me answer the original question.. Should Scotland be independant? If it means that all Scots are permanently removed from positions of influence in my country...then yeah...you bet.. sooner the better !!!!

Your country?
Heh. That made me giggle.

Also, quit with the anti-Scottish crap. Don't forget that it's because of England that Scots don't speak Gaelic anymore.

Sigurd
Friday, March 18th, 2011, 01:50 PM
Apparently if the Scottish votes had not been included in the English elections no labour government would have ever won an election

In 1997, Labour won a landslide victory with 418 seats (out of a total possible 659). Scotland had 72 constituencies then, was thus not decisive - parliamentary majority was 179.

In 2001, Labour won another landslide victory with 413 seats (of 659). Scotland still had 72 constituencies then, was thus not decisive - parliamentary majority was 167.

In 2005, it was less clear cut. Labour won the election with 355 seats (out of 646). Scotland then already had 59 constituencies, and was thus not decisive - parliamentary majority was 63.

Quod erat demonstrandum. ;)


Also, quit with the anti-Scottish crap. Don't forget that it's because of England that Scots don't speak Gaelic anymore.

Actually, the Lowlands have been Scots-speaking for a much longer period, with Northumbrian settlement extending to the River Forth by the 7th century --- which isn't a much shorter period than Gaelic has been spoken in any part of Scotland - Gaelic would seem to not have appeared before the 5th century when Goidelic missionaries arrived from Ireland. There was a Celtic tongue spoken before, but it was more akin to the Brythonic branch which includes Welsh, Breton and Cornish.

The Highland Clearances saw for a drop in Gaelic speakers, and made lineage less traceable, however at that stage - the mid 19th century - the weight between speakers of Germanic languages (Scots, English) was already even, or slightly above that of Celtic languages (Gaelic). The Highland Clearances weren't something that was exclusive to Scotland though, a similar phenomenon (albeit unforced) had been existing in England since the Tudor period.

Steinbrugge
Friday, March 18th, 2011, 02:45 PM
Your country?
Heh. That made me giggle.

Also, quit with the anti-Scottish crap. Don't forget that it's because of England that Scots don't speak Gaelic anymore.

Yep thats right MY COUNTRY just because at the moment I happen to live in the Isle of man doesnt change anything..English born and bred.

I am a nationalist. which means I no more want a Scot in parliament making decisions that effect me, than you want an Englishman doing likewise in yours.

Difference is I dont have a chip on my shoulder about it .

Steinbrugge
Friday, March 18th, 2011, 03:36 PM
In 1997, Labour won a landslide victory with 418 seats (out of a total possible 659). Scotland had 72 constituencies then, was thus not decisive - parliamentary majority was 179.

In 2001, Labour won another landslide victory with 413 seats (of 659). Scotland still had 72 constituencies then, was thus not decisive - parliamentary majority was 167.

In 2005, it was less clear cut. Labour won the election with 355 seats (out of 646). Scotland then already had 59 constituencies, and was thus not decisive - parliamentary majority was 63.

Quod erat demonstrandum. ;)

The Labour Party returned to government with a 4-seat majority under Wilson in the 1964 election.

They lost the 1970 election.

The Labour Party was returned to power again under Wilson a few weeks after the February 1974 general election, forming a minority government.

They lost all subsequent elections up until 1997 with the introduction of New labour

Prior to the examples above the last time they would have been in power was 1950.

Seeing as the 2 elections mentioned above (1964 and 1974) were, in one case a miniscule 4 seat majority and the other a minority government, it is not too far fetched to conclude that if the Scots vote or indeed the Welsh or N.Irish had not been included they would have conceivably lost these elections.
This occurence would have led to a barren period in the political wasteland for labour of some 47 years.

If this had indeed happened, I dont think it is stretching supposition too far to make the reasonable assumption that after 47 years the emergence of a "New Labour" would not necessarily have been much more succesful than any of the manifold and varied re inventions of the liberal/libdem/sdp incarnations, and, if this had proven to be the case, we would not have had Blair, Brown et al.

Quod erat demonstrandum :thumbup

So once again do I support Scotland desire for self determination ?.. hell yeah and Wales and N.ireland too.:D:D

Pictoria
Friday, March 18th, 2011, 06:33 PM
Scotland should defiitely NOT be 'independent'!

Would Germans want Bavaria to be independent? NO!

Scotland is Britain's Bavaria.

'Scotland' is not an old entity and any feelings of 'anti-Englishness' have been artificially stirred up.

REMEMBER THE JEWS OLD TACTIC: DIVIDE & CONQUER, BECAUSE UNITED THEY (US) ARE STRONGER.

Racially (or rather, sub-racially), linguistically and culturally, only the North of Scotland (above the Glasgow-Edinburgh line) has even the most remote claim to any possibility of independence, as that area was not so greatly colonised by Romans, Angles & Saxons (South of Glasgow-Edinburgh was hugely settled by Saxons) and Jutes (They did settle in large numbers in the North East) and Normans. But then again, it WAS largely colonised by Irish (besides the original 'Scotti') and there are many examples of 'Black Irish' to be found in South West Scotland. But even the Vikings colonised almost the entire British Isle. The old region of Northumbria strecthed all the way up to Edinburgh. The old region of Strathclyde stretched all the way South into Cumbria (North England). But, to be honest, even from a racial point of view, there is no separation from the rest of Britain.

The only reason the SNP wish to give Scotland 'independence' is to gift that part of Britain to the EU and no doubt due to misplaced feelings of bourgoise nationalism.

If Britain falls to National Socialism (God willing it shall one day), the whole of Europa will fall in too. But that cannot be achieved without the Scottish region as an integral part of the Great British Isle.

Like Prussia, Scotland provides the bravest and most honourable warriors, and like Bavaria, we have have a heightened cultural awareness that can be easily morphed into profound fury for defending the National and Social rights of our folk.

But it doesn't matter anyway. With approx 20 million non-Aryans in Britain now, there is no way back for this island.

Sigurd
Friday, March 18th, 2011, 07:12 PM
Quod erat demonstrandum :thumbup

I am well aware of the earlier elections, however you spoke that Labour would have never won an election without Scotland, their most recent three victories I presented as a proof that this blanket statement isn't true.

That being said, further things will have to be established:

1) Whilst New Labour made things worse, mass immigration and "Jew-friendly" reform of the economic system happened under Conservative rule. Please explain? Do you really think a further 13 years of Conservative rule would have made things any much better, or shall we say any less worse?

2) Should not the problem of Scotland voting so strongly for Labour, and doing traditionally so, be tackled rather than saying: "To Hel with those lefties"?

3) How is voting behaviour a valid reason why a nation should be independent or not?

It would be rather like saying: "It's good that Austria remains independent from Germany, because the political landscape in Germany is so far to the left that it could not possibly do any good for Austria. ;)

Steinbrugge
Saturday, March 19th, 2011, 05:04 PM
I am well aware of the earlier elections, however you spoke that Labour would have never won an election without Scotland, their most recent three victories I presented as a proof that this blanket statement isn't true.
I think I made my reasoning behind my original comment abundantly clear in my previous post and do not feel inclined to labour (sic) the point any further



1) Whilst New Labour made things worse, mass immigration and "Jew-friendly" reform of the economic system happened under Conservative rule. Please explain? Do you really think a further 13 years of Conservative rule would have made things any much better, or shall we say any less worse?
No ..I think a right wing dictatorship is required..


2) Should not the problem of Scotland voting so strongly for Labour, and doing traditionally so, be tackled rather than saying: "To Hel with those lefties"?
No.. it would be more expedient to remove them from the process.
3) How is voting behaviour a valid reason why a nation should be independent or not? It is valid as far as I am concerned when its presence in the union continually presents a leftwing bias.

It would be rather like saying: "It's good that Austria remains independent from Germany, because the political landscape in Germany is so far to the left that it could not possibly do any good for Austria. ;)Not at all..It is more along the lines of, as I have stated previously." it is better for England that Scotland have their independance as their presence in the union historically presents a leftwing bias..

These are my views on the subject and I am unlikely to change them, no matter how long this thread drags on...Do I support Scots independance? once again..Yes:thumbup

Untersberger
Saturday, March 19th, 2011, 06:20 PM
My opinion is anything of this nature should be put to the very people of Scotland in a Referendum.

Only the Scots can decide what is best for Scotland.

;)

Hamar Fox
Saturday, March 19th, 2011, 06:25 PM
My opinion is anything of this nature should be put to the very people of Scotland in a Referendum.

Only the Scots can decide what is best for Scotland.

;)

The English people in this thread have only ever been talking about what's best for England.

Caledonian
Saturday, March 19th, 2011, 06:47 PM
To some degree Scotland already has parliamentary forms of independence that are seperate and distincted from the rest of England.

A better question might be, independent in what manner?

I also believe it's in Scotland's best interest to work with England because there is a symbiotic relationship between the two now more than ever.

Whatever happens to one will effect the other.

Rather than have a divide between the two I would like to see both nations working together. There is a old feudal rivalry between both Scots and English but I do not believe that in this era it must continue.

Astrid Runa
Saturday, March 19th, 2011, 09:21 PM
The English people in this thread have only ever been talking about what's best for England.

The English people in this thread need to keep their noses out of Scotlands business....

Hamar Fox
Saturday, March 19th, 2011, 09:53 PM
The English people in this thread need to keep their noses out of Scotlands business....

How is that relevant to what I said?

Angus
Sunday, March 20th, 2011, 03:07 PM
LOL, that would be the parliament that's given us three Scottish PM's in a row.
Last i checked Cameron was an Englishman with distant Scottish roots. I bet if you were to ask him if he considered himself Scottish or English he'd say English. Besides, just because a UK PM is a Scot doesn't mean they will or want to do the best for Scotland.


But whiners are whiners. Scots will still consider themselves 'oppressed' no matter how obviously things are tilted in their favour.
If us Scots are such a burden to you wonderful English, why dont you support us wanting independance? Surely if we were such whiners as you accuse us of, you wouldn't want us to be a part of this fantastic union ;)


I also believe it's in Scotland's best interest to work with England because there is a symbiotic relationship between the two now more than ever.

Yeah, how so?


Rather than have a divide between the two I would like to see both nations working together. There is a old feudal rivalry between both Scots and English but I do not believe that in this era it must continue

Just because we (most of us) want to be our own independant nation again, which may i add should be a given right, doesn't mean we want to cut contact or anything of the sorts with England. Nobody mentioned not wanting to mantain good relations with England or the rest of the UK.

The fact of the matter is that this wonderful union has erased Scotland from the map and we want to be put back on. As an american who seems to identify with being Scottish, i'd think you'd support that ;)

Hamar Fox
Sunday, March 20th, 2011, 03:40 PM
Last i checked Cameron was an Englishman with distant Scottish roots. I bet if you were to ask him if he considered himself Scottish or English he'd say English. Besides, just because a UK PM is a Scot doesn't mean they will or want to do the best for Scotland.

Ethnically, he's neither. The Jew in him negates membership of any British ethnicity. However, he has a Scottish surname and was born in Scotland. That's not English.


If us Scots are such a burden to you English, why dont you support us wanting independance? Surely if we were such whiners as you accuse us of, you wouldn't want us to be apart of this fantastic union

I do want us to be apart of the union. That's why I don't want us to be a part of it.

Jeffcoat
Sunday, March 20th, 2011, 03:44 PM
All Nations of our folk should all be Independent, it is what truly makes us great when we can be ourselves once again!!!:thumbup

Angus
Sunday, March 20th, 2011, 03:45 PM
Ethnically, he's neither. The Jew in him negates membership of any British ethnicity. However, he has a Scottish surname and was born in Scotland. That's not English.

I hate to break it to you, but you're wrong. He was born in London.

Hamar Fox
Sunday, March 20th, 2011, 03:50 PM
I hate to break it to you, but you're wrong. He was born in London.

Yet more proof that he's not English.

Devils__Advocate
Sunday, March 20th, 2011, 06:27 PM
Last i checked Cameron was an Englishman with distant Scottish roots.

Not so distant.

"HE IS normally viewed as the ultimate blue-blooded Tory, with aristocratic links going back to King William IV, albeit he is related to the Queen through an illegitimate royal child.
But far less known about David Cameron than his Old Etonian background or the fact he is fifth cousin to the Queen, twice removed, are his Scottish roots.

His father Ian was born in Huntly, in Aberdeenshire, in Blairmore School, which was built by the new Prime Minister's great, great-grandfather Alexander Geddes for his home in 1884. Geddes had left Scotland for Chicago, where he made a fortune in grain, before returning to Aberdeenshire in the 1880s. Ian Cameron was the latest in a long line of stockbrokers stretching back to great, great-grandfather Sir Ewen Cameron, from Inverness, who rose to become London head of the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank.

Genealogists have traced the Cameron family's roots back several generations in Inverness to Ewen Cameron, grandfather of Sir Ewen, born in Dores, in 1775."

http://news.scotsman.com/politics/David-Cameron39s-Scottish-roots.6294630.jp


I bet if you were to ask him if he considered himself Scottish or English he'd say English.

He has been asked numerous times. His replies tell you all you wish to know about the man.

"I'm a Cameron, there is quite a lot of Scottish blood flowing through these veins"

"I don't want to do anything that will encourage a sense of English nationalism

"Sour Little Englanders, who want rid of Scotland, I'll fight them all the way"

One can decide for themselves on his allegiance.


I hate to break it to you, but you're wrong. He was born in London.

Ashley Cole was born in London too. I'll let you decide whether he is English or not.

Wræcca
Sunday, March 20th, 2011, 10:54 PM
The English people in this thread need to keep their noses out of Scotlands business....

It is in our business as were the one's paying for your free university education, free prescription charges etc etc

2009/10 The UK's revenue from oil and gas production was just over £6.4bn (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/corporate_tax/table11_11.pdf, whilst
the additional funding Scotland gets each year from the Barnett Formula is estimated at £12bn.

So if we (wrongly) assume that all the oil and gas revenue generated is from Scottish territory, then it still leaves you with over £5.5bn more than us 'sour little Englanders'

Astrid Runa
Sunday, March 20th, 2011, 11:08 PM
It is in our business as were the one's paying for your free university education, free prescription charges etc etc

2009/10 The UK's revenue from oil and gas production was just over £6.4bn (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/corporate_tax/table11_11.pdf, whilst
the additional funding Scotland gets each year from the Barnett Formula is estimated at £12bn.

So if we (wrongly) assume that all the oil and gas revenue generated is from Scottish territory, then it still leaves you with over £5.5bn more than us 'sour little Englanders'

Oh I laughed so, so hard when I read this.
For a start, Education is a DEVOLVED power, which means the Scottish Parliament (yes, Parliament) have a say in Scottish Education. You don't pay for anything.

Second of all. Free prescription charges? Prescriptions are only free in Scotland if you're over 60 or under 16. Next argument, please.

It's not your money, it comes from the United Kingdom as a whole, and a part of it goes to Scotland, along with Wales and Northern Ireland.

You're also not taking into consideration tax revenue raised in Scotland paid into the Westminister treasury.

It IS Scotlands oil, mate.

Devils__Advocate
Sunday, March 20th, 2011, 11:39 PM
It IS Scotlands oil, mate.

How do you justify that in the knowledge that North Sea borders give a greater portion of the North Sea oil fields to England and the Shetland Isles than it does to Scotland?

If we lived in a fair and concise world, the issue of the North Sea oil fields contested in the British Isles would be over in one look at the historical borders.

Do you as a Scottish lass except these borders before political engineering, or do you wish to see Scotland take what is not rightfully theirs?

Astrid Runa
Sunday, March 27th, 2011, 11:33 PM
The historical borders, mate, were different to what they are now. Scotland used to be much larger than England, until Longshanks decided to shorten it a bit and make England bigger.

Angus
Sunday, March 27th, 2011, 11:50 PM
Yet more proof that he's not English.

Yet more proof that he's not Scottish.
You even confrimed this.
The Jew in him negates membership of any British ethnicity As of right now, Scotland is part of Great Britian. You're just contradicting yourself when you attempt to pass him off as a Scot.

Devils__Advocate
Monday, March 28th, 2011, 08:57 AM
The historical borders, mate, were different to what they are now. Scotland used to be much larger than England, until Longshanks decided to shorten it a bit and make England bigger.

