Do you think Scotland will secede?

[Ignoramus]

With the Scottish parliament's election around the corner, do you think that Scotland will secede from the Union if the Scottish National Party gains a majority?

Also, if that happens, what do you think the implications on the rest of the UK would be?

[scotchedpommes]

Can I just sit back and await the whinefest? :juggle2:
[Will post something considered when not busy.]

Refreshing to see the disparaging comments come out so soon though;
here was I thinking it'd be down to IA to lead the way.

[Adrian II]

With the Scottish parliament's election around the corner, do you think that Scotland will secede from the Union if the Scottish National Party gains a majority?

Also, if that happens, what do you think the implications on the rest of the UK would be?I don't know. I do know that the entire rest of Europe, from the boreal tip of Finland to the sunkissed Algarve, will roar with laughter and ridicule for weeks on end. Airliners will have to be rerouted because of hilarity-waves and other vibrations above major European cities..

[CountArach]

I don't care about Scotland, I just want Australia to scede from the Commonwealth...

[sapi]

I can't see Scotland succeeding as a soverign nation after so long under British rule.

It has no reason to leave, and probably wouldn't succeed if it did...

[InsaneApache]

Under British rule? :inquisitive:

It's mindsets such as this that has brought us to the point of the break up of the Union.

I fear that the Scots will vote for the SNP and their odious leader Salmond. It would be a disaster for Scotland and would hand us over to the EU piecemeal.

This will be Blairs legacy. A breakup of the Union, the regionalisation of England, a Welsh and Ulster hive off. The UK is like a big cake. Too big to be eaten in one sitting, so slice it up and hey presto....:wall:

Well done Tony. History will surely judge you more harshly than I ever could.

[sapi]

Forgive my mindset - I'm looking in from one of the 'colonies' and see things slightly differently :grin2:

It probably was a bad turn of phrase in these circumstances

[InsaneApache]

I'll let you off, this time. :laugh4: :bow:

Think of it like this. Western Australia decides to leave the federation. Now, how would you feel?

[sapi]

Hmmm....I suppose they do bring in some money....

:grin2:

[Samurai Waki]

Ya know, I do see how it could be beneficial for Scotland to leave to the Union. Especially if they get to hold onto the North Sea Oil Platforms. But, its risky... and now they won't have a fall back if times get tough. I do suppose though, that Scotland can somehow Reinvent itself through Investment Banking and the like, where Restrictions would be similar to those in Switzerland. I do however see this as bad tidings for the rest of the UK, if Scotland departs whose to stop Wales, and North Ireland to assume that they no longer have an obligation to uphold the State of the Union, Each to horde what little scraps they have as individuals. Of course, an Independent Ulster would also do much to inflame Ireland again.

[Warluster]

I don't care about Scotland, I just want Australia to scede from the Commonwealth...

Think on the bright side CA, Australia gets to compete in the Commonwealth Games and thrash everyone else!

If Western Australia left the nation of AUstrlia, it ain't WA anymore! And we Queenslanders would go over and give 'em a whackign in sports!

[sapi]

I'm honestly surprised that the UK would allow a secession...

[pevergreen]

:focus:

[Ignoramus]

As an Australian of English and Scottish descent, I don't want the Union to be broken. If Scotland goes, then Wales, Ulster, and at a pinch(unlikely, but nothing's impossible) Cornwall will demand independence.

I can understand how it's easy to stir Scottish nationalism up, but really, leaving the Union would kill England.


I'm honestly surprised that the UK would allow a secession...

Well, ever since they created the Scottish parliament(which was a stupid move) they can't stop it. The SNP, if they have a majority in the Scottish parliament, will simply hold a referendum and if more than 50% votes in favour, then Scotland!

[InsaneApache]

I'm honestly surprised that the UK would allow a secession...

Despite all the appearances of being under the Blair jackboot for the last decade, the UK is still a democracy. If the jocks Scots decide to withdraw from the Union, there's not much the rest of the country can do about it.

Anyway here's a link.

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

[sapi]

Thanks for that mate - I've only been reading the BBC international edition, hence my confusion :grin2:

I really don't understand this though.

Democracy is (and I don't want to OT this, btw) but a tool to an end - getting a government into power.

Once it's there, it should act in the intersts of the people, even when this clashes with the wishes of the people.

Scottish independance would be devestating to both the Union and Scotland itself; as such I can't see how anybody could even consider passing the bill or allowing it to continue if the referendum succeeds...

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

f Scotland departs whose to stop Wales

The fact that we have no real economy and rely entirely on English money? We'd be bankrupt within a few months if we became independant.

[Vladimir]

Despite all the appearances of being under the Blair jackboot for the last decade, the UK is still a democracy. If the jocks Scots decide to withdraw from the Union, there's not much the rest of the country can do about it.

Anyway here's a link.

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

Whoa, wait. Since when was the UK a democracy? Someone kill the entire royal family? Republic republic!

Blair jackboot? :laugh4: You give that man so much credit. Well I imagine that with his pinky finger alone he could thrash the Scots and their smelly cuisine. Viva la Pictland!

One nice thing about the Cold War: I didn't have to constantly buy new maps. I suspect that's all that will really change if they do succeed besides making curling the national sport.

[InsaneApache]

Whoa, wait. Since when was the UK a democracy? Someone kill the entire royal family? Republic republic!

Blair jackboot? :laugh4: You give that man so much credit. Well I imagine that with his pinky finger alone he could thrash the Scots and their smelly cuisine. Viva la Pictland!

One nice thing about the Cold War: I didn't have to constantly buy new maps. I suspect that's all that will really change if they do succeed besides making curling the national sport.

The UK has had democracy for quite a bit now. :laugh4: It's for no reason at all that Westminster is called the Mother of Parliaments. :smash:

Oh, and about the only people who can't vote is the royal family.

As for Blair, the only credit that I can give him, is that for a sociapath, he hids it well. :sweatdrop:

[Odin]

Being an american I havent gotten much information on this issue in our news, I do listen to the BBC news in the morning on NPR but it hasnt spent much time on it.

I did take a moment to read a few articles but I dont see how this would be advantagous to Scotland save for becoming independant. Hows it playing in Europe? I guess the better question is what are the advantages other then nationalism?

Im not being sarcastic here, I have been to the UK once and wont profess to know the cultural nuances between scotland and england, just curious as to whats really at stake here.

[Meneldil]

I guess the better question is what are the advantages other then nationalism?

Nationalism is an end by itself. It overcomes any rational thinking.
If these people think they are a nation, and as such, are entitled to have their own independant country, they'll likely not give a crap about the pro and the con of it.

[Odin]

Nationalism is an end by itself. It overcomes any rational thinking.
If these people think they are a nation, and as such, are entitled to have their own independant country, they'll likely not give a crap about the pro and the con of it.

That sounds about right to me, still I was hoping that someone could give a link or a list of what Scotland has to gain by this move, outside of nationalist intrests.

[KukriKhan]

1. Are the separatists monarchists or Republicans? If they successfully secede, will they elect or select a new King or Queen from among themselves, or elsewhere?

2. Will they seek UN recognition?

3. Will their citizen-soldiers have to quit their current units, and re-form new ones? Will the UK military bases, equipment & units currently stationed in Scotland be expelled?

4. Will they seek EU recognition? NATO?

5. Will they join the Commonwealth?

[Vladimir]

What will happen to the UK flag?

[InsaneApache]

1. Are the separatists monarchists or Republicans? If they successfully secede, will they elect or select a new King or Queen from among themselves, or elsewhere?

2. Will they seek UN recognition?

3. Will their citizen-soldiers have to quit their current units, and re-form new ones? Will the UK military bases, equipment & units currently stationed in Scotland be expelled?

4. Will they seek EU recognition? NATO?

5. Will they join the Commonwealth?

Interesting questions Kukri.

1. I have no idea. I just found this. http://www.snp.org/independence/questions/constitution/queen/view?searchterm=head%20of%20state

So no change there then. :whip:

2. Probably.

3. Yup. The SNP has already started making noises about the 'English' navys base at Faslane. It is going to be a messy divorce, if it transpires.

4. Ahh...now this is very interesting. Not only will the Scots have to (re)apply to become a member of the EU, but also England, Wales and Norn Iron will have to as well. The reason is that at the present it is the UK who currently enjoys (groan) membership. No more UK, no more membership.

I would imagine that the way the treaties are worked that this would be the case for NATO as well.

5. They probably will apply to join the Commonwealth. After all they created most of it. :laugh4:


What will happen to the UK flag?

No Union, no flag. :wall:

[Kralizec]

4. Ahh...now this is very interesting. Not only will the Scots have to (re)apply to become a member of the EU, but also England, Wales and Norn Iron will have to as well. The reason is that at the present it is the UK who currently enjoys (groan) membership. No more UK, no more membership.

I would imagine that the way the treaties are worked that this would be the case for NATO as well.

Not necessarily. England, with or without Wales & NI would probably be considered the successor state of the UK, just like Russia is considered to be the successor state of the Soviet Union so that treaties with the SU still applied after the breakup.

Scotland would have to rejoin, though. Then the English can veto their application :beam:

[InsaneApache]

Not necessarily. England, with or without Wales & NI would probably be considered the successor state of the UK, just like Russia is considered to be the successor state of the Soviet Union so that treaties with the SU still applied after the breakup.

Scotland would have to rejoin, though. Then the English can veto their application :beam:

Why can't Scotland be the suceesor state? After all it is a Union of equals. You see, problems are already arising. I would be mildly amused if the Scots were to have to apply to join the EU and not England. :yes:

A bit more digging fetched this up...


Article 34 of the 1978 Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties says:

"Any treaty in force at the date of succession of states [i.e. Independence] in respect of the entire territory of the predecessor state continues in force in respect of each successor state so formed."

An example worth noting is that of Greenland. When Greenland gained more autonomy from Denmark in 1979, it had to negotiate to be allowed out of the EU.

The 1992 Maastricht Treaty has already conferred on Scots the status of European citizens and the EU will have no more reason to reject an independent Scotland than to reject the independent remainder of the UK.

For the past two decades the overwhelming weight of legal and political opinion has stated that an independent Scotland would inherit EU member ship on exactly the same terms as the rest of the UK. The SNP has consulted widely throughout the EU and we are confident that an independent Scotland would not only remain in the EU as a full member, but would be welcome as such.

Emile Noêl, former Secretary General of the European Commission, has said:

"Scottish Independence would create two new member states out of one. They would have equal status with each other and the other 11 states. The remainder of the United Kingdom would not be in a more powerful position than Scotland."

[Husar]

I agree with Adrian, I'm already starting to laugh in anticipation.:2thumbsup: :laugh4:

[Ronin]

ohhh....this could be great fun :laugh4:

go on...go on....I´ll be watching...

http://www.techhelpforum.com/images/smilies/popcorn.gif

[ShadeHonestus]

A story has been broken that has Quebec and Scotland secretly meeting in Israel to negotiate the forming of the Forlon Commonwealth.

Something about them symbolicly trying to restablish colonies in Panama with the backing of Israeli funds....uh oh, we've all seen this before.

[rory_20_uk]

I hope they go. The French are no longer a threat and we don't need to worry about a Catholic coalition.

Sure, the oil would be a loss, but as far as I am aware Scotland is still a net drain on the UK budget.

Wales has an even weaker economic case. Cornwall? There are a few that want independence, but I think most people think they are cute more than a threat to the Union.

Australia wants to leave the Commonwealth? I didn't think it was that much of an onerous task.

~:smoking:

[Vladimir]

A story has been broken that has Quebec and Scotland secretly meeting in Israel to negotiate the forming of the Forlon Commonwealth.

Something about them symbolicly trying to restablish colonies in Panama with the backing of Israeli funds....uh oh, we've all seen this before.

I wonder what their flag would look like.

[ShadeHonestus]

I wonder what their flag would look like.

A maple leaf mutated into a middle finger gesture imposed upon the kilt of the scottish savior Mel Gibson.

[Vladimir]

A maple leaf mutated into a middle finger gesture imposed upon the kilt of the scottish savior Mel Gibson.

Well then. I'll have to look into dual citizenship!

[scotchedpommes]

Well, it's all giving me an intense feeling of deja vu, reading the views here. But
I realise you have to discuss non-events five times before they actually occur.
Yes, Labour appears to be bricking it here - though you're not quite getting the
coverage we are, it all smacks of panic stations. Fact is, or at least appear to
be, from the general feeling around my area, bugger all is going to happen. If
anything, the Tories are going to gain considerably thanks to the few disgruntled
whine merchants who can be bothered to vote. My home constituency has been
fairly solid Lib Dem ground for some time, and the only ones who seem to be
even trying to come close to that are the Tories.

As for where I am now, it's Labour, and it doesn't look like changing. I'm
surprised our resident Imperialist hasn't been out shouting about the glorious
victories to come.

So yes, let's all have our digs and get ready to laugh, eh. Hilarious.

[macsen rufus]

As for ULSTER leaving the Union?

NEVAH! England may leave, Wales and Scotland may leave, but Ulster will be in there even if they're the only ones left! :beam:

[InsaneApache]

A union of one then? :inquisitive: :laugh4:

I do hope that you are unanimous on that. :laugh4:

[Duke Malcolm]

Heaven Forfend! I may have been a cursed nationalist a long time ago, for Lord only knows what reason.

It is unlikely that Salmond will win a Majority in Parliament this time, though. He might end up the largest party, but methinks all the other parties will refuse on the matter of independence. Even then, there would have to be a referendum which would probably be rejected.

As for the candidates here -- Labour's Dundee West Candidate, long time Leader of Dundee City Council, is fairly useless but this has long been a Labour seat. SNP candidate is nowhere near as good, and i have to say, Labour policies on education, and a few other things are generally better than the SNP.

I have to admit the Tories have no chance of a comeback. Maybe slight variation, probably a slight drop. This has been a safe Tory ward for a while, but what with the new changes, the outcome is hard to judge...

I really can't stand the Scottish Parliament, though. It is such a shame the Tories have such a small number, but are the only ones that wish to improve the Universities -- Education has, for some reason, been made into a big thing for the election, and of the parties policies, Labour is probably the best.