The "historical borders" once contained a kingdom called 'Bernicia'.

Perhaps Scotland would be so kind as to return to England the land it stole.

Hamar Fox
Monday, March 28th, 2011, 10:56 AM
Yet more proof that he's not Scottish.
You even confrimed this. As of right now, Scotland is part of Great Britian. You're just contradicting yourself when you attempt to pass him off as a Scot.

LOL, just because I don't consider him a Scot doesn't mean that he doesn't consider himself a Scot, which he obviously does. So, anyway, I'm still waiting for an explanation of how Scotland is oh-so-oppressed, even though the last three PMs have been self-identifying Scots.


The historical borders, mate, were different to what they are now. Scotland used to be much larger than England, until Longshanks decided to shorten it a bit and make England bigger.

Eh? If you lost the land, then it's obviously no longer yours.

wat-tyler
Tuesday, March 29th, 2011, 04:43 PM
I want scotland to be independent, because I think England should be independent (+hopefully a republic ). But I dont buy this s**t about 'scotland's oil'. Sorry but it's not scotland's oil, it belongs to the united kingdom. if oil was found off the coast of yorkshire, it wouldn't be yorkshire's oil, it would belong to the whole of the UK.

The union with england has done a lot for Scotland (much more then they would care to admit). 'bought and sold for english gold' is a myth - scotland was a backwater of europe in 1707, economically - it was on it's knees. so they shouldn't be able to say we're going to **** off now theres some oil, that's not how it works


From my german and germanic point of view I would like to see the whole UK beeing dissolved and Scotland as well as England as separate states. The whole entity of the UK and its predecessors were an anti-germanic and anti-european entity that served mainly plutocratic interests. Furthermore do I think that a german and an english state wouldn't have had the conflicts that the British Empire and the German Empire actually had. This is also important for the future.


the UK was not anti-germanic, in fact the opposite. British-german alliances were the norm for almost 200 years, which is why their rivalry in the late 19th century and then conflict was so strange

Astrid Runa
Tuesday, March 29th, 2011, 08:49 PM
Sorry, but what would you, an Englishman, know about Scottish History exactly? Are you studying Scottish History currently, or have you?
Because my Grandad tells me that the "bought and sold for English gold" is true, that the Scots were indeed bribed.

Wræcca
Wednesday, March 30th, 2011, 12:07 AM
Yes the English aristocracy bribed the Scottish nobles into signing the treaty.

The point of the matter is that neither the average Englishman nor the average Scotsman had any say in the treaty ... if so both would have rejected it.

In response to your comment that Englishmen know nothing about Scottish history; well we know that every time the English army had been fighting overseas, you Scots would be planning an invansion or an alliance against us ;)

May I also ask why are you so bitter?

TXRog
Wednesday, March 30th, 2011, 02:07 AM
Scotland's legal system continues to be separate from those of England and Wales and Northern Ireland, and Scotland still constitutes a distinct jurisdiction in public and in private law.

The continued existence of legal, educational and religious institutions distinct from those in the remainder of the UK have all contributed to the continuation of Scottish culture and national identity since the Union.

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland)

Based on these facts, Scotland and its people (with whom I share Celtic roots - specifically Irish) should become independent.

Hammish
Wednesday, March 30th, 2011, 02:26 AM
Based on these facts, Scotland and its people (with whom I share Celtic roots - specifically Irish) should become independent.

Well, in my opinion, Scotland and England should throw off it''s Saxe-Coburg parasite oppressors and renew the republic that Oliver Cromwell started.

Not going to happen. though.

Even my Scottish Grandfather carried a picture of a Stuart royal (Mary) in his wallet all his living days.... and he spent most of his life in the US.

Those people are comfortable in their slavery... sort of like us, here in the US.

Zimobog
Wednesday, March 30th, 2011, 05:41 AM
Scotland, Ireland, and England independantly could have been easily conqured by a single enemy but together as the UK they stood unbeatable by outsiders. The loss of Ireland has weakened the UK and the loss of Scotland would weaken them further. I support the preservation of their unique cultures but their union has made them stronger than any one of them on it's own. They should resist the domination of the union by one part of it, but as monarchy only allows for one king it is unavoidable. If they were a democratic federal republic instead...:)

If they hadn't been as one, they could all be seperate parts of France, Germany, or even Spain today.

Hammish
Wednesday, March 30th, 2011, 06:05 AM
If they hadn't been as one, they could all be seperate parts of France, Germany, or even Spain today.

This last part intrigues me... could you elaborate upon it?

Devils__Advocate
Wednesday, March 30th, 2011, 04:45 PM
Because my Grandad tells me that the "bought and sold for English gold" is true, that the Scots were indeed bribed.

I'm afraid he was terribly wrong and it is an unfortunate lie which has been ignorantly perpetuated for centuries; to the detriment of Scottish Nationalism it seems.

Wræcca got it half right in correctly stating that neither Scots or English people had an input in the determination of their respective parliaments and national freedom. The suggestion that the English somehow bribed the Scottish to accept the Union is absolutely preposterous.

The Scottish parliamentarians who voted held pro-Union views, and extreme religious beliefs and political and economic values.
As to the actual accusation of a Scottish monarch sitting upon the throne of England, Queen Anne, actually bribing the Scottish parliament, well, that is quickly found out when one considers of the 30 MPs, at least 5 never voted and the only case of bribery was Lord Banff who was a Unionist anyway!

If I was Scottish, I'd stop blaming the English for the Union and start looking at the Scottish ministers who didn't care to sell Scotland down the river with only their wealth and religious and political values as the only consideration.

As for this: 'Bought and sold for English gold', that actually pre-dates the Union and refers to the Scottish failed Darien venture and was condemnation for the Scots ministers who supported it.

ArcticWarrior
Saturday, April 2nd, 2011, 03:03 AM
Scotland should be independent, without a doubt.

It's just a shame that the only separatist party is leftist...

Berrocscir
Sunday, April 3rd, 2011, 04:14 PM
But I dont buy this s**t about 'scotland's oil'. Sorry but it's not scotland's oil, it belongs to the united kingdom. if oil was found off the coast of yorkshire, it wouldn't be yorkshire's oil, it would belong to the whole of the UK.

If Scotland went independent (and I sincerely hope she does) Shetland could declare UDI and claim the oil :D

Linden
Sunday, April 3rd, 2011, 04:27 PM
All of the nations which currently form the United Kingdom should seek independence to preserve their national identity. The English, the Scots and the Welsh are all very different and have different needs. It seems almost laughable that they're all under the control of Westminster to a large degree.

GeordiePanGerman
Thursday, April 7th, 2011, 02:26 PM
I think that the Scottish independence movement is one of the most stupid sets of ideas there are today, we need to stay united if we hope to remain a serious competitor on the world stage. Without each other then we will be crushed by foreign power once and for all.

Berrocscir
Friday, April 8th, 2011, 07:52 PM
With respect, doesn't devolution down to the etno-nation, region and locale make it progressively more difficult for the NWO and the forces of globalisation to pursue their agenda/s? The greater the autonomy the harder it becomes.

Zimobog
Friday, April 8th, 2011, 08:15 PM
With respect, doesn't devolution down to the etno-nation, region and locale make it progressively more difficult for the NWO and the forces of globalisation to pursue their agenda/s? The greater the autonomy the harder it becomes.

No, because your neighbors may decide to go along and they will drag you along by weight of numbers.

The American experience during our conflict with the disunified tribal Amerinds was that federal unity (with respect to the importance of local control, rights of the states and the individual) of the confederation of American states was able to easily wipe out the Amerinds.

Confederations have existed in history to oppose tyrants and represent common interests. Defense is a common interest, as is trade. Like the tribes that made up early Rome or the Greek city-states, they found strength in union and became powerful from their unions.

Enemies of the UK have always tried to divide the nation to gain a foothold for their own goals of national expansion and conquest. Spain tried to invade Ireland, the French have meddled in Scotland constantly, but due to the unified strength of the UK they were unsuccessful.

There are problems for sure with that union because one part is able to dominate it and doesn't respect it's fellows, but their unity has kept their islands safe from invasion by European powers. Monarchy is difficult to justify because it places all powers of the government in one person. The form of British monarchy today makes some improvements but still allows for the dominiation of the English in the union and I believe that needs to be rectified to help heal the union and make Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, Man, and yes, even Ireland equal in this confederation.

The assumtion of English domination makes the problem, AFIAK. This is a problem in the monarchy.

Another good example of a how easy it is to conqure a disunifed England can be seen during the Saxon era, when the various local kings all had seperate and conflicting interest and wars within that made them vunerable to Norman and Norse invasion and domination.

Devils__Advocate
Saturday, April 9th, 2011, 12:59 AM
Enemies of the UK have always tried to divide the nation to gain a foothold for their own goals of national expansion and conquest. Spain tried to invade Ireland, the French have meddled in Scotland constantly, but due to the unified strength of the UK they were unsuccessful.

The enemies of England have attempted to barter some weak resistance to England territorially at home in order to weaken foreign expeditions.

Scotland's alliance with France was nothing more than a wisp in the willow to make England reconsider an invasion of France. A consideration never fully contemplated considering the vile nature of the French aristocracy towards a settlement like Scotland.

How many times has Scotland successfully called upon France's honour?


The form of British monarchy today makes some improvements but still allows for the dominiation of the English in the union and I believe that needs to be rectified to help heal the union and make Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, Man, and yes, even Ireland equal in this confederation.

:D Are you serious in this? Name me the last English monarch? Name me the time in our lifetime when the English have received a greater amount in tax than paid in?


The assumtion of English domination makes the problem, AFIAK. This is a problem in the monarchy.

Long live Queen Elizabeth II of German/Scotland - GB.


Another good example of a how easy it is to conqure a disunifed England can be seen during the Saxon era, when the various local kings all had seperate and conflicting interest and wars within that made them vunerable to Norman and Norse invasion and domination.

We English don't go by kings and local rulers anymore. We live in the year 2011 and have democratic elections every 4 years and by-elections as and when necessary.

To believe we English could be as disorganised as to fall under the nature of idiosyncratic rulers of the 5th and 6th century rulers is a pathetic excuse to admonish the rise of English nationalism.

Zimobog
Saturday, April 9th, 2011, 02:32 AM
Devil's Advocate, are you in favor of dissolving the UK in favor of an independant Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, England, etc or a union/confederation of free states, or something else?


To believe we English could be as disorganised as to fall under the nature of idiosyncratic rulers of the 5th and 6th century rulers is a pathetic excuse to admonish the rise of English nationalism.

I'm not admonishing English nationalism, I was replying to Berrosicir's statement:

With respect, doesn't devolution down to the etno-nation, region and locale make it progressively more difficult for the NWO and the forces of globalisation to pursue their agenda/s? The greater the autonomy the harder it becomes.

Disunity and decentralization of England is what allowed outsiders to impose their rule on your soil. Don't you agree?

Pictoria
Saturday, April 9th, 2011, 03:31 PM
We English don't go by kings and local rulers anymore. We live in the year 2011 and have democratic elections every 4 years and by-elections as and when necessary.



So what exactly are 'democratic elections' when all the selectable parties take the same stance on the most important issues?

Britain is in a diabolical state, and it is not due to the fact there is only one nation on the British Island.

Nevermore
Monday, April 25th, 2011, 06:40 PM
I do not support independence for Scotland. That would be like reversing Bismarck's unification of Germany. What needs changing is the leadership.

Duckelf
Wednesday, April 27th, 2011, 01:49 AM
No, I don't believe that Scottish independence would be good for our cause. The only party that even wants this, are leftists who love the EU and consider South Asian Muslims to be able to be 'Scottish' nationalists.

We are better united and the history that we have together is something beautiful that we cannot throw away. We need it defend it from our enemies, our enemies at the gate.

Mjollnir_bud
Wednesday, April 27th, 2011, 04:43 PM
It was a Scottish king that unified the two nations, I think England should get independence from Scotland :D

In all seriousness the future for Europe will be to unite as one nation, bickering over independence within Europe states will become irrelevant.

Ingvaeonic
Wednesday, April 27th, 2011, 11:27 PM
I think that Scotland should remain in the Union and exercise some autonomy within the Union. I think that England should have her own legislature and parliament--and any attempt by the EU to break up England into administrative or government "regions" ought to be resisted as much as possible. English nationalism has formed in recent years and this is the greatest threat to the Union, coupled with Scottish nationalism the Union might not last. Time will tell.

Akseli
Thursday, April 28th, 2011, 04:40 AM
It is in our business as were the one's paying for your free university education, free prescription charges etc etc

2009/10 The UK's revenue from oil and gas production was just over £6.4bn (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/corporate_tax/table11_11.pdf, whilst
the additional funding Scotland gets each year from the Barnett Formula is estimated at £12bn.

So if we (wrongly) assume that all the oil and gas revenue generated is from Scottish territory, then it still leaves you with over £5.5bn more than us 'sour little Englanders'
Yet you do not seem to mind paying for non whites education nor the advocation of them being in your venal little dominion while raping and changing your culture. Choose a homogeneous society over the mighty dollar bill Britain.

The Scottish and all true caucasians should totally ignore the "Tony Blairs" of this thread.

Remember William Wallace!

Zimobog
Thursday, April 28th, 2011, 06:01 PM
^
Yes, never forget how William Wallace traveled to France and begged the French and their allies to invade!

Hamar Fox
Thursday, April 28th, 2011, 06:50 PM
The Scottish and all true caucasians should totally ignore the "Tony Blairs" of this thread.

Remember William Wallace!

Given your heritage and subrace, you're probably the least Caucasian person in the thread. Oh, and Tony Blair is Scottish. Oops.

Thors Hammer
Wednesday, May 4th, 2011, 09:49 PM
I believe in a union, and if some English, Irish, Welsh, Scottish wanna complain let them, most will be happy or content, alot have the whole oppressed Jew and Negro thing going, yes in the past you have been treated like crap, get over it and move on, it was the capitalists not the English people! However I believe Scotland should have a big say in what happens in their country, so long as it doesn't badly affect the union, I believe they should have no say in what happens in England (unless it affects them), but they should have a say (how big depends on their contribution to the union) on British matters.


Ethnically, he's neither. The Jew in him negates membership of any British ethnicity. However, he has a Scottish surname and was born in Scotland. That's not English.
Being born in a country or even being raised in a country doesn't make you that ethnicity. Think of how many British were born during British Raj in India, would they be Indian? Erm no! The claim that where your born is what you are is what the mutliculturalists claim.



All Nations of our folk should all be Independent, it is what truly makes us great when we can be ourselves once again!!!:thumbup
So should certain parts or states of the UNITED states of America be split up then? As some parts are basically Irish areas, some are basically German areas, etc.

Hamar Fox
Thursday, May 5th, 2011, 09:15 AM
Being born in a country or even being raised in a country doesn't make you that ethnicity. Think of how many British were born during British Raj in India, would they be Indian? Erm no! The claim that where your born is what you are is what the mutliculturalists claim.


What are you talking about? He openly claimed Uralic heritage. He even placed it as his primary ancestry. He also claimed to be East Baltid, which is a partly Uralic (read: Mongoloid) subracial type.

Angus
Thursday, May 5th, 2011, 01:39 PM
What are you talking about? He openly claimed Uralic heritage. He even placed it as his primary ancestry. He also claimed to be East Baltid, which is a partly Uralic (read: Mongoloid) subracial type.

Cameron ? lol. Source?

I find it hard to believe that he'd even have a slim ammount of knowledge of subraces.

Wræcca
Thursday, May 5th, 2011, 05:43 PM
Cameron ? lol. Source?

I find it hard to believe that he'd even have a slim ammount of knowledge of subraces.

I'm guessing Hamar Fox was responding to the Finn, who rightfully said we shouldn't be fighting each other, whilst there are foreigners in our countries

Hamar Fox
Thursday, May 5th, 2011, 06:47 PM
I'm guessing Hamar Fox was responding to the Finn, who rightfully said we shouldn't be fighting each other, whilst there are foreigners in our countries

Actually, he said that real-white Scots should rise up against the English, who aren't real whites in his esteemed opinion. The supreme irony, of course, being that he himself wasn't anything close to being a 'real white' He also laughably called English people 'Tony Blairs', despite the fact that anyone who isn't mentally retarded would know TB is Scottish. He then added some trendy stuff about Braveheart, which is clearly what he solely based his knowldege on Scottish-English relations on. A very original character. I'm sad he's gone :(

Also, I think it was fairly obvious I was talking about the Finn and not David Cameron.