The SNP are pretty damned useless.

[scotchedpommes]

I have to admit the Tories have no chance of a comeback.

Ah, it's just good to hear it from you, Malcolm. :beam:

[Don Corleone]

From what I understand, Scotland actually receives more money in Union funds flowing in then they shell out in tax revenue going to Westminster, correct? How exactly do rabid Scottish nationalists plan to deal with this little conundrum? Cut back on services? Isn't Scotland more Labour than England? That is, don't the people in Dundee expect even more in the way of handouts than the people in Kent?

I'm with Adrian. This is going to be a farce and disaster from moment one.

Side question.... Why didn't the UK include all of it's territories into Union? Have the Brittish ever considered that if they had brought the colonies into the Union, perhaps they'd still have them? Hell, you guys never even handed out peerages over here. It's no wonder we turned into rebellious adolescents. And maybe after we broke away, it would have dawned on you that perhaps Canada, India and Australia might do a little better at being British if you actually made them British?

Seriously, I understand the difference between being British and being English. But why do you have to come from the magic islands to be allowed into the Union, as opposed to just being a flunky in the Commonwealth?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

From what I understand, Scotland actually receives more money in Union funds flowing in then they shell out in tax revenue going to Westminster, correct? How exactly do rabid Scottish nationalists plan to deal with this little conundrum? Cut back on services? Isn't Scotland more Labour than England? That is, don't the people in Dundee expect even more in the way of handouts than the people in Kent?

I'm with Adrian. This is going to be a farce and disaster from moment one.

Side question.... Why didn't the UK include all of it's territories into Union? Have the Brittish ever considered that if they had brought the colonies into the Union, perhaps they'd still have them? Hell, you guys never even handed out peerages over here. It's no wonder we turned into rebellious adolescents. And maybe after we broke away, it would have dawned on you that perhaps Canada, India and Australia might do a little better at being British if you actually made them British?

Seriously, I understand the difference between being British and being English. But why do you have to come from the magic islands to be allowed into the Union, as opposed to just being a flunky in the Commonwealth?

Well historically there were huge logistical issues, for example crossing the Ocean, and you have to remember that until the 1830's parliament was the preserve of the Nobility and hereditory gentry. Even in the 1870's the cabinet was mostly peers and baronets. So complaining about representation is a bit dissingenuous as it wasn't any better here in Wessex.

So, that's the historical reason. Why today we don't include the Falklands and the other Crown dependancies I don't know and if I were in government it would be something I would do in my first session of parliament.

Moving onto the Commonwealth, when Australia and Canada were granted independance the logistical issue was still a problem, after that the issues with Africa and Asia probably pivot on racism on both sides.

My dream is a Commonwealth Parliament in Winchester with the English parliament in London and the other member parliaments dotted about but with the real decisions made together and made binding on all member states.

[rory_20_uk]

Many areas, far from being assimilated into England were being prepared for independence. Separate parliaments, and finally Dominion status to e.g. Canada.

I think that Canada turned out almost how it was planned: similar values to England, speaks English and is relatively friendly to England. The same can be said of Australia and New Zealand.

A commonwealth parliament sounds a great way of never getting anything done.

Concerning the Crown lands in Parliament I think that is a good idea. When the Scottish MPs are got rid of there's a lot more space for them as well.

~:smoking:

[Don Corleone]

Thank you. I actually understand that, the average guy in Liverpool had if anything less representation than we did back in 1775. But the representation he did receive, at least at that point, was typically through his local lord in the house of parliment. How come the crown never handed out titles like "Duke of Boston", "Earl of Charleston", etectera? From what I understand, it would have solved multiple problems... Parliment almost bankrupted the nation paying for the French and Indian War (or as you call it, the Seven Years War). Why didn't Parliment just follow the time honored from of military salary: land grants to the common soldiers and peerages to the higher ranking officers?

I guess what I'm asking is if there is some reason why peerages to England's possesions were never handed out. Not just here in the Colonies, but why no Earl of Gibraltar? No Count of Malta?

[rory_20_uk]

Kitchener was made K of K - Kitchener of Khartoum. But I can't think of any others.

Possibly soldiers weren't keen on the thought of being given lands in a place they were only dimly aware of.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

If representation were given for the US, the distance involved and the inaccuracy of outdated information may have given us even more extreme examples of our rotten boroughs. Imagine a representative representing nothing more than bears and wolves because the original inhabitants had moved away, and Westminster hadn't yet caught wind of it. It was bad enough in England, where there were constituencies of 50 voters and 50,000 voters, each electing 1 MP. Wasn't Manchester a "New Town" with a population of 100,000 but no MP, because the boundaries were drawn back in the days when it was a tiny hamlet?

[Vladimir]

Kitchener was made K of K - Kitchener of Khartoum. But I can't think of any others.

Possibly soldiers weren't keen on the thought of being given lands in a place they were only dimly aware of.

~:smoking:

New lands mean new taxes and...I'm sorry, did you say that there's nothing but trees? :toff:

Try prima nocta with an oak. (ok, that's not spelled right)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Thank you. I actually understand that, the average guy in Liverpool had if anything less representation than we did back in 1775. But the representation he did receive, at least at that point, was typically through his local lord in the house of parliment. How come the crown never handed out titles like "Duke of Boston", "Earl of Charleston", etectera? From what I understand, it would have solved multiple problems... Parliment almost bankrupted the nation paying for the French and Indian War (or as you call it, the Seven Years War). Why didn't Parliment just follow the time honored from of military salary: land grants to the common soldiers and peerages to the higher ranking officers?

I guess what I'm asking is if there is some reason why peerages to England's possesions were never handed out. Not just here in the Colonies, but why no Earl of Gibraltar? No Count of Malta?

Perhaps because by that time the aristocracy had already become stagnent and they didn't want to let new people in. I don't really have answer. The logistical problem comes in again though, how do you run your estates and sit in the Lords?

[Don Corleone]

You have a good point. I hadn't thought about that.... How did the Romans manage to pull it off? If you were granted lands in Iberia AND a seat in the Senate, how did you make it in on time? I guess you have to start having a set season for the assembly....

Anyway, I think I understand a little better now.

Back to the original topic... Aren't the North Sea oil drillings in international waters? Why would Scotland be able to lay claim to them?

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Thank you. I actually understand that, the average guy in Liverpool had if anything less representation than we did back in 1775. But the representation he did receive, at least at that point, was typically through his local lord in the house of parliment. How come the crown never handed out titles like "Duke of Boston", "Earl of Charleston", etectera?

I don't think this is quite how it worked. We weren't still working on feudalism in 1775-people in Liverpool would have elected their MP who would represent them in the commons. Although there was a Duke of Lancaster, he didn't have dominion over the county in the way you seem to be suggesting. Peerages at this point were mostly important in terms of status and getting to sit in the Lords-the peer in question wasn't responsible to the people who lived where his title refered to, and the place name the peerage was based on was really rather arbitrary (I don't imagine The Duke of Wellington spent too much time in Wellington itself, which is, I believe, in Somerset). So any peers created with titles pertaining to American lands wouldn't actually have represented these lands in The Lords.