Angus
Thursday, May 5th, 2011, 06:58 PM
Also, I think it was fairly obvious I was talking about the Finn and not David Cameron.

No, not really. Thors Hammer quoted / replied to a post you made regarding Cameron.



Ethnically, he's neither. The Jew in him negates membership of any British ethnicity. However, he has a Scottish surname and was born in Scotland. That's not English.

Being born in a country or even being raised in a country doesn't make you that ethnicity. Think of how many British were born during British Raj in India, would they be Indian? Erm no! The claim that where your born is what you are is what the mutliculturalists claim.

Then your reply to Thors Hammer was talking about East Baltid subraces. The finn was never brought up. So yes, i think it was an easily made mistake thinking you were talking about Cameron ;)

Astrid Runa
Friday, May 6th, 2011, 09:14 PM
Well, looks like Scotland are one step closer to being independant. The SNP won the Scottish Elections.

I also have another little gem of information for you to digest. Did you know that Scotland has the second highest GDP, and that is only because money produced by work on the North Sea Oil goes through London. So, Scotland, as a country, is financially stable enough to infact become independant and have England leave us the Hell alone.

Start taking back your Nuclear weapons, citizens of England, because once Scotland go independant, we won't be wanting them.

Edgard
Friday, May 6th, 2011, 09:50 PM
Well, looks like Scotland are one step closer to being independant. The SNP won the Scottish Elections.

I also have another little gem of information for you to digest. Did you know that Scotland has the second highest GDP, and that is only because money produced by work on the North Sea Oil goes through London. So, Scotland, as a country, is financially stable enough to infact become independant and have England leave us the Hell alone.

Start taking back your Nuclear weapons, citizens of England, because once Scotland go independant, we won't be wanting them.

News flash about 1/2 of North sea oil would be in English waters. Its done up the longitudinal from the land and the UK is slanted at an angle. Oil is not just decided by how close to a shore it is, its far more complicated than that. Even if you got North sea oil you would be down about £10bn. Not to mention we now own your broke banks and their is no way we will be left footing all the bill wile you walk off. Even the Scottish Labour party worked out Scotland would be hard pushed to go it alone.

For some basic data look at this.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100010146/scotland-would-be-as-bust-as-iceland-if-it-had-been-independent/

I would LOVE Scotland to leave the union. We would be that much closer to being out of deficit not having to carry your socialist baggage. And as for the nuclear weapons we want them.

Wræcca
Friday, May 6th, 2011, 11:20 PM
Record numbers of foreign students and asylum seekers have seen Scotland’s population grow to its highest level for 33 years, a fact the Scottish “National” Party has described as “excellent”.

The country’s population now stands at 5.22 million after an influx of an official figure of 46,100 immigrants last year, the most since 1977.

The figures from the National Records of Scotland reported that there was a net migration of 3,400 from the United Kingdom, while the rest of the influx was due to those coming from overseas.

Scotland’s population has risen by 159,000 in the last decade, and last year’s increase is the highest since immigration figures were first recorded in 1991.

The largest net increases in immigrant population were recorded in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee. The statistics conclude that Scotland’s population has increased by 3.1 per cent since 2001, with immigration being the main reason.

Migrants have poured into Scotland since the expansion of the EU in 2004, and the number of people living in the country who were born abroad has increased by more than half in five years, to 312,000.

Migration Watch chairman Sir Andrew Green said Scotland’s population had been expected to rise by seven per cent over the next 25 years, but the new figures suggest this rate will double.

An SNP spokesman commended Scotland’s soaring immigration numbers, saying: “These are excellent figures, which mean a growing population will help fuel our economic recovery.”

After the SNP abolished tuition fees, the number of EU students in Scotland has risen to 15,930, almost double the figure a decade ago.

The government’s report echoes the warnings on the British National Party’s Scottish Parliament election leaflets, delivered last month, in which the Party stated that:

“Floods of East Europeans can, from 1st May, come to Scotland, sign on and each grab £250+ a week in benefits and housing. We say that local people should have the money and homes.”


Apparently Salmon wants Scotland to join the EU after it achieves independence (from Scottish ministers in Westminster).
Do you think this is a good idea Astrid Runa?

Hamar Fox
Friday, May 6th, 2011, 11:24 PM
I wish people would stop misspelling 'independent' in this thread.

I wonder if we could have a pact: If the Scots get their independence, they'll promise to stop whinging. It seems a naive hope, to be sure. Kind of like a nagging woman; once you do what she's been nagging you about all day, she just finds something else to give you earache over, or just nags that she's annoyed she had to nag you earlier. Of course, as I said before, whiners whine because they love whining, not because they have anything particular to whine about. I'd support Scottish independence like I'd support washing the dishes: simply to shut an annoying voice up. But, sadly, it'll only work temporarily, at best.

Edgard
Friday, May 6th, 2011, 11:46 PM
I wish people would stop misspelling 'independent' in this thread.

I wonder if we could have a pact: If the Scots get their independence, they'll promise to stop whinging. It seems a naive hope, to be sure. Kind of like a nagging woman; once you do what she's been nagging you about all day, she just finds something else to give you earache over, or just nags that she's annoyed she had to nag you earlier. Of course, as I said before, whiners whine because they love whining, not because they have anything particular to whine about. I'd support Scottish independence like I'd support washing the dishes: simply to shut an annoying voice up. But, sadly, it'll only work temporarily, at best.

Don't forget how much richer we would be without them :) Also don't forget that the immigration policy in the UK was a deliberate attack drawn up by Scots running the Liebor (Labour's more popular name) party who knew it would never effect their own constituency. Much better of without them.
I am sick of having their filth low socialism forced on us in the south using Scottish votes for polices that only effect England.

Angus
Saturday, May 7th, 2011, 03:31 AM
Of course, as I said before, whiners whine because they love whining, not because they have anything particular to whine about.

So why are you whinging your self about us Scots? You say you're sick of us Scots doing nothing but sitting on our arses and complaining, well i think you need to look at your self.

This whole bloody thread is filled with your own whinging and rantings about us Scots, Hamar. Last i checked that was not the topic ;). You insist we're all a lot of mere whiners, thats fine, but you need to look to your self and your fellow Englishmen. Its because of you lot that we have such reasons to "whine". We want a change; we want freedom.

Sigurd
Saturday, May 7th, 2011, 09:39 AM
I wish people would stop misspelling 'independent' in this thread.

...and I wish people would know their linguistic history well enough to distinguish true misspellings from etymologically permissible ones. The English word independent is first attested in the 1610s, following on from Italian independente (1590s) resp. French independant (1600s) which both predate the English documentation of the term.

It is in truth the independent which is the odd one out; obviously we have the word dependent documented as an alternative spelling for dependant! So if the variant dependant is permissible not only as a noun, but also as an adjective --- so is independant a permissible option (or at least should be), albeit a very unorthodox one; such would at least be my suggestion.

Know first, speak second, my friend. ;)

Edgard
Saturday, May 7th, 2011, 09:39 AM
We want a change; we want freedom.

So do we from you. PLEASE vote for independence. I am really happy for Scotland to stand on its own feet. I don't dislike Scottish people but I am sick of the English getting blamed for everything and anything wile footing all the bills. We are all in the EU the only change is you will only have yourself to blame or to thank so for god's sake go.

If you don't want to go take a vote and vote no to independence and then shut up with the talk of the old enemy. We are sick of hearing about it. Scotland is free, sadly it likes to pretend its not. NOTHING is stopping you voting for a referendum and it looks like with the SNP you should get one so please take your vote and end this really irritating rubbish. If you don't go make that the end of it. If you do, good luck and have fun we will still buy your whisky and go on holiday in the highlands.

Hamar Fox
Saturday, May 7th, 2011, 09:55 AM
...and I wish people would know their linguistic history well enough to distinguish true misspellings from etymologically permissible ones. The English word independent is first attested in the 1610s, following on from Italian independente (1590s) resp. French independant (1600s) which both predate the English documentation of the term.

It is in truth the independent which is the odd one out; obviously we have the word dependent documented as an alternative spelling for dependant! So if the variant dependant is permissible not only as a noun, but also as an adjective --- so is independant a permissible option (or at least should be), albeit a very unorthodox one; such would at least be my suggestion.

Know first, speak second, my friend. ;)

LOL, so much effort to justify an obvious misspelling. Quite sad really. Let's check an English dictionary and see if the spelling 'independant' is listed as a valid alternative to 'independent'. Get back to me when you find it.

Pictoria
Saturday, May 7th, 2011, 10:06 AM
What is sad is all these so called 'patriots' promoting the break-up of their great nation!

IGNORANCE, SELFISHNESS & GREED.

That is what drives Scottish 'Nationalism'.

Scotland is to Britain what Bavaria was to Germany.

What do these morons think will come of independance?! Oh, once the SNP have separated Scotland from the UK (and gifted it to the EU - as they have admitted they will) they'll boot out all the foreign races and mongrels! No they won't!

I think some people here have simply watched Braveheart too many times (a film that was made to demonise the great King Edward I).

Edgard
Saturday, May 7th, 2011, 10:19 AM
What is sad is all these so called 'patriots' promoting the break-up of their great nation!

IGNORANCE, SELFISHNESS & GREED.

That is what drives Scottish 'Nationalism'.

Scotland is to Britain what Bavaria was to Germany.

What do these morons think will come of independance?! Oh, once the SNP have separated Scotland from the UK (and gifted it to the EU - as they have admitted they will) they'll boot out all the foreign races and mongrels! No they won't!

I think some people here have simply watched Braveheart too many times (a film that was made to demonise the great King Edward I).

The Scots wont vote for independence anyway they know its not in their interest. I just think we need to economically and politically rebalance the UK to make it fair. So far the Scots have to much leverage on England only issues. Scotland needs to move away from Socialism but I don't see that happening wile they can tap English tax payers for funds. Scotland out or Scotland taking responsibility for its productivity. I really want Scotland strong and productive as they are a closely related people to the English.

You are right the SNP would flood Scotland with migrants to try and boost the economy so Scotland would tern brow.

RoyBatty
Saturday, May 7th, 2011, 10:35 AM
So why are you whinging your self about us Scots? You say you're sick of us Scots doing nothing but sitting on our arses and complaining, well i think you need to look at your self.

This whole bloody thread is filled with your own whinging and rantings about us Scots, Hamar. Last i checked that was not the topic ;). You insist we're all a lot of mere whiners, thats fine, but you need to look to your self and your fellow Englishmen. Its because of you lot that we have such reasons to "whine". We want a change; we want freedom.

Thing is "we" (ie those of us in England) don't have much against Scotland or the Scots but it's been fairly obvious for some years now that hating on the "English oppressors and exploiters" has become the national sport up in Scotland.

Scots simply whine about the English because they can. Therefore they do. Endlessly.

It's no skin off our backs (I'm referring to the average Joe Bloggs, not the plutocracy) if Scotland were to gain its "independence". You'll only be deluding yourselves into believing you were "independent" anyway since you'll be joining the EU no doubt. That in turn will make you about as "independent" as Montenegro (once it joins) or Slovakia.

What we find so utterly annoying is the fact that Scots are forever yapping about their "independence from the hated oppressors" yet they don't vote for it and just go. Honestly, do you lot really think that we (average locals in England) want to keep you in a forced Union whilst our services are being cut to the bone yet Scotland's are generously provided for? That we had to stump up billions to bail out Scottish financial disasters, mismanagement and fraud? That we wanted clowns like Brown thrust upon us? Granted, the voters were dumb enough to elect Bliar..... sadly

There are no hard feelings and "hate" etc from the South but it would be nice to just put this episode to rest. Vote for and take your independence, say goodbye and re-attach yourselves again to your EU master. It will of course make a mockery of all the independence talk but at least you lot will believe that you're free now and as long as you believe it Scotland can finally be "happy" and stop hating on us evil Englanders.

:thumbup

Astrid Runa
Saturday, May 7th, 2011, 11:34 AM
The Scots wont vote for independence anyway they know its not in their interest. I just think we need to economically and politically rebalance the UK to make it fair. So far the Scots have to much leverage on England only issues. Scotland needs to move away from Socialism but I don't see that happening wile they can tap English tax payers for funds. Scotland out or Scotland taking responsibility for its productivity. I really want Scotland strong and productive as they are a closely related people to the English.

You are right the SNP would flood Scotland with migrants to try and boost the economy so Scotland would tern brow.

We have too much influence over English matters? The Hell we do. I didn't sit through five years of Modern studies to be told by some twonk that Scotland have influence over reserved matters.
England have too much influence over Scottish matters, mate. That's why we Scots want independance. So we can make our own decisions and not have England tell us what we can and cannot do with OUR country. We want Political and Financial independance.
And here's something that really irks me. If you English hate us so much, then why not let us go? Oh yeah, that's why. You need us. If you didn't need us, you would have given us Independance long ago. :D

Hamar Fox
Saturday, May 7th, 2011, 11:44 AM
If the Scots want independence then they need to cross the lake and take it with force. There is no threat from the UK except "no health plan". Give them a Glasgow grin if you so desire, but exploit merit because you will not inherit the freedom!

I love how foreigners keep butting in with their absolute zero knowledge of the issue. It's also interesting that they always take the Scots' side too. I bet they also think they're really original and cutting, when they're just little trend-humping clones. Inciting violence against a Germanic people is surely against the rules too.

Btw, what lake?


And here's something that really irks me. If you English hate us so much, then why not let us go? Oh yeah, that's why. You need us. If you didn't need us, you would have given us Independance long ago. :D

He said English people don't hate the Scots. All the Scots I've known have been pretty sound people. They've only recently jumped on the ol' Jew train of self-pity. There's been a violin playing throughout this entire thread that kind of just makes me want to gag a little bit. Despite what sdome outside know-nothings in this thread have claimed, we both know there's been no efforts by the English in the last few centuries to keep them in a union they wished to leave.

I think the whole Scottish situation is a classic case of rejection-rationalisation. Like some hurt nerd trying to rationalise why a girl won't pay him any mind. He'll tell himself she wants to be hurtful, she's talking about him behind his back, she's shallow, she's evil etc., when the truth is, she's never even noticed him before. Scotland is hurt that England doesn't notice it, but admitting that truth would be too bitter a pill to swallow. Instead, you'd rather believe there's some great conspiracy to steal your oil and haggis. You want -- nay, need -- to believe we think about you as much as you think about us. But we don't.

Edgard
Saturday, May 7th, 2011, 12:00 PM
We have too much influence over English matters? The Hell we do. I didn't sit through five years of Modern studies to be told by some twonk that Scotland have influence over reserved matters.
England have too much influence over Scottish matters, mate. That's why we Scots want independance. So we can make our own decisions and not have England tell us what we can and cannot do with OUR country. We want Political and Financial independance.
And here's something that really irks me. If you English hate us so much, then why not let us go? Oh yeah, that's why. You need us. If you didn't need us, you would have given us Independance long ago. :D

JUST VOTE TO GO! Nobody is stopping you. You just need support from other Scots.

"five years of Modern studies" fun times, sociology? Would this by the same sort of qualification that mad Gordon Brown a financial expert?

Really if Scotland can get the its voters to vote out of the union they are out the union. The English are not stopping you.

"We have too much influence over English matters? The Hell we do"

Ever heard of the west lothian question? Scottish MPs vote on matters that due to your parliament have no effect on their Scottish constituents. How is that fair? Scotland also returns more MPs per head of population than anywhere in England so it is over represented in parliament. How is that fair?
The UK spend an additional £2,600 per head of Scottish population over what Scotland provides in taxation. Is that fair? No university fees for Scottish students but the English pay. How is that fair? More spending on health and education per head than in England. How is that fair.

How are we stopping you from leaving the union? The SNP have a majority in the Scottish assembly. Vote for a referendum, hold the referendum then go. Simple.

Hamar Fox
Saturday, May 7th, 2011, 12:17 PM
"The Lake"...it is an expression, over your head I gather...but I notice the same dichotomy of "taking sides" lies amongst the natives as well.

Your intellect towers above me. It wouldn't surprise me if you confused Scotland and Ireland, and were referring to the Irish Sea as 'the lake'.


...and no, I do not incite violence against anyone Germanic, (If I can remember the last time the Brits acted Germanic) and I do not support fratricidal wars. Wars that England has supported.

"Give them a Glasgow grin if you so desire"

You might want to work on that memory of yours. Next...

RoyBatty
Saturday, May 7th, 2011, 12:49 PM
We have too much influence over English matters? The Hell we do. I didn't sit through five years of Modern studies to be told by some twonk that Scotland have influence over reserved matters.
England have too much influence over Scottish matters, mate.


Read Edgard's post again. Scotland in effect has a say in English politics whilst England doesn't have one in Scottish politics. It's a bizarre arrangement which makes little sense to us. For crying out loud, England doesn't even have its own Parliament like Scotland and Wales do!!

The mere mention of representation for the English earns one a swift clip around the ear from the PC Press and perhaps even accusations of "racism" from the usual suspects.


That's why we Scots want independance.

Spellink


So we can make our own decisions and not have England tell us what we can and cannot do with OUR country. We want Political and Financial independance.


How naive you are if you honestly believe that you'll magically become "free and independent" outside of the UK yet inside the EU. It makes about as much sense as buying knives for the local Neds so they can come mug you the next day.



And here's something that really irks me. If you English hate us so much, then why not let us go? Oh yeah, that's why. You need us. If you didn't need us, you would have given us Independance long ago. :D

We don't hate you at all. We're reacting against the increasingly hysterical anti-English rhetoric emanating from Jockland. We're being viewed as the "bad guys" "oppressing" "poor little Scotland".

As we've said many times, we ie "the people" have no desire to "rob you of your wealth" or "keep you against your will" or "tell you how to live". In fact, we'd like to be FREE ourselves from the mafia which runs the UK, EU and our lives!

By all means, please, just go get your fellow Scots to vote for your "freedom" and "independence" (an illusion btw) and best of luck to us all. :)

Just stop whining about us "Hating and Oppressing" you lot, we'd happily send you on your merry way.

Don't blame the English, blame the Plutocracy.

Hamar Fox
Saturday, May 7th, 2011, 02:32 PM
The English are NOT people who strive for greatness

This is true. We've never striven for greatness. It's always come naturally.


The English have, by the skin of their teeth and the stiffness of their lip, managed to turn what might have been a deforming fault into their defining virtue, but it still doesn’t make them loveable.

Aww, does this mean we can't be friends? :~(

Edit: I missed this worthless drivel until now:


Memory is just fine, check your water though...or blood. Also "If you so desire" Ie, if you want to. Don't they have common sense there at least?

They could choose to do lots of things. Why not list every single thing they could or couldn't do? Why not list a bunch of possibilities, such as "Cross the lake, and eat a slice of cheese, if you so desire" or "Cross the lake and find an octopus, and put the octupus over your face and run around naked wearing the octopus as a mask, if you so desire"? You see, the reason you mentioned giving English people a 'Glasgow grin' and not the other two things I listed is, fairly obviously, that you were recommending that particular course of action. Common sense.


I do not dictate what people do and I did not realize that it would scare you like that

I can't deny it. I'm really scared some Scottish person will read your post and it will motivate him to give someone a Glasgow grin, a someone who just happens to be me -- by pure chance. I'm terrified.


so...all Scots and the Scotch as well, be nice to the Brits, unless of course provoked, alright. There, is that better Hamar?

Not really. It was almost better, but then you did something stupid, like showed you don't know what the word 'Brits' actually means. And he here I was considering you an authority on England and Scotland. You deceived us all.

Edgard
Saturday, May 7th, 2011, 06:14 PM
The English are NOT people who strive for greatness, they are driven to it by a flaming irritation. It was anger that built the ol Industrial Age, which forged expeditions of discovery. It was the need for self-control that found an outlet in cataloguing, litigating and ordering the natural world. It was the blind fury with imprecise and stubborn inanimate objects that created generations of so called engineers and inventors. It was the anger at sin and unfairness that forged their particular earth-bound, pedantic spirituality and their undesired spittle-flecked politics.

The reason the English disband their forces with reckless haste after wars right? Because why won’t they allow their soldiers to walk around in uniform, why is there so little state-sponsored glorification of battle, it is because they know where it leads

The English have, by the skin of their teeth and the stiffness of their lip, managed to turn what might have been a deforming fault into their defining virtue, but it still doesn’t make them loveable.

Maybe some of this is true. We English need to lose are rag. The world would take notice if we got really angry and stop pushing us. When I was young I had terrible rages that where beyond any control and even adults would fear it. Now I never get angry like that. I think that we go to far in modern England in repressing that natural rage that lends us strength.

As for the topic of Scotland I don't know how this fits? We don't hate them, we hardly even know their there when they are not going on at us. I am not surprised the SNP have declined to have a vote on independence in the near future sadly they would lose it. Most English are happy for Scotland to do what ever it likes as long as they take their hands out of our pockets and stop bugging us. I don't see what that has to do with raging English aggression, we save that for war with enemies not slightly irritating friend across the border. We like the Scottish.

RoyBatty
Sunday, May 8th, 2011, 03:22 PM
And Edgard, I understand about the anger and tantrums, I do, but if you are the only Englishman prepared to "RISE UP" so to speak and stretch out his "longarm of the law" as well as admit to your nation's follies, then what does it say about your fellow countrymen?

Perhaps you expect us to act like your countrymen & leaders? I have no words...... :D

Better you don't try to get too clever with us, sunshine.

http://www.tilgivelse.dk/probl_disp/images/terrorkrigen.jpg

While the Danish right wing today criticizes Islamic fundamentalists there was a time when the very same wing helped to support the Islamic fundamentalist movement in Afghanistan. Lars Lokke Rasmussen (V) delivered together with Kjaersgaard DKK 600,000 to Osama bin Laden and his men in Afghanistan, the 1988th

Hamar Fox
Sunday, May 8th, 2011, 04:26 PM
You are very WEIRD man, seriously, I will not even attempt to give a intellectual rebuttal to your sickening sentences!

Probably intended as an insult, but I can't think of a better compliment, to be honest. Another thing that's weird is that when I checked this thread this morning, your post wasn't here. Now I check back and see you posted this 16 hours ago. A similar thing happened in this thread yesterday. How unusual.


Oh yeah, I am Danish and Prussian...guess your mongoloid theory went to hell hamar! And I guess I will have to rely on Edgard to give me any intelligent debate on such things.

Neither Danes nor Prussians have ancestry in 'far northern regions'. The only people in the world who have far northern ancestry are Inuits, Lapps and various Uralic Siberians.

Sigurd
Sunday, May 8th, 2011, 04:59 PM
Scotland is to Britain what Bavaria was to Germany.

As an Austro-Bavarian I'd like you to clarify what you mean by this statement, please. :)


What do these morons think will come of independance?! Oh, once the SNP have separated Scotland from the UK (and gifted it to the EU - as they have admitted they will) they'll boot out all the foreign races and mongrels! No they won't!

Constitutional framework =/= public policy. Scottish independance wouldn't solve any more problems of everyday life than Austrian accession to Germany would, still it is a matter of identity; in fact, one'd find fairly soon that the main reasons why Scotland might be independent are for safeguarding of identity, whilst the main reason why they may stick within the Union are largely of an economic and/or political nature. ;)


"five years of Modern studies" fun times, sociology? Would this by the same sort of qualification that mad Gordon Brown a financial expert?

Modern Studies was basically "propaganda studies" as far as I'm concerned and as far as I recall from the four years of Modern Studies I attended (slipping from a Standard Grade 1 to a Higher C in the process as I became more vocally critical of what was taught and put that through the examination paper as well).

However, one also learnt about the constitutional and legal framework, and as someone who has sat not only through four years of Modern Studies, but also through four years of Law School, I will have to inform you that Astrid Runa is every bit correct in her mention of Scotland having very little say over its own matters. You also see that by looking at the small amount and nature/content of Acts of Scottish Parliament.

Most Scottish matters are still legislated from Westminster, the main reason why the law in Scotland is so different from that in England & Wales is because the Scottish legal system was preserved and protected in the Acts of Union, so many Acts of Parliament will extend their scope to only England & Wales, or to only Scotland to take account of differing legal and indeed quasi-constitutional traditions.


Really if Scotland can get the its voters to vote out of the union they are out the union. The English are not stopping you.

Believe it or not, but Scotland is not able to declare unilateral independence. An Act of Independence passed by Westminster would, as far as I am aware, still be necessary. As such, the English would actually be able to stop the Scots, that being by blocking such a bill in the Commons. :shrug


Ever heard of the west lothian question? Scottish MPs vote on matters that due to your parliament have no effect on their Scottish constituents. How is that fair?

English MPs also vote on some matters that have ridiculously little effect on England, but pertain solely to Scotland and/or Northern Ireland: as per Section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998, stating that legislative powers of the SP do "[...]not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland".

The better question would be: Why was there only a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh resp. Northern Irish Assembly established, but not an English parliament? Well, take that back to devolution as a political move by Labour and a short-sighted one at that. Essentially, it can only be full membership of the Union or full independence, quasi-autonomy is --- as we have seen the last 14 years --- detrimental to all parties involved. ;)


Scotland also returns more MPs per head of population than anywhere in England so it is over represented in parliament. How is that fair?

Where have you lived the past six or seven years, the moon? That used to be the case, however with your most recent reduction of constituencies from 659 to 646 --- that was Scotland's constituencies going down from 72 to 59 to deal with that issue, this reduction was in effect even ahead of the 2005 General Election. :oanieyes


The UK spend an additional £2,600 per head of Scottish population over what Scotland provides in taxation. Is that fair?

That is fair, considering the 1997 referendum had a majority who elected that a Scottish Parliament should have tax-altering powers up to a certain percentage different from that from the rest of the UK. This wasn't some Westminster or Holyrood snob deciding this, that was the population.


No university fees for Scottish students but the English pay. How is that fair? More spending on health and education per head than in England. How is that fair.

The education system as independent was protected in the Acts of Union. Anything else derives from such a tradition. Blame those 300 years ago for this one. As regards a greater spending on health & education, that is only positive.

As goes for not having to pay tuition fees under certain circumstances (speedy completion of the degree, no changing of degrees after a certain time, etc.), that can also be deemed as nothing but positive: If we call ourselves Folkish, then enabling education to people from all classes of the folk is our prime interest (f. ex. as Hitler did with enabling every child free and compulsory schooling, a situation that persists).

Is it a problem for you that the Scots have better health care? That the Scots have easier access to education? --- That can only be a sign of envy, but you shouldn't be cross at the Scots for this situation, you should be cross at your government and your system for this: Being envious of those who have it better is an ill advisor, the better advisor is to become active to enable to have a same standard for your own people that you've seen elsewhere. ;)


How are we stopping you from leaving the union? The SNP have a majority in the Scottish assembly. Vote for a referendum, hold the referendum then go. Simple.

See what I said above. A referendum is but a referendum. We had referenda in Tyrol and Salzburg in 1919-20 in which more than 98% voted to join Germany; but because the terms of the post-WWI treaties forbid us, we couldn't.

Holding a referendum is one step, but the other side also has to respect the outcome of the referendum and pass a law that allows for independence to make it effective. Technically the English could stop the Scots from leaving the Union simply by having more MPs in Westminster even if every single Scot voted for independence. ;)

Edgard
Sunday, May 8th, 2011, 05:00 PM
And Edgard, I understand about the anger and tantrums, I do, but if you are the only Englishman prepared to "RISE UP" so to speak and stretch out his "longarm of the law" as well as admit to your nation's follies, then what does it say about your fellow countrymen?

We are not all obsessed with money but the cost of living is high in proportion to wages so we have to work a lot. As for the English man rising up it wont need to by a physical struggle but we have to cut his bonds first and take of his blind fold. Most people only know what they are told by the news and in school and we have 60 years of propaganda to undo. To much Marxism.

For this struggle we need all of the UK on board as otherwise we will not be able to change the political map. Sadly the Scots still cling to unfunded socialism as if it where a good thing which I guess it must seem when your not paying for it. Although you would think the Scots would see how it is damaging them and stopping them living up to their high potential.

I really want to see Scotland a dynamic place that sees the danger we are all in and stands with us. They can do this in or out of the Union its up to them but they need to man up.

Edgard
Sunday, May 8th, 2011, 05:26 PM
As an Austro-Bavarian I'd like you to clarify what you mean by this statement, please. :)



Constitutional framework =/= public policy. Scottish independance wouldn't solve any more problems of everyday life than Austrian accession to Germany would, still it is a matter of identity; in fact, one'd find fairly soon that the main reasons why Scotland might be independent are for safeguarding of identity, whilst the main reason why they may stick within the Union are largely of an economic and/or political nature. ;)



Modern Studies was basically "propaganda studies" as far as I'm concerned and as far as I recall from the four years of Modern Studies I attended (slipping from a Standard Grade 1 to a Higher C in the process as I became more vocally critical of what was taught and put that through the examination paper as well).

However, one also learnt about the constitutional and legal framework, and as someone who has sat not only through four years of Modern Studies, but also through four years of Law School, I will have to inform you that Astrid Runa is every bit correct in her mention of Scotland having very little say over its own matters. You also see that by looking at the small amount and nature/content of Acts of Scottish Parliament.

Most Scottish matters are still legislated from Westminster, the main reason why the law in Scotland is so different from that in England & Wales is because the Scottish legal system was preserved and protected in the Acts of Union, so many Acts of Parliament will extend their scope to only England & Wales, or to only Scotland to take account of differing legal and indeed quasi-constitutional traditions.



Believe it or not, but Scotland is not able to declare unilateral independence. An Act of Independence passed by Westminster would, as far as I am aware, still be necessary. As such, the English would actually be able to stop the Scots, that being by blocking such a bill in the Commons. :shrug



English MPs also vote on some matters that have ridiculously little effect on England, but pertain solely to Scotland and/or Northern Ireland: as per Section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998, stating that legislative powers of the SP do "[...]not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland".

The better question would be: Why was there only a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh resp. Northern Irish Assembly established, but not an English parliament? Well, take that back to devolution as a political move by Labour and a short-sighted one at that. Essentially, it can only be full membership of the Union or full independence, quasi-autonomy is --- as we have seen the last 14 years --- detrimental to all parties involved. ;)



Where have you lived the past six or seven years, the moon? That used to be the case, however with your most recent reduction of constituencies from 659 to 646 --- that was Scotland's constituencies going down from 72 to 59 to deal with that issue, this reduction was in effect even ahead of the 2005 General Election. :oanieyes



That is fair, considering the 1997 referendum had a majority who elected that a Scottish Parliament should have tax-altering powers up to a certain percentage different from that from the rest of the UK. This wasn't some Westminster or Holyrood snob deciding this, that was the population.



The education system as independent was protected in the Acts of Union. Anything else derives from such a tradition. Blame those 300 years ago for this one. As regards a greater spending on health & education, that is only positive.

As goes for not having to pay tuition fees under certain circumstances (speedy completion of the degree, no changing of degrees after a certain time, etc.), that can also be deemed as nothing but positive: If we call ourselves Folkish, then enabling education to people from all classes of the folk is our prime interest (f. ex. as Hitler did with enabling every child free and compulsory schooling, a situation that persists).

Is it a problem for you that the Scots have better health care? That the Scots have easier access to education? --- That can only be a sign of envy, but you shouldn't be cross at the Scots for this situation, you should be cross at your government and your system for this: Being envious of those who have it better is an ill advisor, the better advisor is to become active to enable to have a same standard for your own people that you've seen elsewhere. ;)



See what I said above. A referendum is but a referendum. We had referenda in Tyrol and Salzburg in 1919-20 in which more than 98% voted to join Germany; but because the terms of the post-WWI treaties forbid us, we couldn't.