[Hepcat]

Well each year our government talks about becoming a republic, and about changing the flag. Which in my opinion is completely stupid. What is tiny anti-nuclear farming nation like ours going to do without any solid links with either Britain or the USA. And as for changing the flag, if we just change the flag because it's getting a bit old then what value does our flag really have?

I might not know much about the issue but I don't believe there is any reason why Scotland should separate, same with us. Neither them nor us are being opressed by English imperialism. It's not as if England is supressing patriotism either.

[Tribesman]

Back to the original topic... Aren't the North Sea oil drillings in international waters? Why would Scotland be able to lay claim to them?
You have a territorial zone and an economic zone . its like the arguements about Rockall between the UK and Ireland , the territorial waters are small and pretty worthless , but the economic zone could prove to be lucrative .

[lars573]

You have a good point. I hadn't thought about that.... How did the Romans manage to pull it off? If you were granted lands in Iberia AND a seat in the Senate, how did you make it in on time? I guess you have to start having a set season for the assembly....
They workd it out so you could vote in absentia. 1 guy votes for all his cronies from where ever.

[Duke Malcolm]

From what I understand, Scotland actually receives more money in Union funds flowing in then they shell out in tax revenue going to Westminster, correct? How exactly do rabid Scottish nationalists plan to deal with this little conundrum? Cut back on services? Isn't Scotland more Labour than England? That is, don't the people in Dundee expect even more in the way of handouts than the people in Kent?

I'm with Adrian. This is going to be a farce and disaster from moment one.

why do you have to come from the magic islands to be allowed into the Union, as opposed to just being a flunky in the Commonwealth?

The SNP plan to save money by getting the oil revenues and having a small Defence Force, of the previous Scottish Regiments (I believe). They seem to think they would save swathes of money by not paying for nuclear weapons. Their sums are dubious, since they want to employ hundreds of non-existant teachers (reduce class sizes to <20, for the idea that small classes=better performance), abolish council tax, abolish University Endowments and increase Grants (with no sign of more funding for universities -- they want most people to go to uni, but don't care how good the university is), Cut business rates for hundreds of thousands of small businesses, the cost of independence (embassies, government departments, quangoes, etc and when the time comes, a Republic (ugh...)), fields of wind farms and Lord knows what else... (on that matter, probably abolishing the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, those pesky thorns in the side of the Glorious Executive of the People's Republic...


As for that other matter...
Malta had a referendum on joining the UK, which was voted "yes" but nulled because the Catholic boycotted it.

On the matter of nobility in the Colonies, King James VI granted a host of Baronetcies of Nova Scotia to Scottish Nobles to establish a colony in, uh, Nova Scotia. As is the nature of Baronetcies, they are still around today.

I wouldn't mind a Commonwealth Parliament. I think Cecil Rhodes was mightily in favour of an Imperial Parliament where all the countries of the world were represented equally, I believe (though no doubt it was based on race, asuch was the character of the chap). This is, of course, when Britain takes over the world.

[scotchedpommes]

(on that matter, probably abolishing the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, those pesky thorns in the side of the Glorious Executive of the People's Republic...

Why would you think this? Have they come out with anything to suggest
this? Not that I would be bothered in the slightest, mind you. However it
sounds as though you should simply write they intend to drink the blood of
small children, and be done with it.

[Duke Malcolm]

Why would you think this? Have they come out with anything to suggest
this? Not that I would be bothered in the slightest, mind you. However it
sounds as though you should simply write they intend to drink the blood of
small children, and be done with it.

Yes, yes, i know. I was exaggerating. I couldn't help myself.

[scotchedpommes]

You'd consider Dundee West safe for Labour, then?
My flatmate [who campaigns for Labour in this constituency] informed me that the SNP aren't
too far off taking this seat.

[Duke Malcolm]

You'd consider Dundee West safe for Labour, then?
My flatmate [who campaigns for Labour in this constituency] informed me that the SNP aren't
too far off taking this seat.

Oh, no, not at all. After SNP took Dundee East in 2005, things have looked shaky for Labour here, though they had a bigger majority in '05 than in '03. The new candidate is no real charmer, either. And the SNP have been campaigning next near continuously -- the Councillor for Logie has been plastering and posting SNP propaganda all over the West End and other areas in Dundee West constituency.

I don't think Labour will be ousted from the seat, but there is a chance. I'm no great Labour supporter, but most people are pro-Union and they see that the way to stop SNP getting the seat is to vote Labour.

[Slyspy]

They may succeed in seceding but they may not succeed in secession.

[JR-]

Under British rule? :inquisitive:

It's mindsets such as this that has brought us to the point of the break up of the Union.

I fear that the Scots will vote for the SNP and their odious leader Salmond. It would be a disaster for Scotland and would hand us over to the EU piecemeal.

This will be Blairs legacy. A breakup of the Union, the regionalisation of England, a Welsh and Ulster hive off. The UK is like a big cake. Too big to be eaten in one sitting, so slice it up and hey presto....:wall:

Well done Tony. History will surely judge you more harshly than I ever could.
what is wrong with that statement? England, Scotland, Wales and NI all exist under 'British Rule'..........?

It will be a great shame if Scotland leaves the Union, not least because i define myself as British, not English.

It is less than certain that Scotland would, as there has not in recent history been more than about 25% of Scottish people who are in favour of Independence.

[scooter_the_shooter]

What is tiny anti-nuclear farming nation like ours going to do without any solid links with either Britain or the USA.


Well I am pretty sure the citizens of the USA would welcome the scots into our happy little union, but I fear they wouldn't want to come.

(even if we lost more money than we got out of it....it'd be worth it just to piss the UK off:laugh4:) Imagine part of the british mainland becoming the 51st state, if only the founding fathers could see:yes:

[JR-]

lol, but i don't think they'd swing for it.

[Romanus]

Thank you. I actually understand that, the average guy in Liverpool had if anything less representation than we did back in 1775. But the representation he did receive, at least at that point, was typically through his local lord in the house of parliment. How come the crown never handed out titles like "Duke of Boston", "Earl of Charleston", etectera? From what I understand, it would have solved multiple problems... Parliment almost bankrupted the nation paying for the French and Indian War (or as you call it, the Seven Years War). Why didn't Parliment just follow the time honored from of military salary: land grants to the common soldiers and peerages to the higher ranking officers?

I guess what I'm asking is if there is some reason why peerages to England's possesions were never handed out. Not just here in the Colonies, but why no Earl of Gibraltar? No Count of Malta?

There are a few baronets in Canada, and a couple of heriditary peers. I also remember reading about a baronet of New York somewhere. But that title would have become defunct when the rebels took over.

[Duke Malcolm]

I think I read in Niall Ferguson's "Empire" that they tried a kind of hereditary aristocracy in the American Colonies, with the Lords Proprietors and other such offices. This didn't work too well, I believe, and they opted for Colonial assemblies and congresses.

[JR-]

good book.

[English assassin]

Do any of the Scots/ scotland residents on the board have a view as to whether support of the SNP would actually translate into votes for independence at a referendum?

I really struggle with understanding the mindset. Voting SNP to annoy Tony Blair/because you believe they really will wave the magic socialist money wand and make everything wonderful, that I can understand. But independence? Why?

If Scottish nationhood was groaning under the jackboot of chortling English imperialists, fine. But every time I go to Scotland the Scottish national identity appears to be very much alive and well and picking fights, in a way I sometimes rather wish we were allowed to do in England. What actually would being independent add to the mix?

From south of the border, if I think about it at all, which I don't, I rather wish Scotland would go independent. We'd pay less tax, never have a labour government again, and at least the faint midge-like buzz of resentment drowning over the border from Alex Salmond would have to stop. I like Scotland and I like Scots as much as anyone else I have met, but I don't need to be in a political union with them for any of that. I'm sure I'd still be allowed to go walking in the highlands. So, if we are allowed to play the nationalist "what's in it for me?" game, well, "what's in it for me?"

[Duke Malcolm]

Do any of the Scots/ scotland residents on the board have a view as to whether support of the SNP would actually translate into votes for independence at a referendum?
Almost certainly. People who are for independence rarely care about the actual policies of SNP, and simply vote for them.



I really struggle with understanding the mindset. Voting SNP to annoy Tony Blair/because you believe they really will wave the magic socialist money wand and make everything wonderful, that I can understand. But independence? Why?
1. It's not just to annoy Tony Blair -- some people just don't like Labour now, but can't vote Tory (because they're Scottish). It is also slightly psychological in that a lot (probably a proportionate number) of media and government spokesmen are English, so Government = English.
2. SNP are not really socialist, just a bit rose-tinted...

The independence part is almost entirely anglo-phobic. The current surge in support is most likely due to Braveheart. There is also the lack of anything really holding us together now. In 1707 Scotland was quite poor after the Darien Scheme and an English moratorium on trade with the Scots. Union would afford us the protection of the Royal Navy and allow trade with the colonies. Then there was the Empire. Now, nothing.

[Louis VI the Fat]

From south of the border, if I think about it at all, which I don't, I rather wish Scotland would go independent. We'd pay less tax, never have a labour government again, and at least the faint midge-like buzz of resentment drowning over the border from Alex Salmond would have to stop. I like Scotland and I like Scots as much as anyone else I have met, but I don't need to be in a political union with them for any of that. I'm sure I'd still be allowed to go walking in the highlands. It's so funny that you should say that. Sometimes, sneakily, I hope at least one of the more annoying of all those 'opressed' minorities in Europe will get a just exactly what they bargained for.

Nowadays, it's the centres of countries that are asking themselves 'what's in it for us anyway'. In the good old days, you could embellish your capital with the spoils of plunder and exploitation of the outer rim. But not in a democracy. So what's the point of putting up with them?

If they want to be independent, well be my guest. Corsica, Brittanny, the Basque country, overseas departments - well leave if you must. Carelevel: zero. By all means rid me of your incessant whining coming my way and my subsidies going your way.


* feels much relieved *

Gah! Why was I not born a narrow-minded conservative nationalist. Life is so much simpler, more fun this way. ~:mecry:

[scotchedpommes]

If your 'carelevel' is so minimal, why leave us that to read?


The independence part is almost entirely anglo-phobic. The current surge in support is most likely due to Braveheart.
Do you honestly believe that, Malcolm, or are you just taking to exaggeration
again? Surely you have to see it's stretching it a bit to put it down to Mel
Gibson's mince.

As for EA's question, I've said no before to the question of apparent support
turning to votes in a referendum, and I would still say it. I don't see it even
coming to that - even if the SNP do assert that they have more support in this
area than all other parties combined, I'm struggling to see it.

[English assassin]

As for EA's question, I've said no before to the question of apparent support turning to votes in a referendum, and I would still say it.

That's what I would hope/guess. Personally, I can't see any necessary connect between being/voting nationalist and wanting independence (assuming, as I said, that your national identify is not being squashed).

As for anglophobia, one of the few sensible things I have heard Alex Salmond say (I think in the context of the world cup) was that scotland needed to define itself more in terms of what it positively was, and less in terms of not-being-England.

Of course, that may tell us more about his mental state that the scots at large, who probably spend as little time worrying about ways to annoy the English as I do thinking up ways to annoy the Scots. Or so I would hope. Certainly, if there was some positive case for independence, that would be one thing, but wanting independence in the hope it will upset the English would be rather sad. Not that it bothers me, if people want independence they should have it, for good reasons or bad.

I'm in favour of independence for London myself. You're all a funny lot out in the provinces. :laugh4:

[Husar]

If your 'carelevel' is so minimal, why leave us that to read?
Can't really talk for Louis but I guess it's because those in charge haven't realized yet how low his carelevel really is.~;)
If he spreads the word, they may realize it someday.

[InsaneApache]

1. It's not just to annoy Tony Blair -- some people just don't like Labour now, but can't vote Tory (because they're Scottish). It is also slightly psychological in that a lot (probably a proportionate number) of media and government spokesmen are English, so Government = English.

You have got to be joking right? :inquisitive:

Tony Blair -jock

Gordon Brown-jock

John Reid (BTW my great-grandmothers' name-from Rosyth)- jock

Alastair Campbell-ohh...c'mon

David Cameron-see above...:whip:

All we need now is a 'Jock' Ewing and we have the full set.

:laugh4:

[Duke Malcolm]

Do you honestly believe that, Malcolm, or are you just taking to exaggeration
again? Surely you have to see it's stretching it a bit to put it down to Mel
Gibson's mince.
No. Well, perhaps a bit of hyperbole there. But the Nationalists would certainly not have been so successful if it was not for that movie. They used it to kick-start their campaign back in the day and it pretty much launched the current support.



You have got to be joking right?

Tony Blair -jock

Gordon Brown-jock

John Reid (BTW my great-grandmothers' name-from Rosyth)- jock

Alastair Campbell-ohh...c'mon

David Cameron-see above...

All we need now is a 'Jock' Ewing and we have the full set.

You're giving the Scots too much credit here.

Tony has an English accent, therefore is English.

Gordon has betrayed his Scottishness by trying to be the British PM (courtesy of the Press)

Alastair Campbell. Who?

David Cameron, well, Eton. Oxbridge. Tory. Notting Hill. English Toff.

[rory_20_uk]

To paraphrase the Duke of Wellington "merely as one is born in a stable does not make one a donkey". He did not let the fact he was born in Ireland get in the way of being an English Gentleman.

~:smoking:

[Louis VI the Fat]

If your 'carelevel' is so minimal, why leave us that to read?Because I desperately felt the urge to sink to the level of argument of the average provincial nationalist for once in my life, giving them a bit of their own. ~;)

[Duke of Gloucester]

You have got to be joking right? :inquisitive:

Tony Blair -jock

Gordon Brown-jock

John Reid (BTW my great-grandmothers' name-from Rosyth)- jock

Alastair Campbell-ohh...c'mon

David Cameron-see above...:whip:

All we need now is a 'Jock' Ewing and we have the full set.

:laugh4:

Exactly the same is true in the BBC - disproportionate number of Celts. Martyn Lewis, Huw Edwards, Fiona Bruce, James Naughtie, John Humphries.