Holding a referendum is one step, but the other side also has to respect the outcome of the referendum and pass a law that allows for independence to make it effective. Technically the English could stop the Scots from leaving the Union simply by having more MPs in Westminster even if every single Scot voted for independence. ;)

Good rebuttal however I still disagree. I am well aware of this as power devolved is still power from parliament as the representative of the Queen and so ultimately they could overall anything done in any other body in the UK or Europe that effects any matter within the UK and maybe beyond in some cases due to the Queens unique position. However if Scotland where to cast a vote for independence it is generally accepted that no UK government could politically resist them as this would be unacceptable to the UK electorate and in opposition to the will of the people. Also their is president for plebiscites on independence being honoured even on matters of sovereignty. Take New Zealand as an example. Given precedent it would be unprecedented to go against the will of the Scotis people if a referendum demanded independence although possibly if the turn out was very low this could be argued over. I don't think most English MPs would stand to see Scotland cheated like this even if that was the party line the whips wanted them to follow.

I still think there are to many Scottish MPs per head of population after the 2005 reform. Scotland and Wales have on average 5,000 fewer voters per constituency than England. I took the figures from this.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article7096501.ece

As for English voting although there may be times English MPs vote on exclusiveness Scottish issues I cant recall any. Do you have examples?

As for tuition fees the point is that the Scots get more per head of population spent on them out of central UK funds before additional assembly tax adjustments so its still a case of us paying for it.

http://www.thecep.org.uk/in-depth/england-disadvantaged/

I am not against English tuition feels although I would prefer less people going to university and no feels. It was New Labours mad target of 50% educated to university level that left such a large gap in funding.


As for a English parliament I doubt they would give us one as it would be a direct, overwhelming and legitimate challenge to the UK parliament on almost any issue you could think of.

Hamar Fox
Sunday, May 8th, 2011, 07:48 PM
We are not all obsessed with money but the cost of living is high in proportion to wages so we have to work a lot. As for the English man rising up it wont need to by a physical struggle but we have to cut his bonds first and take of his blind fold. Most people only know what they are told by the news and in school and we have 60 years of propaganda to undo. To much Marxism.

For this struggle we need all of the UK on board as otherwise we will not be able to change the political map. Sadly the Scots still cling to unfunded socialism as if it where a good thing which I guess it must seem when your not paying for it. Although you would think the Scots would see how it is damaging them and stopping them living up to their high potential.

I really want to see Scotland a dynamic place that sees the danger we are all in and stands with us. They can do this in or out of the Union its up to them but they need to man up.

As I originally suspected -- and his new avatar confirms -- he just ripped his opinion of the English from a few aphorisms he read in Beyond Good and Evil. He clearly has only second-hand knowledge, if it can even be called knowledge, on Britain. He doesn't even know the difference between 'British' and 'English'. By wasting time seriously trying to show he's wrong, you're crediting him far more than he deserves, acting as though his opinion matters -- which obviously it doesn't. Treating him as an equal will only encourage him to believe he's an equal, which is unfair, because when this illusion inevitably breaks, unable to sustain his life's many failings, a little part of him will die inside and it'll be partly your fault.

Edgard
Sunday, May 8th, 2011, 08:56 PM
As I originally suspected -- and his new avatar confirms -- he just ripped his opinion of the English from a few aphorisms he read in Beyond Good and Evil. He clearly has only second-hand knowledge, if it can even be called knowledge, on Britain. He doesn't even know the difference between 'British' and 'English'. By wasting time seriously trying to show he's wrong, you're crediting him far more than he deserves, acting as though his opinion matters -- which obviously it doesn't. Treating him as an equal will only encourage him to believe he's an equal, which is unfair, because when this illusion inevitably breaks, unable to sustain his life's many failings, a little part of him will die inside and it'll be partly your fault.

Lol, he is some what ill informed. Almost like an American talking about Northern Ireland.

As you said its not an equal discussion, equality is just an illusion for people who want to be fooled. Still I would rather educate than ignore and alienate as Germanic peoples need to get along and forge a common agenda.

I have to say the fact people on this forum have seen through the equality illusion is one of the things I like about it most.

Angus
Monday, May 9th, 2011, 03:40 PM
Hamar and HyperboreanBlood, the last few pages have been nothing more than a pissing contest between the two of you. The off topic posts have been deleted. In the future, please stick to the topic of the thread.

Thanks. ;)

Welfing
Friday, September 2nd, 2011, 01:10 AM
Today, in time of The System, I must say, that Scotland The Brave has to be a free and independent kingdom.
But I know - and you all should know - that all white people of all the world are comming from one white origin folk, which incloudes all Celtic, all Germanic and all Baltic folks of all the world.
This - Our white origin folk is a separate species of human being, of mankind and the oliest folk in of this onliest white species all over the world.
We are living in the end-time! We are the generation, who takes part in the last chapter of the apokalypse, which will conduct together all parts of our white origin folk.
We have to found an New Rich (Reich/Empire) for all parts of our white origin folk, which has been send in this word to bring the Light of GOD all over the people here.
This Rich will be the rear Thousend-Years-Rich of the Golden Age.
Therefore we have to fight, to blood, to die and to live together all over the time in all future.

I beg your pardon for my bad english, coming from school-time more than 35 years ago.
Thank you!

WELFING

Caoimhe
Saturday, September 3rd, 2011, 12:09 AM
Why? England and Scotland share great history together and need each other in this troubled world. So why not try a federal or confederal state first before rushing into secession?

Speak to 5 million Scots and ask what they think. At best, they dislike the English and I can't say I blame them.

Hamar Fox
Saturday, September 3rd, 2011, 09:25 AM
Speak to 5 million Scots and ask what they think. At best, they dislike the English and I can't say I blame them.

Any particular reason?

Caoimhe
Saturday, September 3rd, 2011, 11:59 AM
Any particular reason?

How many reasons do you want? :D The Highland Clearances is one that springs to mind. Death of a culture.

Ingvaeonic
Saturday, September 3rd, 2011, 01:58 PM
Has Scotland done so badly out of the Union in modern times? Personally, I think dissolving the United Kingdom as a multi-national, unitary state would be a mistake. Having said that, matters such as the West Lothian Question ought to be resolved in the interests of a better Union. An English parliament might well be a step in the right direction.

Hamar Fox
Saturday, September 3rd, 2011, 05:30 PM
How many reasons do you want? :D The Highland Clearances is one that springs to mind. Death of a culture.

One will do. Still waiting.

Edie
Saturday, September 3rd, 2011, 10:07 PM
How many reasons do you want? :D The Highland Clearances is one that springs to mind. Death of a culture.

It is important to remember that the monarchy was and is nominally British and has been since the Crowns were united in 1603 under, of course, a Scottish king. The Act of Union in 1707 moreover brought the parliaments of England and Scotland into accord. To lay the blame for the Clearances solely on English shoulders is therefore erroneous from the start. More to the point, the Anglo-Scot-Norman London elite that sought to push out the Highland communities and replace them with sheep for a quick profit is the same elite that seeks now to clear us out and turn our country into another limb of the globalist money machine. It is not now, and nor was it ever English oppressing Scottish: it is the powerful engineering the lives of the powerless.

But Scots have denuded themselves of their power in the popular imagination and sneaked into the lineup of the aggrieved. The Lowland political class's stroke of genius was to associate southern Scots along ethnic lines with the Highlanders and, consequently, with the Irish. Not only does it exculpate them from unfavourably received episodes of British history in which they played a pivotal role (namely empire building and the slave trade -- and of course the Clearances), it enables them actively to assume the victim status of the Celts and from that standpoint to join in the sanctimonious punishing of the English. This subversive strain in the Scottish intellectual character (that being distinct from the manipulable masses who lap up the victim brew and vote accordingly) quite justifies an analogy with a certain other group which goes beyond the economic prowess they share.

Although the romantic imagination paints the Clearances as the 'English' monarchy's reaction to Jacobitism, they were more accurately an outgrowth of the economic march of progress which brought an agricultural revolution to all Britain, and which affected the Scottish lowlands and England as well. In the Highlands, traditional croft farmers were pushed out in favour of Lowland investments in the land. Many of the brutal evictions were actually carried out by London-based Highland lairds bewitched by southern money. But I suppose people would prefer it if the persecutor in every instance looked like the Duke of Wellington and had the crofters' houses burnt down with a patrician nod of the head as he rode blithely away.

"The Lowlander has inherited the hills and the tartan is a shroud"
John Prebble, The Highland Clearances

In England, many rural English peasants were similarly persecuted by Th'inglish when their subsistence farming was squeezed out by farmers' buying up of large tracts of communal land in which to grow cash crops. Over four thousand private Acts of Parliament were passed between 1755 and 1815 enabling the enclosure of more than five million acres of English land. (This is to illustrate the scale of agricultural change throughout Britain.)

To the Rebellions. The Act of Proscription implemented after the '45 was designed to quell further insurrection and aid cultural assimilation of the Highlanders, not to decimate their communities. Indeed, claims about the banning of Gaelic and other emotive hogwash are simply not backed up anywhere in the text of the Act. Primarily, the Highlanders were disarmed and their dress forbidden. Once the Jacobite threat was well and truly put to rest, the Act was repealed; that was a mere thirty six years after it had been passed. Don't forget that there were several Stuartist uprisings financed in turns by the Spanish and the French -- which brings me to the next point. The major line of demarcation between Us and Them was exactly what it had been for centuries, indeed what had riven Stuart Britain throughout the preceding and eventually led to 1688 when James II and VII was booted out: religion.

The Highlanders were by and large Roman Catholic; most of the Lowlanders and the English were staunch Protestants. Papists, especially wild, mountain ones, were a subversive entity that had to be suppressed. This sentiment was most fervent in the Calvinistic south of Scotland, from where the moneyed class hailed. These people had no love for their northern countrymen and set about snatching up their land and all the Highlanders could do, in the end, with the compounded circumstances of unaffordable rent prices, famine, and the general poverty that comes with an overpopulated region, was take the opportunities offered them and leave for the towns and for the colonies.

There was no concerted English effort to get rid of the Highlanders, many factors went into what happened. To hold it against ordinary English people is not only incredibly stupid, but squalid too, as we are equally at the mercy of the same uncaring elite and always have been.

Fiona
Wednesday, September 7th, 2011, 08:12 AM
I voted undecided because I don't know if Scotland will end up importing more non-whites or less non-whites as a result of independence :(

Dead Eye
Thursday, December 8th, 2011, 11:45 PM
I personally think that Scotland should remain in the United Kingdom because i feel that Scotland benefits from being a part of of the United Kingdom.I don't think Scotland will have much to go on if they were to become independent apart from a very good educational system(from what i've heard)and maybe some oil to sell.

The SNP are also pro EU so i think it could be an ''out of the frying pan and into the fire'' situation for Scotland.

Northumbria
Sunday, January 8th, 2012, 07:12 PM
Yes, they should be independent. The Celtic Nations are a drag on the English economy and the UK to some extent holds them back.
The Celts bitch and moan about us when the most the English do is tell a few jokes or respond to Scottish propaganda.


They are indepependant,they are a country in their own right with their own parliment.

More than what England has got. England is an entity without any government of its own, it is basically ruled as UK-lite.


If you mean should the English be free of the tax money we pour into Scotland every year to keep them on their feet,then my answer as a taxpayer on an economic level would be yes.....go to it bonny Scotland....Ireland went bankrupt in about five years so you should do it in about six.

Both nations would see gains, Scotland would be able to pursue its own economic policies.


Regarding them as part of the United Kingdom and ethnic brothers so to speak with close common ties i woud say that Scotland should remain with England.

If the UK breaks up I think the British and Irish council should be strengthened into a co-operation organisation and we should remain close allies.


I think England and Wales will probably stay together no matter what, the Welsh don't seem to want independence so long as the UK lets them govern themselves.

England should seek better relations with Northern Europe and our brothers across the North Sea in the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark.


Tommy, the only reason why Scotland are still under English rule is because Scotland has oil in the North Sea. The North Sea is Scottish Territory and if Scotland went independant, England wouldn't be able to touch it.

Face it. England needs Scotland to keep on it's feet, not the other way around.

Rubbish, England's economy is 90% of the UK economy. I did a post on another forum about it.


then it is only right that England gets her own as well.

I want this as a minimum. But Westminster is against it because England with a parliament would be able to challenge the authority of the UK parliament.


We did quite fine without your "help" for ages. Today's world would be no different.

Scotland was poor as were parts of Northern England and the Darien Scheme had failed. Accept it, you needed the English Empire at the time or faced decades of a miserable economy.

Together we had an industrial revolution, charted and settled much of the world and prospered. Now the union has outlived its purpose and is holding us back in the modern world.


It is England that needs Scottland today, not the opposite. And they should let them go.

Why do so many people say this with so little knowledge of how the UK actually works? I think 90% of the economy Vs 8% speaks for itself.


Pre 1707 England was an economic and military powerhouse whilst Scotland was completely bankrupt after the failed attempt to colonize Panama through the Darien Scheme. If it wasn't for the union and Mel Gibson Scotland would be about as famous as Kasakhstan (well before Borat)

... I wonder who has benefited more from the union?!

Scotland benefited from the English Empire (which became the British Empire) and markets, England benefited from stability and hegemony in the islands; finally rid of any French back door into England.


The whole entity of the UK and its predecessors were an anti-germanic and anti-european entity that served mainly plutocratic interests. Furthermore do I think that a german and an english state wouldn't have had the conflicts that the British Empire and the German Empire actually had. This is also important for the future.

Agreed.


Also, quit with the anti-Scottish crap. Don't forget that it's because of England that Scots don't speak Gaelic anymore.

No it isn't, it's because the Scottish Lowlanders who spoke Scots (a dialect of English) took political power in the country and introduced Lowland ways into Highland and Island Scotland.

Scots made it bad for other Scots, get it right.


Would Germans want Bavaria to be independent? NO!

Bavaria is German, Scotland is Scottish, England is English. If Scotland were English you'd have a point.


Scotland is Britain's Bavaria.

'Scotland' is not an old entity and any feelings of 'anti-Englishness' have been artificially stirred up.

No, Britain is a fake entity which attempted to merge the different British identities together.


The English people in this thread have only ever been talking about what's best for England.

Don't you think the English have a right to independence too?


The English people in this thread need to keep their noses out of Scotlands business....

It's England's business because this is a union and most of us want you to leave. We shouldn't need to ask you, there should be a referendum in England as to whether we want independence as well.
No matter what the Scots say, if we want out we should leave the union.


The historical borders, mate, were different to what they are now. Scotland used to be much larger than England, until Longshanks decided to shorten it a bit and make England bigger.

What are you on about? Have you ever seen a map? England has always been much bigger.

Scotland once controlled Cumberland and England Lothian, they agreed the border at the Treaty of York - England got Cumberland and Scotland got Lothian (which included the "Scottish Borders"). All of these areas were settled by Anglo-Saxons.
The only significant change was the English annexation of Berwick which some Scottish Nationalists claim was placed under English authority but never English territory.

Scotland raided much of Northern England as did England in Southern Scotland, yet we never hear the English talking about the Scottish raids here.
People built fortified houses the raiding got so bad.


I want scotland to be independent, because I think England should be independent (+hopefully a republic ). But I dont buy this s**t about 'scotland's oil'. Sorry but it's not scotland's oil, it belongs to the united kingdom. if oil was found off the coast of yorkshire, it wouldn't be yorkshire's oil, it would belong to the whole of the UK.

Most of the oil is in Scottish waters, although a lot of it is in Shetland and Orkney waters which were nicked from Denmark (they offered to pay the dowry, Scotland refused it and kept the islands).
Most of the gas in the UK is in English waters - around 80% of the gas and 10% of the oil lie in English territory.


Start taking back your Nuclear weapons, citizens of England, because once Scotland go independant, we won't be wanting them.

Good. We can have them at Barrow, the place is full of Nuclear power stations and people needing the work anyway.


I love how foreigners keep butting in with their absolute zero knowledge of the issue. It's also interesting that they always take the Scots' side too.

Yeah, people always love to support the perceived underdog.


Scotland is hurt that England doesn't notice it, but admitting that truth would be too bitter a pill to swallow.

:D

Linden
Sunday, January 8th, 2012, 07:26 PM
Yes, they should be independent. The Celtic Nations are a drag on the English economy and the UK to some extent holds them back.

You do realise that more than 80% of the population of Scotland lives within the Germanic region of the nation? The whole idea that Scotland is Celtic is a Victorian concept. However, I do agree that Scotland deserves independence. I would like for Great Britain to resolve it's immigration problem as a single body before independence becomes a 'hot-topic', though.

Northumbria
Sunday, January 8th, 2012, 08:00 PM
You do realise that more than 80% of the population of Scotland lives within the Germanic regions of the nation? The whole idea that Scotland is Celtic is a Victorian concept. However, I do agree that Scotland deserves independence. I would like for Great Britain to resolve it's immigration problem as a single body before independence becomes a 'hot-topic', though.

Yes, most Scots have ancestry from both the Highlands and Lowlands.
But I find "Celtic Nations" to be a convenient (if controversial) term.

Astrid Runa
Thursday, January 19th, 2012, 09:25 PM
Well, roll on the "Scotland will end up bankrupt" crap spouted by the English Government. These next few years should be really interesting.
We'll be fine Independant. We're having talks with forming an Alliance with Norway and Sweden. If we can get it, we'll be golden.

Unity Mitford
Friday, January 20th, 2012, 04:44 PM
You do realise that more than 80% of the population of Scotland lives within the Germanic region of the nation? The whole idea that Scotland is Celtic is a Victorian concept. However, I do agree that Scotland deserves independence. I would like for Great Britain to resolve it's immigration problem as a single body before independence becomes a 'hot-topic', though.

Yes, immigration remains the primary issue.

renownedwolf
Friday, January 20th, 2012, 05:35 PM
Well to me depends on whose going to be pulling the strings. We all know who is the puppet master with the main English government, is it or will it any different with the Scots? Is that why there is concerted uproar? Maybe they don't want to lose their grip on them. Who will really benefit from the split power and money wise?

Angus
Saturday, January 21st, 2012, 07:19 PM
Well, roll on the "Scotland will end up bankrupt" crap spouted by the English Government.
Scotland will be fine without England. However, will England be fine without Scotland? ;).



We'll be fine Independant. We're having talks with forming an Alliance with Norway and Sweden. If we can get it, we'll be golden.
We have much to offer our brothers and sisters to the north. However, if the plans of an alliance with them falls through, we'll still be in good shape if we're independent. Although we may need to open a few more trade routes, but that is easily do-able. We have the largest ammount of oil resources in Europe, making us the largest petroleum producer in the EU. However, the majority of that money goes south to London. London gets about £12 billion a year, while we only get half of that. We've given away over £250 billion in the past 30 years from oil alone. Imagine how much better off we would be if London was cut off from our oil alone ;). That's only talking about oil too. We have plently more sources of revenue; agriculture, banking, entertainment, fishing, biotechnology, energy and tourism. Just to name a few :)

Patrioten
Saturday, January 21st, 2012, 07:29 PM
We have much to offer our brothers and sisters to the north. However, if the plans of an alliance with them falls through, we'll still be in good shape if we're independent.Are these talks taking place solely among Scottish politicians or are there talks taking place inbetween Scotland and Norway/Sweden also?

Angus
Saturday, January 21st, 2012, 07:36 PM
Are these talks taking place solely among Scottish politicians or are there talks taking place inbetween Scotland and Norway/Sweden also?


Senior Nationalists, including Alex Salmond, have made several trips to Scandinavia over the last couple of years, meeting ministers and officials in an attempt to pave the way for greater co-operation if Scotland becomes independent, particularly on energy. Indeed, initial plans have already been drawn up for an electricity super-grid between Scotland and Norway.

SNP strategists insist that Scotland would continue to be extremely close to the rest of the UK, which would remain its biggest trading partner, but they also believe that Scotland has more in common with its Scandinavian neighbours than the UK does and they are keen to take this relationship to a new level.


They seem to be more interested with Norway in particular, but also want a relationship with all of Scandinavia. Probably because of their proximity to us. You can read more about it here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bye-bye-england-snp-plans-closer-scandinavian-ties-after-independence-6272337.html

Patrioten
Saturday, January 21st, 2012, 07:42 PM
You can read more about it here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bye-bye-england-snp-plans-closer-scandinavian-ties-after-independence-6272337.htmlThanks. As usual when it comes to Swedish foreign policy there is very little information about it in the media so I was wondering if I had missed something important. But it is perhaps not so dramatic as the word alliance would suggest, it's more I guess an issue of potential trade opportunities and such as described by the article.

Northumbria
Friday, January 27th, 2012, 11:46 PM
Well, roll on the "Scotland will end up bankrupt" crap spouted by the English Government. These next few years should be really interesting.
We'll be fine Independant. We're having talks with forming an Alliance with Norway and Sweden. If we can get it, we'll be golden.

British! It's a British parliament. When have did the English get a generous devolution settlement like you folks north of the border?

From the alliance, as soon as the oil is gone so is Scotland's economy. Go for independence, invest money carefully (not in RBS for god sake) and stop moaning at the English.


Honestly, why is it that the Scottish have an obsession with the English when the English barely even think about them? :-O
This is not out of some hatred or disregard of Scotland, it is more to do with the fact that we're not a bunch of whiny cry-babies who have a victim-complex like your people!
Leave the union already and stop bloody mithering! (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mithering)

Rohirrim
Saturday, January 28th, 2012, 02:07 AM
I think it would be nice if the Scots and English would get along and be able to accept eachother. That being said, they are still different people and therefore they will not get along fully unless it is forced. I believe it should be independant. But there might be a backlash to that. If it remains a member of the EU or under Jewish control, they're going to figure that Scotland isn't diverse enough for such a big country. You will probably see immigrants flooding in soon. First we need to get rid of the Jews and non-European/Germanic foreigners, and then we should focus on who should be independant.

Caoimhe
Saturday, January 28th, 2012, 02:11 PM
Honestly, why is it that the Scottish have an obsession with the English when the English barely even think about them? :-O

This is what a lot of Scots believe, that they're in some way neglected. This could be said for a lot of regions of England though, especially that everything in England is London-centric.

Astrid Runa
Saturday, January 28th, 2012, 06:29 PM
British! It's a British parliament. When have did the English get a generous devolution settlement like you folks north of the border?

Scottish Government, English Parliament. We have our own government, thanks.


From the alliance, as soon as the oil is gone so is Scotland's economy. Go for independence, invest money carefully (not in RBS for god sake) and stop moaning at the English.

Nuh uh. Wrong. If we have an alliance with Scandinavia, once our oil is gone, we'll have other things to trade. Renewable energy for one. Or are you unaware of the Hurricane under the North Sea?



Honestly, why is it that the Scottish have an obsession with the English when the English barely even think about them? :-O

Maybe because you screwed us over way too many times. That and the fact that a good majority of the English moan and whine about us too. Don't act like this is all one sided, mate.


This is not out of some hatred or disregard of Scotland, it is more to do with the fact that we're not a bunch of whiny cry-babies who have a victim-complex like your people!

Okay, that was bloody uncalled for.


Leave the union already and stop bloody mithering! (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mithering)

Oh, trust me. We would if your parliament would let us. They're clinging onto us for dear life, spouting utter rubbish and sticking their noses in our business, trying to change our plans for the referendum. So, I suggest you read what the English parliament are saying about the Scottish referendum and then say what you've just said in that post of yours.

Northumbria
Saturday, January 28th, 2012, 07:04 PM
Nuh uh. Wrong. If we have an alliance with Scandinavia, once our oil is gone, we'll have other things to trade. Renewable energy for one. Or are you unaware of the Hurricane under the North Sea?

I'm aware of it. Who'll buy it though? England? :D Norway and Sweden have a surplus of hydro-power - they export electricity to Denmark when their wind turbines aren't turning.
Why would they want to buy more energy from you?

England is probably going to be powered by nuclear power plants like France is soon, so don't get your hopes up their neither.
Besides, other electricity exporters such as France hardly make a fortune from it, you need a bit more than that. Electricity is one of the cheapest forms of energy there is.


Maybe because you screwed us over way too many times. That and the fact that a good majority of the English moan and whine about us too. Don't act like this is all one sided, mate.

Ha - you admit it. :D

Yeah, yeah, I'm sure we do. The English moan about the Scots when the Scots moan about us, what do you expect?


Okay, that was bloody uncalled for.

Maybe, but I'm just bored of the whole thing and thought I'd tell you straight.


Oh, trust me. We would if your parliament would let us.

"Our" parliament doesn't even give us a referendum, we're prisoners.


They're clinging onto us for dear life, spouting utter rubbish and sticking their noses in our business, trying to change our plans for the referendum. So, I suggest you read what the English parliament are saying about the Scottish referendum and then say what you've just said in that post of yours

It's a British parliament and they are unionists. They have a Scottish species too, most Labour politicians North of the border are unionists.

Hamar Fox
Saturday, January 28th, 2012, 07:58 PM
One thing that interests me in all this tomfoolery is how certain Scottish members (but by no means all ;) ) seem so preoccupied with this one single issue. It's almost like a microcosm of the SNP's entire political existence. We have threads on how indigenous populations throughout Europe are being replaced, are dropping in proportion to alien populations by double figure percentages each generation, how entire European cities have fallen to foreign hordes, and all with the sanction of our own governments -- and what is most important -- in fact, never mind that -- what is the only thing that's important to these Scottish members? Why, independ(a)nce from England, of course! we WILL stop OUR oppression BY the ENGLISH and we WILL take OUR oil SO that SCOTLAND will BE saved FOREVER!!!!!!2!!

Angus
Saturday, January 28th, 2012, 08:24 PM
One thing that interests me in all this tomfoolery is how certain Scottish members (but by no means all ;) ) seem so preoccupied with this one single issue.
Do you want me to apologize for actually caring about my country? Because that'll never happen, mate.


We have threads on how indigenous populations throughout Europe are being replaced, are dropping in proportion to alien populations by double figure percentages each generation, how entire European cities have fallen to foreign hordes, and all with the sanction of our own governments -- and what's is most important -- in fact, never mind that -- what is the only thing that's important to these Scottish members?

If you looked past your own naivety you would see that "us scottish members" do contribute and participate in those threads. Have we been focusing more on matters that hit closer to home more recently? Of course we have. Wouldn't you do the same? You've said that you grow tired of us "pathetic" Scots and our complaining of the English. Well take a good look at your self and other English members; the majority of your posts are complaining about us. It goes both ways.


Why, independ(a)nce from England, of course! we WILL stop OUR oppression BY the ENGLISH and we WILL take OUR oil SO that SCOTLAND will BE saved FOREVER!!!!!!2!!
All of your posts are either some form of criticization of somebody's spelling error or ranting about us Scots and Scotland. Maybe it's due to a lack of real life self-esteem, so you feel the need to be a keyboard warrior? Idk, but it grows old. I suggest you get some new material.

Hamar Fox
Saturday, January 28th, 2012, 08:46 PM
Do you want me to apologize for actually caring about my country?

Genuine concern generally compels people to focus on actual problems and threats, rather than obvious phantom ones.


Because that'll never happen, mate.

:D

I'm not your mate, pal.


If you looked past your own naivety you would see that "us scottish members" do contribute and participate in those threads.

I've had you on ignore for a good three months now (I only unblocked you because I saw in the 'latest posts' box that you'd posted here), so I have no idea what threads you personally contribute to. But from my recollection of that unfortunate time when your posts were still visible to me, you talked primarily about this subject, as did and still does Astrid Runa.


Have we been focusing more on matters that hit closer to home more recently? Of course we have. Wouldn't you do the same?

Number of posts I've made about matters close to home: 1547

Number of posts where I've killed the braincells of readers by identifying separation from Scotland as the solution to said problems: 0


You've said that you grow tired of us "pathetic" Scots and our complaining of the English. Well take a good look at your self and other English members; the majority of your posts are complaining about us. It goes both ways.

True. The vast majority of my posts are about how much I hate Scots. This is so much the case, in fact, that often members PM me asking, "You never stop talking about Scots. You've never taken the time to slander anyone or anything else. What's your opinion on Poles?" :lol


All of your posts are either some form of criticization of somebody's spelling error or ranting about us Scots and Scotland.

You obviously aren't an avid reader of my posts, which is fine, since I'm not at all a reader of yours. You are embarrassing yourself a bit in the above, though, since everybody on Skadi has seen me defend Scots at one time or other, and everyone knows I get on very well with a certain Scottish member of Skadi -- and I've achieved both states of existence without having to backpedal on my "anti-Scottish hatred'' which exists only in your head.


Maybe it's due to a lack of real life self-esteem, so you feel the need to be a keyboard warrior? Idk, but it grows old. I suggest you get some new material.

At least when Edgard said the above, he actually had a point, since I actually do intensely dislike Poles and have talked about this dislike extensively in the past (haven't done it in a while, mind you). What you said, though, is just laughable and all the proof I need that you've never read more than 10 of my posts, tops.

Æmeric
Saturday, January 28th, 2012, 10:35 PM
As details begin to emerge about Alex Salmond’s long promised referendum on Scottish Independence, the political debate has started to heat up. Faced with the break-up of a union that stretches back to 1707, politicians have begun to argue over everything from the site of Britain’s nuclear submarines to the division of the UK national debt.

Perhaps they shouldn’t worry. According to a YouGov poll conducted in May 2007, Scottish support for Independence remains low, at 28% – with 57% against the idea. Votes for the SNP in Holyrood elections don’t seem to have translated into votes for Independence. Recent polls suggest that enthusiasm for the proposal is actually higher in England, with support reaching as high as 43%.

Critics of the SNP argue that this is because Scots know what a good deal they get from the current system; free university education, free personal care for the elderly and free NHS prescriptions all come at the expense of English taxpayers. Salmond argues that an independent Scotland could sustain this high public spending using income from their North Sea oil, but this would not be sustainable. Revenue and production are set to fall over the coming years, leaving the Scottish economy dangerously reliant on the financial services sector.

An independent Scotland would obviously inherit their fair share of the UK’s budget deficit. According to the Scottish administration’s own Government Expenditure and Revenue Exercise, in 2009-10, this would be around £14.9 billion, 13.4 per cent of GDP. When the oil runs out, Scotland will be left with a giant financial black hole.

After Independence, Scotland would be forced to reapply for EU membership. Would they keep the Pound, or join the Euro? Neither looks like a good option. Keeping the Pound would surely undermine Scotland’s claim to economic independence. And you only have to look to Portugal, Ireland and Greece to see the dangers of being a small, peripheral Eurozone country.

The SNP’s promise that an independent Scottish nation would be a “beacon of fairness” rings hollow if you look at the economics. But the more emotive arguments are no more compelling – crude nationalism isn’t going to rally the Scottish people behind the cause of independence. Nor is the historical argument convincing; events that happened over 300 years ago have little relevance to modern politics. And whilst no one can deny that Scotland has an independent, unique and vibrant culture, that won’t help them pay their way in the world.

Scottish independence is neither likely, nor a good idea. It’s no wonder Alex Salmond wants the referendum delayed until 2014.

Source (http://www.nouse.co.uk/2012/01/28/scottish-independence-is-not-desired-by-all/)


It seems more likely English voters will repeal the Act of Union before Scottish voters do. Like the Czechs did with the Slovaks.

Astrid Runa
Monday, January 30th, 2012, 11:20 AM
It seems more likely English voters will repeal the Act of Union before Scottish voters do. Like the Czechs did with the Slovaks.

That article you're using to support the idea against Scottish independance is using a poll that is five years out of date.

Using a 5 year old opinion poll? What amateur wrote this? The LATEST poll conducted by New Statesman, if you had bothered to do any research, shows support for independence at 44%, with 45% against.

The rest of the article isn’t even worth commenting on, it reads like a Daiy Mail article generator.


This article is very silly. Has the author of this article only just caught onto this whole debate? You’re quoting a poll that’s 5 years out of date, and only quoting only one side of another recent one to fit your own argument. If this is the quality of the insight we’re going to get into this issue over the next two years then we might as well just make a purely emotional decision.


What a horribly uninformed and misguided article.

Using polls from 5 years ago to judge support in 2012? Nonsense. The latest poll, in the telegraph this week, using the question in the Scottish Government consultation paper found that over 50% o Scots responded with a ‘yes’ vote to the question.
As for the ‘funded by English taxpayers’ – that’s utter lies. Even using the facts you’ve listed – for ONE year- that deficit as a %GDP is lower than that of the UK governments showing a better financial position. Not to mention that Scotland contributes 9.4% of taxes and receives 9.2% of expenditure- a higher contribution to expenditure ratio was present the previous years. For 4 of the past 6 years Scotland has had a budget surplus- the UK government hasn’t had a surplus in over a decade, and the two years there wasn’t a surplus the deficit was smaller as a %GDP lower than that of the UK.
Through your logic the UK couldn’t survive as it ‘doesn’t pay it’s way in the world’.
As for Europe, senior EU lawyers have stated that both Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom would be treated as successor nations and required to renegotiate their treaty’s, not be forced to reapply. Anyway- if Scotland’s forced to then so would the rest of the UK and that’s simply not going to happen. You only have to look to Norway to see what an oil rich northern nation can become- if oil is included Scotland would have the 6th Largest GDP in the World!!!