As for the idea that Scotland is under "British" rule, well if MP's from the rest of Britain could vote on laws that applied only to Scotland then that would be true. Reality is the reverse. In fact England and Wales are ruled by Scotland. England comes off worse because it is ruled by Wales too. If the people of Scotland would like to be independent because they see themselves as distinct and different and then fine. If it is because they want to escape some perceived domination by the English then they are flying in the face of reality and dishonouring their own forebears who always managed to defend their nation from any attempt at military domination from their southern neighbours.

[naut]

The SNP seem to be assuming a lot economy wise. Do they really think they can keep it afloat without substantial hand-outs from England.

Also I couldn't see Wales leaving due to the economy question; and Northern Ireland, probably not either.

[Strike For The South]

Maybe England should leave?

[caravel]

Under British rule? :inquisitive:
Well technically we're all under Scottish rule anyway, as Blair, Brown, Reid etc etc etc are all Scots. So if the SNP win we can send that lot swiftly northwards to join them. :beam:

[Lorenzo_H]

I don't really mind if Scotland split from the Union, as long as they don't do it like Ireland did.

It will show them how life is without being behind old England and it will make people leave the country in droves (it already has a high level of emigration).

[Duke Malcolm]

People have been leaving Scotland in droves since people first inhabited the place. I doubt that England being independent will mean people leave Scotland anymore then they previously have.

[scotchedpommes]

Well, the polls have closed, and my bit is done. What astonishing turnout will
there have been this time?

Extra points for those of you who voted for "Christ's Lordship".

[InsaneApache]

I'd love to be a fly on Bliars ceiling, this evening. :egypt:

[scotchedpommes]

Dundee the first city to go entirely Nationalist. Nae luck, Malky.

[Vladimir]

Dundee the first city to go entirely Nationalist. Nae luck, Malky.

Wahoo! :scotland:

[scotchedpommes]

:inquisitive:

My home constituency just went Nationalist to Salmond, which isn't really too
much of a surprise, and it looks like where I am now [Aberdeen Central] is going
to go from Labour to Nationalist. Looks to be going close, but the SNP hasn't
taken the target seats in Glasgow. Counting has been a disaster.

Stirling gone Nationalist.
Nationalists [Nicola Sturgeon] just took Govan.

[Agent Smith]

People have been leaving Scotland in droves since people first inhabited the place. I doubt that England being independent will mean people leave Scotland anymore then they previously have.

I thought Scotland became overpopulated when the blamanges from the planet Skyron in the galaxy Andromeda turned everyone in England into Scotsmen so they could win Wimbledon?

Kidding aside, this kind of news never ceases to amaze me. I try to keep up as best as I can on international news, but this is the first I've ever heard of this issue. I grow so tired of the news and media over here in the United States. Instead, you get top headlines on CNN like "Cop roughs up woman racing to dad in hospital," and "Hasselhoff: I have learned from drunk video." Maybe its because the US is so isolated from the rest of the world and only really borders two other countries, but I grow tired of our major news being dominated by Hollywood and meaningless drivel.

As for the Scots independence, I can somewhat understand. My grandmother is a direct decendent of a British family, who was given land in Virginia for military service in the colonies, and one of her relatives was a Civil War soldier named Robert Gaines Haile, Jr. He kept a diary and wrote home frequently during the war, and he actually has the only written account of certain events (he personally led Robert E. Lee's wife across the Chickahominy River from Federal lines, for instance). Anyway, the point is that he talked a lot about his reasons for fighting, and the over-arching theme is a right to self-governance, one which he thought would be taken away under Federal rule. Nationalism is really an offshoot of that personal freedom that individuals seek.

Anyway, if anyone is interested in Civil War stuff, all of his writings were compiled in a book that you can buy. It's called "Tell the Children I'll be Home When the Peaches Get Ripe (http://www.amazon.com/When-Peaches-Ripe-Robert-Tombes/dp/0967507405/ref=sr_1_1/103-8528280-4915830?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178286690&sr=8-1)." It's a really interesting look into the life of a soldier during the War.

[Myrddraal]

I don't understand where the idea of English oppression comes from. I visited Wales recently, around the end of the Six Nations. Something that really suprised me was the low level anti English feeling.

If France or Italy play Scotland or Wales at Rugby, English people pretty much unanimously support Scotland and Wales. If France or Italy play England though...

It's all about hating the English. It's certainly not a feeling which is returned, the English don't oppress the Scots. Like people have previously mentioned, the Scots if anything have more rights than the English (the ability to pass laws for Scotland alone, whilst still having the same vote as the next man in National elections).

Well I find it a bit sad. We share a lot of history, we have a lot of shared culture (as well as our own independent history and culture). If anything, it's to honour the heritage we share that the Union exists, if it was all about economy, England would have seceded long ago.

Just remember this, being British doesn't make you less Scottish, just as being English doesn't make you more British. It really doesn't.

PS, Braveheart is the most ahistorical, anglo-phobic film ever, I really like the fact that the Scots are wearing Kilts!
PPS, rdeče.jabolko I found this and thought you might be interested:
http://www.braveheart.info/news/2005/sunday_herald/2007-07-31/51063.html

[Duke Malcolm]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh! Joe Fitz-fecking-patrick... Ugh...

And we lost 2 Tory councillors (though I suspect this has more to do with the Boundary and Voting changes as opposed to votes -- one area with 4 Tories previously cannot be expected to return 4 Tories under the STV)

Had the day off yesterday, since my school is a polling station. Today spent all the time in the library checking the poll results regularly, debating the results and the parties. Sore disappointment at the amount of SNP seats.

Quite surprised at how badly the small parties have done - only one other party (Scottish Greens) returned a member.


Of course, the counting has been a farce, with over 100,000 votes not being counted (due to incorrect filling in, no doubt due to the introduction of the STV). The nice woman spokesman came on the BBC this morning to say everthing was running very well, despite the fact the machines weren't reading ballots, and many poll counts (council elections mostly) had to be postponed...

[Agent Smith]

So, tell me, how does this work.

If Scotland passes a law, but there is a British law that supercedes it, does the British law prevail?

Maybe you should just adopt federalism in the UK and join us colonists :laugh4:

[Duke Malcolm]

47 to SNP, 46 to Labour, 17 to Tories, 16 to Liberals, 2 to Greens, 1 to Margo MacDonald.

[Vladimir]

So, am I going to have to buy a new map now?

[Duke Malcolm]

No. It is unlikely that the SNP will form a succesful coalition that would go for the referendum on independence. They would need to form an SNP-Lib-Greens coalition, and Lib Dems have categorically said that they shan't form an executive with a party which would break up the Union.
However, the Conservative and Unionist Party has said it shan't form a coalition at all, and the Lib-Lab grouping does not have enough seats to form again. They would need to form with the Greens.

So unless one of the above parties changes their tune, it could be a while until we see who has actually won.

[scotchedpommes]

Just heard the news.


Lib Dems have categorically said that they shan't form an executive with a party which would break up the Union.

I can still see the Lib Dems reversing on their coalition stance. Apparently Nicol
Stephen's sent mixed signals over it, [I haven't seen it myself, though even your
glorious leader seemed to think beforehand that he wouldn't hesitate to jump
into bed with Salmond.] whereas south of the border Menzies is totally against.


I don't understand where the idea of English oppression comes from.
Who is talking about oppression? Why do we need this recurring rant when we're
not talking about oppression?

[English assassin]

So, tell me, how does this work.

If Scotland passes a law, but there is a British law that supercedes it, does the British law prevail?

Maybe you should just adopt federalism in the UK and join us colonists

Westminster delegated a large area of legislative competence to Holyrood. If Holyrood legislates outside its delegated authority that legislation would be void. Also, in theory, westminster can undelegate if it wishes.

In practice in time conventions grow up and you find the situation is more...interesting. Political power may or may not come from the barrel of a gun, but it doesn't have to come from a law, either.


I can still see the Lib Dems reversing on their coalition stance.

Entirely. Give them a sniff of power and the lying ***** will agree to anything.

Nice to see Sheridan out, anyway.

[Duke of Gloucester]

I thought Scotland became overpopulated when the blamanges from the planet Skyron in the galaxy Andromeda turned everyone in England into Scotsmen so they could win Wimbledon?

Kidding aside, this kind of news never ceases to amaze me. I try to keep up as best as I can on international news, but this is the first I've ever heard of this issue. I grow so tired of the news and media over here in the United States. Instead, you get top headlines on CNN like "Cop roughs up woman racing to dad in hospital," and "Hasselhoff: I have learned from drunk video." Maybe its because the US is so isolated from the rest of the world and only really borders two other countries, but I grow tired of our major news being dominated by Hollywood and meaningless drivel.

As for the Scots independence, I can somewhat understand. My grandmother is a direct decendent of a British family, who was given land in Virginia for military service in the colonies, and one of her relatives was a Civil War soldier named Robert Gaines Haile, Jr. He kept a diary and wrote home frequently during the war, and he actually has the only written account of certain events (he personally led Robert E. Lee's wife across the Chickahominy River from Federal lines, for instance). Anyway, the point is that he talked a lot about his reasons for fighting, and the over-arching theme is a right to self-governance, one which he thought would be taken away under Federal rule. Nationalism is really an offshoot of that personal freedom that individuals seek.

Anyway, if anyone is interested in Civil War stuff, all of his writings were compiled in a book that you can buy. It's called "Tell the Children I'll be Home When the Peaches Get Ripe (http://www.amazon.com/When-Peaches-Ripe-Robert-Tombes/dp/0967507405/ref=sr_1_1/103-8528280-4915830?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178286690&sr=8-1)." It's a really interesting look into the life of a soldier during the War.

The example of R G Haile is an interesting one. Although there were legal, political and financial causes to the Civil War, the psychological causes were all based on mutual dislike and distrust, similar to the anti-English feeling North of the border. Actually North of the border may be inaccurate because the Scots who live in England seem to be more anti-English than those who live at "home". He felt he was doing his patriotic duty in opposing the north, and whilst losing the Civil war was bad for the South, winning it would have been a disaster. The confederacy would have continued (for a while at least) as and agrarian economy whilst the Federal states would have rushed ahead into industrialisation. Worst case would the Federal states now arguing for a huge fence along the Mason-Dixon line rather than the Rio Grande to keep out the inhabitants of their less developed Southern neighbour.

If he really wanted to keep his homeland free and prosperous his best bet would have been to join McClellan's forces and help his wife across the river instead. (Mind you Robert E Lee was a much better general to follow).

Both halves of the US are stronger because they remained together. Perhaps Alex Salmond should reflect on this before he starts to stir up trouble in the UK.

Incidentally US nationalism may spring from the desire for personal freedom but that is to do with US history. In other nations nationalism can be used as a screen to remove personal freedom.

[scotchedpommes]

Entirely. Give them a sniff of power and the lying ***** will agree to anything.

Nice to see Sheridan out, anyway.

That appears to be the view about the Lib Dems amongst Labour faithful here, I
just wonder if their party will attempt to convince the Liberals now that they
find themselves in this situation.

About Sheridan, though: you say that simply out of disdain, or? If Sheridan and
the other small parties had received the share of the vote that used to be theirs
the situation would clearly be different. Fox and Sheridan have only succeeded
in handing most of the Socialist vote to the Nationalists.

[Marshal Murat]

Fresh from the BBC, the SNP (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6620905.stm)

I don't know if this means anything or not.
Meh.

[Agent Smith]

The example of R G Haile is an interesting one. Although there were legal, political and financial causes to the Civil War, the psychological causes were all based on mutual dislike and distrust, similar to the anti-English feeling North of the border. Actually North of the border may be inaccurate because the Scots who live in England seem to be more anti-English than those who live at "home". He felt he was doing his patriotic duty in opposing the north, and whilst losing the Civil war was bad for the South, winning it would have been a disaster. The confederacy would have continued (for a while at least) as and agrarian economy whilst the Federal states would have rushed ahead into industrialisation. Worst case would the Federal states now arguing for a huge fence along the Mason-Dixon line rather than the Rio Grande to keep out the inhabitants of their less developed Southern neighbour.

If he really wanted to keep his homeland free and prosperous his best bet would have been to join McClellan's forces and help his wife across the river instead. (Mind you Robert E Lee was a much better general to follow).

Both halves of the US are stronger because they remained together. Perhaps Alex Salmond should reflect on this before he starts to stir up trouble in the UK.

Incidentally US nationalism may spring from the desire for personal freedom but that is to do with US history. In other nations nationalism can be used as a screen to remove personal freedom.

Trust me, I'm very glad that federalism won the day in the end. A confederacy would've never lasted, and you'd very well probably see many of the current states as independent and fighting with each other. In fact, early on there were large problems with economic protectionism in the States that the Federal government tried it's hardest to squash.

That being said, I see where you're coming from about nationalism. The same thing happens here, too. However, I guess it is hard to compare since American nationalism has undergone a fundamental change in the last century. Up until after the Civil War, there was a lot of sentiment towards one's home state. Now, the States have really faded away (which I see as problematic). America is an ideal, not a culture or true "nation." And that makes it diffuclt for people like me who can actually trace his history back fairly accurately, because there really is something deep down that yearns for a nation to be a part of. It's hard to embrace just being an American, since being an American is basically meaningless because, quite frankly, anyone can be one.

Anyway, ranting aside, you need to stay very proud of your heritage and NEVER lose it, but I guess you should never let it cloud your judgment. I can definately sympathize with the Scots who feel like they are losing their identity, though.

[Agent Smith]

Westminster delegated a large area of legislative competence to Holyrood. If Holyrood legislates outside its delegated authority that legislation would be void. Also, in theory, westminster can undelegate if it wishes.

In practice in time conventions grow up and you find the situation is more...interesting. Political power may or may not come from the barrel of a gun, but it doesn't have to come from a law, either.

So, the Scottish parliament was basically given certain jurisdictional rights, but those rights can be taken away at any point by the British Parliament. That's actually very close to the US judicial system (although I know it's not a legislative body). Other than the Supreme Court, Congress can give and take away jurisdictional authority from the courts and can also create/disband them under the Constitution.

[Duke Malcolm]

So, the Scottish parliament was basically given certain jurisdictional rights, but those rights can be taken away at any point by the British Parliament. That's actually very close to the US judicial system (although I know it's not a legislative body). Other than the Supreme Court, Congress can give and take away jurisdictional authority from the courts and can also create/disband them under the Constitution.