No wonder Independence support is rising- patronising and misinformed prejudicial individuals like yourself are doing a world of good. I would advise you to give up on a carer in politics or journalism, if this is the type of work you intend to produce.


Use something more recent, eh?

Hamar Fox
Monday, January 30th, 2012, 11:40 AM
That article you're using to support the idea against Scottish independance is using a poll that is five years out of date.

Use something more recent, eh?

Because five years is a long enough time for such strong convictions, timelessly woven into the Scottish folk-soul, rigorously cogitated upon to the end of reason, to shift by double-figure percentages :lol

This must be one of those great movements of a people whose potential has existed for centuries in thought and song, and exists as strong now as a thousand years ago -- except for one brief time five years ago when nobody cared.

Unity Mitford
Monday, January 30th, 2012, 12:41 PM
The ways in which Scotland is subsidised is endless but it does not bother me until Scotland plays the victim :shrug

I hope that if we separate it can be amicable.

Hamar Fox
Monday, January 30th, 2012, 02:13 PM
The ways in which Scotland is subsidised is endless but it does not bother me until Scotland plays the victim :shrug

I hope that if we separate it can be amicable.

Exactly. It's understandable to want to abandon a sinking ship. It's even understandable, if a little cowardly, to abandon a ship that'll probably sink, but still has a remote chance of having the gaping wound in its hull patched up before the ship takes on too much kebab-eating water. Nobody wanted to leave Britain when it ruled the world. People do want to leave it now that it's squatted on by the rest of the world. This is the reason, and I accept it. But to pretend the luxury yacht you deserted was a slave ship furnished throughout with every torture device imaginable, simply for the sake of making yourself the fashionable victim that the modern West's heart reflexively bleeds for and venerates as Godly without further analysis is a little pathetic, and more than a little irritating. If you want to be a victim for the sake of it, you have the personality of a Jew and should be mocked at every opportunity.

Sigyn
Monday, January 30th, 2012, 02:27 PM
Exactly. It's understandable to want to abandon a sinking ship. It's even understandable, if a little cowardly, to abandon a ship that'll probably sink, but still has a remote chance of having the gaping wound in its hull patched up before the ship takes on too much kebab-eating water.
Yes, it's quite cowardly to desert England like that. However, I'm fairly sure Scotland is not doing this because England is a wreck from multicultural decay and too much Third World immigration. From what I've seen of the Scottish independence party, they have a leftist slant and even want Scotland to be a multicultural society (basically giving themselves the "victim label" by placing Scots in the ranks of Asians and negroes who have also been "oppressed" by evil England). So I don't think Scotland is leaving the UK because of the reasons you're saying.


Nobody wanted to leave Britain when it ruled the world.
It's not as if Britain of that time would've allowed them to leave. :P


If you want to be a victim for the sake of it, you have the personality of a Jew and should be mocked at every opportunity.
Well, blame modern society and our tendency to sympathize with everyone who is the victimized minority (or claims to be one). :P

Angelcynn Beorn
Monday, January 30th, 2012, 03:18 PM
That article you're using to support the idea against Scottish independance is using a poll that is five years out of date.

Use something more recent, eh?

Where on Earth are you getting those figures from?

For something recent, this article is from August 11th, 2011.


The gulf in state spending between Scotland and England has hit a record £1,600 per head.

Government spending in Scotland averaged £10,212 per person last year – £1,624 per head more than in England.

The staggering figures, buried in Treasury documents, reveal the gap increased by more than 15 per cent in only a year.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2031543/UK-government-spending-Scots-1-600-year-spent-English.html#ixzz1kxGpzpTH

Scotland is heavily subsidised by England and would be on a headlong journey to join the ranks of the PIGS if it left England and had to pick up it's own bills.

Hamar Fox
Monday, January 30th, 2012, 03:21 PM
Yes, it's quite cowardly to desert England like that. However, I'm fairly sure Scotland is not doing this because England is a wreck from multicultural decay and too much Third World immigration.

They're doing it because there's nothing whatsoever awe-inspiring about modern Britain, nothing grandiose, nothing regal, nothing brilliant enough at all to inspire pride, much less identification and cohesion. Modern Britain is an incompetently-governed, identityless joke, and it's this modern husk of its former self that some Scots wish to extricate themselves from. But instead of admitting this, they re-invent history (and probably even believe their own reinvention), and in this revisionism they project their current attitude toward modern Britain into an erroneous understanding of the past.


From what I've seen of the Scottish independence party, they have a leftist slant and even want Scotland to be a multicultural society (basically giving themselves the "victim label" by placing Scots in the ranks of Asians and negroes who have also been "oppressed" by evil England). So I don't think Scotland is leaving the UK because of the reasons you're saying.

I wasn't talking about the SNP, but the psychology of the average Scot who supports independence. I'd wager very few share the leftist politics of the SNP, but their contempt for 'Britain' (read: modern Britain) trumps all.

Britain's patheticness transcends racial issues alone. And at any rate, this lack of identity with something inarguably crappy occurs on a fundamental, unconscious level, so many Scots probably either can't articulate or mis-articulate the actual reasons for their disidentification with Britain. They revile against the 'package' of modern Britain, which in part includes its multiculture, but they probably don't understand that fact, because it's unconscious and expresses itself only on a gut level, so they reject Britain for reasons they don't understand while naively accepting the SNP's designs to recreate those same conditions in a new Scotland. The above doesn't describe most members of the SNP, but it does sum up the perspective of the average not-really-leftist SNP supporter.


It's not as if Britain of that time would've allowed them to leave.

But there was no reason whatsoever a middle-class Scot would want to leave the British Empire any more than a middle-class Norfolkian would. Internal divisions in Britain for the last few centuries ran purely along class boundaries. Scotland was easily as middle-class in percentage of population as England was (and as large a chunk of its working-class population today is descended from Irish immigrants as England's working-class). A middle-class Scot identified more with a middle-class Englishman than with a lower-class Scot (and certainly more than with a working-class Irishman), which is why the social foundation for even conceiving of a breaking up of Britain was for the longest time non-existent.

-------

To put it another way: Nobody sells their shares when the market shows no signs of going anywhere but up. The Scots were heavily invested in the British Empire. To speak of 'Britain vs Scotland' (as is so common) is to prejudice the discussion: Scotland was Britain, as much as was England. Only after the 'market crash' do different mentalities begin to form, the blame game opens up, people cash in, check out, break up formerly healthy business relationships etc. etc. That analogy sums up the results of the death of the British Empire pretty flawlessly.

Linden
Monday, January 30th, 2012, 05:04 PM
According to a YouGov poll conducted in May 2007, Scottish support for Independence remains low, at 28% – with 57% against the idea. Votes for the SNP in Holyrood elections don’t seem to have translated into votes for Independence. Recent polls suggest that enthusiasm for the proposal is actually higher in England, with support reaching as high as 43%.

Thank you for sharing these statistics. As one Scottish member has so eloquently stated (:oanieyes), these statistics are aging slightly and the support for Scottish independence is growing rapidly on both sides of the border. However, they are still valid in the sense that a greater percentage of the English population wish to oust the Scots, whilst a large percentage of the Scottish population wish to preserve the union and retain strong links with the English.

If I may refer to the results of a survey titled ‘Should Scotland remain in the UK?’ which was conducted in Lincoln (the East Midlands of England) in early January 2012, 73/115 people who took part in the survey believed that it was not in England best interests for Scotland to remain in the UK (32 believed that being in a union with Scotland did benefit us, whilst 10 were ‘unsure’). An increasing percentage of the English population perceives Scotland as a bottomless whole which is impossible to satisfy with money alone. We pump so much money in there, yet there is little sign of ‘life’, as it were.


Use something more recent, eh?

Perhaps it would be to your benefit if you were to provide more recent statistics as opposed to criticising the statistics provided by others? Let’s maintain a certain level of decency to one another.


Scotland is heavily subsidised by England and would be on a headlong journey to join the ranks of the PIGS if it left England and had to pick up it's own bills.

I think this is why Alex Salmond intends to hold a referendum on Scottish independence in 2014 instead of an earlier date. You may be fooled into thinking that Scotland relies heavily on its oil as a source of income, but oil exports are still very small and don’t generate much wealth, even for such a small economy. If the Scottish did choose to opt out of the union, in the current mess they’re in the country would fall flat on its face. Remember, the Scottish economy is far more fragile and at risk of collapse than that of the UK. Salmond is simply testing the waters. If the economy of the UK does not pick up in the near future, I am sure that you can say good bye to the referendum for now.

Æmeric
Monday, January 30th, 2012, 06:33 PM
That article you're using to support the idea against Scottish independance is using a poll that is five years out of date.


Use something more recent, eh?
From this month (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2086833/Scottish-independence-More-English-Scots-want-independence-Scotland.html). And the trend is still the same, more English support an independent Scotland then the Scots do.

Astrid Runa
Monday, January 30th, 2012, 07:09 PM
You all seem to forget the fact that Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Denmark and Finland are pretty gung-ho about letting us join them as a Nordic country. We would not be a part of Britain or the EU, and we would not be alone.
What part of that is it that's flying straight over your heads?

Astrid Runa
Monday, January 30th, 2012, 07:19 PM
From this month (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2086833/Scottish-independence-More-English-Scots-want-independence-Scotland.html). And the trend is still the same, more English support an independent Scotland then the Scots do.

You use the Daily Mail, an English-based newspaper. They've also been known and are infamous for exaggerating the truth about things. They like to cry wolf on a lot of subjects.
Not a very reliable source, once again.
If I had the time, I'd post sources I know to be reliable.

Though, that being said, I love how the majority of you ignored the quotes I posted from people who know what they're talking about, one of them being my Grandad.

Angelcynn Beorn
Monday, January 30th, 2012, 08:36 PM
You all seem to forget the fact that Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Denmark and Finland are pretty gung-ho about letting us join them as a Nordic country. We would not be a part of Britain or the EU, and we would not be alone.
What part of that is it that's flying straight over your heads?

To be honest i'm new to this thread, but i do travel to Scandinavia repeatedly every year, and i've never once even heard a Scandinavian talk about "welcoming" Scotland, let alone the entire region being "gung ho" about it.

Also, if Scotland leaves the UK it will still remain in the EU. Without subsidising by English taxpayers, Scotland will have to undergo the same sort of public spending cuts that are causing riots on the continent, just to stop it's economy imploding immediately. Which part of this is flying over your head?


You use the Daily Mail, an English-based newspaper. They've also been known and are infamous for exaggerating the truth about things. They like to cry wolf on a lot of subjects.
Not a very reliable source, once again.
If I had the time, I'd post sources I know to be reliable.

Though, that being said, I love how the majority of you ignored the quotes I posted from people who know what they're talking about, one of them being my Grandad.

So the Daily Mail isn't trustworthy because it's English, and the opinion poll takers are apparently all lying as well, even when they say that the English are more keen on Scottish independence than the Scots.

But we should believe some random unattributed quotes you post up, some of which are from your family members?

:tired2:

Linden
Monday, January 30th, 2012, 10:09 PM
You all seem to forget the fact that Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Denmark and Finland are pretty gung-ho about letting us join them as a Nordic country. We would not be a part of Britain or the EU, and we would not be alone.

It’s rather the reverse. Scotland is looking towards Scandinavia rather than the nations of Scandinavia looking towards Scotland. Will the Scandinavians embrace Scotland, or will it become another ‘want-to-be’ Scandinavian nation like Estonia? Hopefully we will see in the years to come. I just don’t see what Scotland possibly has to offer the nations of Scandinavia? The proposed 'super-grid' between Norway and Scotland has already received a round of laughter in Oslo. You must also remember that the SNP has shown extensive interest in joining the EU, too. Perhaps you will will improve ties with Sweden if you join the EU...and Bulgaria, Poland and Romania etc.

There has been no mention that the Scots plan forge closer ties with Iceland or Finland as you claim. Only Scandinavia.

If I may be so bold, I think you’ve got a little carried away in the moment. The idea of Scotland becoming a Nordic nation is a fairytale. I fail to understand how you've formed the opinion that the Scandinavian nations are particularly interested in Scotland joining their ranks. The Scandinavians (the Swedish in particular) most certainly are not ‘gung-ho’ about Scottish ‘Nordicisation’.


Though, that being said, I love how the majority of you ignored the quotes I posted from people who know what they're talking about, one of them being my Grandad.

I think you’re onto a losing argument when you begin to quote your Grandfather, unless of course he’s a member of the First Minister’s Council of Economic Advisers or a professor of Economics at the University of Oxford (both of which have been used as a source of information in this thread, it seems). I don’t doubt for one moment that your Grandfather is a knowledgeable individual, but armchair politics is hardly appropriate at present.

Northumbria
Monday, January 30th, 2012, 10:26 PM
It’s rather the reverse. Scotland is looking towards Scandinavia rather than the nations of Scandinavia looking towards Scotland. Will the Scandinavians embrace Scotland, or will it become another ‘want-to-be’ Scandinavian nation like Estonia?

That's what I've noticed too. What's it to be Scotland? Celts or wannabe Nordics?
I'm quite confused because last week they kept going on about how Celtic they all are. ;)


I just don’t see what Scotland possibly has to offer the nations of Scandinavia?

Same here. I don't think Scandinavia has much to offer them neither, they are rather a quiet region of Europe.


The proposed 'super-grid' between Norway and Scotland has already received a round of laughter in Oslo.

Well it is understandable. Only the Scots could think that they stand a chance in selling overpriced electricity to a region which produces a surplus of its own. :-O Someone didn't think that through very well.
Such a grid would probably raise the price of electricity there because it would cost a lot to put in place.


The Scandinavians (the Swedish in particular) most certainly are not ‘gun-ho’ about Scottish ‘Nordicisation’.

Well its probably like how the real Irish see the plastic paddies, as rather a sad and pathetic attempt to mooch off their identity.

Onbaernan
Tuesday, January 31st, 2012, 12:18 AM
I don't think I know enough to say if I think they should become independant, I doubt it will happen though when it comes to it.

I wonder what the new UK flag would be though, a mix of Welsh and English flags? I've always hated look of the union jack. I've read one of the original english symbols was a white dragon, so you could have the english and welsh dragons entwining one another. I doubt anything that cool would happen, we'd probably get some bongo drums and an arabic looking symbol with a rainbow.

Northumbria
Tuesday, January 31st, 2012, 01:38 AM
I don't think I know enough to say if I think they should become independant, I doubt it will happen though when it comes to it.

I wonder what the new UK flag would be though, a mix of Welsh and English flags? I've always hated look of the union jack. I've read one of the original english symbols was a white dragon, so you could have the english and welsh dragons entwining one another. I doubt anything that cool would happen, we'd probably get some bongo drums and an arabic looking symbol with a rainbow.

Some people have said to replace the blue with green for Wales instead and take out the white cross. I'd hate it personally.

Angelcynn Beorn
Tuesday, January 31st, 2012, 02:56 PM
Some people have said to replace the blue with green for Wales instead and take out the white cross. I'd hate it personally.

If we were to replace it, my vote would go for an English flag with a Welsh dragon in the upper left quadrant, and a red hand + star & crown (representing Ulster) in the upper right quadrant.

At the very least we'll get a new flag and (hopefully) a new anthem out of it. Look for the positives in every situation hey.

:)

Sigurd
Wednesday, February 1st, 2012, 02:53 AM
Folks, last time I looked, this thread was entitled "Should Scotland Be Independent?"

In all days and ages, and especially in this day and age, the question will be raised by Nationalists - who undoubtedly bear the best interests of their own nation in mind at all times - whether there should be a Union between related peoples or whether such a union should be dissolved. There is a plethora of arguments from both sides, and I can understand where this comes in, and I can understand where it's going to be a heated subject, especially when things have bottled up for a while.

But let me see - we've seen the citing of the Daily Mail in this. The Daily Mail is a Jewish-owned newspaper which is currently very busy sowing hate for the Germans to create a new artificial rift there. It is undoubtedly going to do the same with England and Scotland about the independence issue. I personally believe that whichever route is taken, splitting or remaining together, the settlement should be amicable between what is ultimately two brother nations, in the interest of both nations and Germanics as a whole. :)

We have two Germanic-at-large nations sharing one island with a lot of things at odds that need to be talked about. What I don't like to see though is them tearing each other apart in the way that we last saw when this forum was all-European in scope and when you'd have Serbs and Albanians, Finns and Russians or Croats and Italians steaming into each other. :oanieyes

I happen to have spent over seven years on that island, and consider both the Scots and the English as close to my heart - and not once in those seven years, having sat at many a table where the issue was raised, have I seen an argument over the issue take off into sometimes laughable spheres like this, shifting blame and victim status back and forth. I is disappoint. :|

Linden
Wednesday, February 1st, 2012, 11:45 AM
I think we’re all in agreement that Scotland should become independent. The English population is predominantly in support of the dissolution of the Union and a substantial minority of the Scottish population would agree with them. The only question left to ask is ‘Is Scottish Independence Currently Feasible’? We would like to think so, but thanks to in part to Fred Goodwin and his band of merry thieves (hopefully not so merry now he’s been stripped of his Knighthood) this dream of Anglo-Scottish freedom looks very nearly unachievable and it’s my personal belief that it’ll not happen within the foreseeable future.

If Scotland were to become independent today, she would inherit £189 billion in toxic assets belonging to the Royal Bank of Scotland (which are currently being held by Her Majesty’s Treasury). I hope Scottish nationalists are burning effigies of Fred whilst I'm writing this. In addition to this Scotland’s share of the national debt is disproportionately large. For a country which represents just over 8% of the entire UK population, roughly 15% of the national debt belongs to them.

I feel for the true Scottish nationalist. His or her dreams have been dashed by a few men in suits. Scotland will become independent, but only when she feels comfortable and the waters have mellowed. It’s only a matter of time, but what length of time?

Neophyte
Wednesday, February 8th, 2012, 09:34 PM
In addition to this Scotland’s share of the national debt is disproportionately large. For a country which represents just over 8% of the entire UK population, roughly 15% of the national debt belongs to them.

Interesting, but how has that been determined?

Linden
Wednesday, February 8th, 2012, 10:16 PM
Interesting, but how has that been determined?

At present the national debt of the United Kingdom is estimated to stand at £1015 billion. The Scottish national debt is currently estimated to stand at £148 billion (14.6% of the gross UK national debt). I’ve read forecasts that suggest the Scottish share of the UK national debt will increase to between 18%-19.5% by 2015, although I am aware that one must take such forecasts with a pinch of salt.

Robbensvolk
Monday, February 13th, 2012, 09:47 PM
Anyone who believes in Scotlands inherent right to self government and sovereignty can't want to hold on to the six counties... That's pretty hypocritical and whoever thinks there is ever going to be a red hand on the new union jack obviously doesn't understand the situation

franznpdx
Tuesday, February 14th, 2012, 01:41 AM
As I have made some friends in the Scotland Independence movement, which consists of staying reasonably informed via YouTube videos. And as a supporter of Celtic Pride in general and its call for a separate evolutionary state. Then I must insist that everything N. or Hadrians wall be turned over to the tribes as it was in days of yore. And hopefully a primitive renaissance will take hold of the people as they rediscover their heritage free from external heavy handedness. Be it then Rome and now London. Power to the People.

Linden
Tuesday, February 14th, 2012, 02:51 AM
I must insist that everything N. or Hadrians wall be turned over to the tribes as it was in days of yore.

I would rather have the bloody wall ripped apart stone by stone than see the lands which lie to the north ceded to the Celts. These lands are Germanic, and have been for well over a thousand years.

Angelcynn Beorn
Tuesday, February 14th, 2012, 05:41 PM
Anyone who believes in Scotlands inherent right to self government and sovereignty can't want to hold on to the six counties... That's pretty hypocritical and whoever thinks there is ever going to be a red hand on the new union jack obviously doesn't understand the situation

Ahhh... you do realise that the majority of Ulster's population wish to remain part of the United Kingdom, which is why they did so when the rest of Ireland was granted independence?

By the way, the Union Jack is a nickname for the flag we have now. If we got a new flag it wouldn't be a Union Jack any longer.


Then I must insist that everything N. or Hadrians wall be turned over to the tribes as it was in days of yore.

Hadrian's wall is entirely in England and will never become part of Scotland even if the Scottish vote for independence.

Sawyer
Friday, August 3rd, 2012, 11:32 AM
In my opinion, I don't think Scotland should separate, at least not in the way the psycho pan-Celtists want.

People have this strong misconception that Scotland is a Celtic nation, and it's always been oppressed along with their Celtic brothers in Wales and Ireland. Too many people have no idea that the Scots language is actually Germanic, and that the vast majority of Scots descend from the same people as the English. Talking of the 'Gaelic revivalism', whilst ignoring their primary Germanic language. Also, from most of what I have read, the Scots actually had an attitude of superiority towards the Ires and Welsh, helping to colonise Northern Ireland, so much for 'Celtic brotherhood'. The English and Scots saw themselves as equals, as opposed to the Welsh and Irish. The British nobility and crown is and has been riddled with Scotsmen, and I haven't seen nearly as many Irish or Welsh in there.

I think as well, the Scottish contribution to general British civilisation is enormous, their influence stretches across North America and Oceania. I am also often surprised at the prominence of Scotsmen in the literature of the British Empire, from such a relatively population.

I think the best thing is to revise the government of the United Kingdom. It would be a better solution to have Scotland and England united along Federal lines, rather than the devolved powers situation of today, it is very Westminster-centric. It could work similar to how Australia works, each of our 6 states is de jure a sovereign government, yet for the Commonwealth we submit to be represented by the Federal Government in international affairs etc. At least this way Scotland would be more autonomous, and not need to ask for powers from the government of the UK.

Heck if I went even further, the monarchy system could be totally renovated as well, have Scottish, English, Welsh and Irish Kings yet ruled over by a British Emperor, similar to the Kingdom of Bavaria within the German Empire. Although that seems unnecessary.

I just believe in too much of a kinship with the Scots to see the SNP lead them to cuddle up with the Nordic countries and make them a bigger target for 3rd worlders. History shows we built this Empire together, regardless of what Mel Gibson wants us to think.

Hermóðr
Friday, August 3rd, 2012, 09:35 PM
Also, from most of what I have read, the Scots actually had an attitude of superiority towards the Ires and Welsh

Indeed, the influx of Irish immigrants were very much discriminated against during the 19th and early 20th centuries. It's difficult to tell how much of that discrimination was motivated by resentment at them "taking our jobs" and how much was motivated by actual anti-Irishness. Nowadays many Scots identify with the Irish as being 'Celtic cousins' or whatever; although there is an underlying anti-Irish, anti-catholic sentiment that is woven into the fabric of Scottish (particularly Glaswegian) society - no doubt amplified by the Celtic-Rangers bullshit.

I'm not sure about the Welsh though, I think Scots are largely indifferent to them. Like the Scots many of them harbour romantic notions of being a Celtic nation, but an interesting factoid is that less than half of them have Welsh surnames (not that I'm offering that rather flimsy piece of evidence as conclusive proof of them not being 'Celtic').


Talking of the 'Gaelic revivalism', whilst ignoring their primary Germanic language.

The Scottish Gaelic language is actually a corrupted version of Primitive Irish, just like the other Goidelic languages. The idea that it is native to Scotland is a myth peddled by people naive enough to subscribe to pan-celtic romanticism.

According to the 2001 census just over 1% of people in Scotland had some Gaelic ability, and that number has no doubt continued to decline in the intervening years. Of course, that hasn't deterred the government from spending millions of public money on road signs that hardly anyone outwith the western isles can understand.

renownedwolf
Friday, August 3rd, 2012, 09:40 PM
Most common 'Welsh' surnames are not even Cymric in origin. Williams, Jones, Jenkins etc

Hermóðr
Friday, August 3rd, 2012, 09:51 PM
Most common 'Welsh' surnames are not even Cymric in origin. Williams, Jones, Jenkins etc

I read somewhere recently that Jones is in fact Anglo-Saxon in origin.

renownedwolf
Friday, August 3rd, 2012, 10:06 PM
They generally alot come from biblical names in origin, like John or Germanic like William.

*I don't think there were surnames as such before the Norman conquest just the Patronymic 'Ap' as 'son of'.

Sturmreiter
Sunday, August 5th, 2012, 09:04 AM
In my opinion Scotland should be a free country (the whole Ireland and Wales too).

Edgard
Friday, August 10th, 2012, 08:19 PM
In my opinion Scotland should be a free country (the whole Ireland and Wales too).

???

They are no less free than England, Same laws, more MP's per head of population and more government funding. I would say they have a fair bit more freedom as they have an additional assembly and the question of Scot MP's voting on English matters has not been resolved.

Anyway you try to get them to vote to leave the union. They just wont do that as despite a lot of talk we have been together a long time. Lots of the English would like them to go as the union is bankrolled by the English more or less and we get sick of all the lies and fussing from the Scottish nationalists.

I like the Scots but I would be happy for them to go if they voted for it and its unlikely we could stop them going if they voted for it.

The SNP control the Scottish assembly. So why no vote on independence? They would lose so they wait and hope something bad pops up so they can get the result they want.


Your attitude is typical of people who know nothing about the issue. I think your view of the English is very negative and ill informed. We are not the world enslaving imperialists our critics say we are. We have almost no power in our own land and have been controlled for generations.

We had 13 years of Labour who flooded our nation with migrants and try and find a minister during that time who was not Jewish or a Scot. The English have had no voice for some time now. We are the ones who need to be free, the Scots can be free along with us when our "leaders" start working for us and in accordance with our will.

Sturmreiter
Friday, August 10th, 2012, 08:50 PM
In my opinion, the british isles shoud be splitted in those free countries: England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland.
In this thread the question was "Should Scotland Be Independant?" - and my answer is: Yes, Scotland should be indepandant. This thought isn't anti-english, its pro-scots.

I believe in the law of nations, who declare the right of every people to declare it's independency. And in this thought Scotland should have the right to declare itself for independant.

Edgard
Friday, August 10th, 2012, 10:14 PM
Scotland should have the right to declare itself for independant.

What did you not understand in my post about them being free to hold a referendum if they want. Nothing is stopping them apart from the fact they know the result and that would be to stay in the UK.

If they vote for independence they will have it. As they are free to hold a vote but have so far failed to do so you can not say they are not free.

In short Scotland has every right to "declare itself for independent" but chooses not to. Why do you think the UK should be broken up when the nations that form it do not want it to be broken up?


Alistair Darling, the Scottish former chancellor, has challenged Alex Salmond to hold an early referendum on Scottish independence, saying the nationalist First Minister is "running away" from the issue.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/9440722/Alistair-Darling-Alex-Salmond-is-running-scared-of-Scottish-independence.html

All they have to do is have a vote and nothing is stopping the Scottish nationalist (they have a majority in the Scot parliament and Westminster could not politically block given UK politics right now) apart from the knowledge they would lose the vote.

Liutpold
Saturday, August 11th, 2012, 11:35 AM
I believe in the law of nations, who declare the right of every people to declare it's independency. And in this thought Scotland should have the right to declare itself for independant.

I know this thread deals with the independence-question of Scotland, but it's so funny. Scotland should be independent, but Austria should be a part of Germany. That makes no sense. This attitude makes no sense. But it's easier to speak about foreign countries than about your own situation.:thumbdown

I don't like separatism. Unity is powerful. Let the UNITED KINGDOM combined.

Hammish
Monday, April 11th, 2016, 11:55 PM
I found this old thread... hmmm

I supported and was rooting for Alex Salmond and the SNP this last go round.

One of the planks in the SNP platform was citizenship for anyone with Scottish parents or grandparents...

You never know, dual citizenship might be a handy thing to have in the coming future.

Englisc
Tuesday, April 12th, 2016, 07:57 AM
4 years ago I would have said, with some reservations, yes.

Ofcourse, we've had the independence referendum in 2014, which has settled the issue for a while. But the biggest reason is the oil. Since before the indyref the oil price has crashed, and Scotland's deficit has hugely worsened. An independent Scotland today would have a deficit of 9% of GDP, highest in the western world.

Oil could go back up, but it's volatile. Scotland needs to ensure it's economy is stable without the oil - which will run out oneday, anyway. Right now I'd say an indy Scotland isn't a good idea.

Some Scots are now saying if England votes to leave the EU, another indyref should be held. That's an crazy idea. Why leave your biggest trading partner for a much less significant one, and trade 59/650 MPs for 6/750?

Sigebrond
Tuesday, April 12th, 2016, 01:50 PM
Yes, if only to see how ridiculous the SNP would be with complete control over their territory. It would also give the right a better chance throughout the rest of Britain. They do everything differently already it seems to there's no point in them being part of Britain other than than to siphon money off the English, because they're oh so downtrodden (even though unlike the English in Celtic territory the Scots completely erased Pictish culture and language when they migrated from Ireland).

Not having a dig at Scots I hasten to add, just this trend of anti-English insecure nationalism that is only acceptable because it's socialist, pro-immigration and anti-English. If the tacky, touristy tartan and bagpipes idea of Scottish identity is so important to them they can keep it the other side of Hardrian's wall where it belongs.

Forest_Dweller
Tuesday, April 12th, 2016, 02:57 PM
The SNP is just another typical Marxist driven political party, select a group they can classify as underdogs or victims, deliberatively rile them up, gain control, and then work against the interests they claimed to stand for in the first place.

The fact that they're eager to join the EU is just a glaring example (at least in my opinion) of how much of it is based on insecurity as well, since they are essentially replacing one form of dependence with another, one of which they share no history with and has its own agenda. Seems to me like the SNP just want to make a petty statement rather than actually work towards having enough economic and financial independence to be an independent nation. If the EU didn't exist I very much doubt the SNP would be calling for more referendums.

I'm all for Scotland being independent if that's what the majority of Scots want, it could have the positive benefit of the English becoming more consciously aware of their roots. If they are relying on the EU to achieve that goal though they are shooting themselves in the foot. Being in a union with a shared history, and shared blood is much safer than being completely under the control and will of globalists, but I'm confident the average Scot here knows this. I think it would be a good idea to stand united for the time being until some form of new order is established.

Rhaegar Thorwald
Tuesday, April 12th, 2016, 03:22 PM
Yes, I wish they had voted for independence.

I'm tired of subsiding those bitter, ungrateful Anglophobe's with their false sense of victim mentality.

They are a millstone around England's neck.

Angus
Tuesday, April 12th, 2016, 07:46 PM
Please remember that criticism is always welcome, but must be done so respectfully and civilly.

Non-constructive and disrespectful criticism has plagued this thread from the start, so lets try to change things this time around. :)

Vashye
Saturday, September 30th, 2017, 01:49 PM
Nah it's just a bunch of whiney SNP bastards moaning about "Muh highlands" that's driving it. Although that being said, if we leave and secure an oil deal at the lower 60 bucks a' barrel we'd still be the 15th highest GDP per capita.

The Aesthete
Saturday, September 30th, 2017, 10:48 PM
Would it benefit the Scots and the preservation of their identity?
If so yes, but from what I’ve read the SNP are Cultural Marxist scum, so no.

Wuotans Krieger
Sunday, November 25th, 2018, 12:16 PM
This question has been around for ages. Many have said yes, while many others have said no. What do you think? Please explain your reasoning :)

I'll be sharing my humble opinion in a week or so.

I am not Scotch and neither do I live in Scotland but I am sick to death of this ongoing saga and I am tired of viewing dour Scotch faces on the Television moaning about how hard done they are by the 'nasty' English. Scotland is behaving like a petulant and moaning wife who threatens to leave. I would call their bluff and tell them to go! Thus I voted 'leave'!

J.Yaxley
Sunday, November 25th, 2018, 04:23 PM
I'm not a Brit but I've still met a fair number of Scots. My honest impression is that the English would be better off without them.