I believe that there is as much chance of the rights of the Scottish Parliament being revoked as there is of the Canada Act 1982 being revoked...

[KafirChobee]

No. The Brits will offer them lands in Iraq if they fight there, and the Scotts as always will run to the get the lands. Like they did in Ireland, etc.
:balloon2: :laugh4:

[Slyspy]

I believe that there is as much chance of the rights of the Scottish Parliament being revoked as there is of the Canada Act 1982 being revoked...

So long as it is Scottish money which is pissed against the wall carefully spent on and by the Scottish Parliament then I don't mind.

[English assassin]

About Sheridan, though: you say that simply out of disdain, or?

I'm no fan in general, but there was a specific issue, his blatantly dishonest attempt to use the shooting of Andrew Morton to argue for a ban on all air guns. I'm opposed to any further gun control in the UK.


I believe that there is as much chance of the rights of the Scottish Parliament being revoked as there is of the Canada Act 1982 being revoked...

Exactly so. In strict constitutional theory, it could be done, but there is a basic assymmetry here. Its one thing for a parliament that legislates for the whole of a territory to pass some of its powers to a body concerned with part of that territory. That is clearly something it can do on its own. Its another thing to get the powers back. Without either a resolution from the Scottish parliament (politicians voting themselves out of a job: unlikely) or some other indication that a return to westminster was the will of Scotland, (again, surely most unlikely) Holyrood is here to stay. That is so now, and the position only becomes more entrenched with time.

[Duke Malcolm]

I'm no fan in general, but there was a specific issue, his blatantly dishonest attempt to use the shooting of Andrew Morton to argue for a ban on all air guns. I'm opposed to any further gun control in the UK.

I quite admire Tommy Sheridan. His oratory prowess in the Scottish Parliament and the Court of Session was quite marvellous, to such an extent that he convinced the Lords of Session he wasn't up to any funny business. His polices, yes, are balls. But the man was quite a character in the Parliament.

As for the matter of gun control, I also hate it. I remember walking through the City Centre with my air rifle hung at shoulder, ah, happy days...
But that ill-advised knee-jerk reaction is all too common in Scotland -- after Dunblane and after the airgun shooting.
The City of Aberdeen has banned airguns, or at least require some worthwhile reason for them to be sold. The City of Edinburgh is, I believe, also going about the same thing.

[Nem]

Do you think Scotland will secede?

God I hope so. I'm so sick of listening to the anti English comments they continually spout, 300 years later and they still go on about Culloden.

What they never mention is that more Scots fought on the English side than the Scottish and the parliament commander was Hanoverian and not even English. All this coupled to the fact that Bonnie Prince Charlie was French, could barely speak english, hated Scotland and was a coward is hardly Englands fault Scotland lost.

Scotland doesn't have the guts to independent. It's alot easier to whine and blame the English for all their problems while quietly reaping the financial rewards and handouts we give. If you had a family member who acted like Scotland does to England you'd disown them.

Believe me when I say that the English are happy for them to stay in the UK, but wouldn't really care if they left.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Welcome to the Backroom, Nem. ~:wave:

You'll find that posters express strong opinions on a range of sensitive subjects, not least on national issues. It's important in these cases to be careful of offending through generalisation, which is why we try and discourage country bashing.

I'm sure that you will agree that not all Scots fit the characterisation you put forward.

[Nem]

Thx for the welcome Banquo,

Of course, I don't think all Scots hold anti English sentiments and the majority that i've personally met have been very amiable. I'm just fed up with the whining that comes from north of the border and the importance they seem to think the English hold for the Union.

WE DON'T CARE

[Louis VI the Fat]

Scotland is the worst small country!

Well so says the FSB (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/6739007.stm):


Scotland is the worst performing small country in Western Europe, according to a report by business leaders.
The Federation of Small Businesses' annual Index of Wealth compared 10 countries on economic performance, employment rates, health and education.

[Duke Malcolm]

Who are these treacherous chaps who say he People's Glorious Republic of Scotland isn't the best small country in the world?
Who said the Glorious Executive's mighty Propaganda Machine never worked, eh?
No doubt the new "Government" will use this as proof how bad the Glorious Executive was...

[InsaneApache]

I'm a memeber of the FSB and they are an apolitical organisation. Put it this way, I would believe anything the FSB said over any political party.

Just face it guys, Scotland needs the English to stay afloat.

[English assassin]

No no no, Scotland is the worst small country BECAUSE of England.

If she was independent everything would be great and she would rocket up to be the best small country in the whole world ever. Just ask Alex Salmond. Only, just don't ask him how or why.

[scotchedpommes]

Who are these treacherous chaps who say he People's Glorious Republic of Scotland isn't the best small country in the world?
Who said the Glorious Executive's mighty Propaganda Machine never worked, eh?
No doubt the new "Government" will use this as proof how bad the Glorious Executive was...

I first came across this claim at the airport recently and was quite amused.
Everyone knows Slovenia is the best country in the world, really.
:slovenia:

[Excellent to see Nem come out with some more pointless whining, though.
Give the man a drink.]

[AntiochusIII]

Everyone knows Slovenia is the best country in the world, really.Oh, gimme a break. You guys don't even compare to the magnificence of San Marino. :balloon:

So is Scotland going to secede or not? Or are you going to wait for Braveheart 2 before you throw the hat into the ring?

[Yun Dog]

Do you think Scotland will secede?

God I hope so. I'm so sick of listening to the anti English comments they continually spout, 300 years later and they still go on about Culloden.

What they never mention is that more Scots fought on the English side than the Scottish and the parliament commander was Hanoverian and not even English. All this coupled to the fact that Bonnie Prince Charlie was French, could barely speak english, hated Scotland and was a coward is hardly Englands fault Scotland lost.

Scotland doesn't have the guts to independent. It's alot easier to whine and blame the English for all their problems while quietly reaping the financial rewards and handouts we give. If you had a family member who acted like Scotland does to England you'd disown them.

Believe me when I say that the English are happy for them to stay in the UK, but wouldn't really care if they left.

England wouldnt care if they lost the oil and gas reserves of the north sea - yeh right whatever dude

[scotchedpommes]

Oh, gimme a break. You guys don't even compare to the magnificence of San Marino. :balloon:

Zounds, you might just be right- but wait, no, how can San Marino be the best
[small] country in the world when it does not have a poultry shape?

Observe, and let all doubt disappear:

https://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w64/rdecejabolko/557ab9bd.jpg
https://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w64/rdecejabolko/2787d580.jpg

[You realise I am obliged to raise such questions in protest at the mention of
that film.]

[AntiochusIII]

Observe, and let all doubt disappear:*amazed* :laugh4:

Now Slovenia is my favorite [small] awesome country next to the Empire of Andorra. Scotland cannot compare: I don't even know what shape that peninsular is supposed to be.

[You realise I am obliged to raise such questions in protest at the mention of
that film.]Oh, but it is a great movie. I mean, Mel Gibson screaming "FREEEEEEDOOMMM!!!!" ? That's the next best thing after Samuel L. Jackson's antics.