Freedom! Och Aye the noo.....

[InsaneApache]

Bonny Scotland is struggling to escape from the tyrannical English yoke. Yet those dastardly perfidious Sassenachs keep moving the goalposts. Here is an article from the torygraph about how those mendacious Anglo-Saxons will do anything to subvert liberty for the downtrodden Bravehearts.

Danny Alexander and George Osborne have raised what is perhaps the key issue from an economic perspective facing Scottish independence – what on earth would Scotland do about its currency?

Initially, Alex Salmond had favoured the euro for an independent Scotland, but unsurprisingly, support for this idea has plummeted as a result of the finacial crisis. Not many Scots would now welcome the euro, so Mr Salmond has been forced to shift his position and now advocates continued currency union with the rest of Britain, at least initially.

Yet if there is one thing that the single crisis has demonstrated beyond debate it is that you cannot have crisis free monetary union without matching fiscal union. Mr Salmond appears to have no convincing answer to this farely obvious flaw in his strategy. Nor has he even remotely begun to articulate how monetary union between two states operating independent fiscal policies would work. To have one country pursuing fiscal austerity while the other engages in the sort of fiscal expansionism favoured by the SNP would plainly be completely unsustainable.

Does Mr Salmond envisage putting his own representative on the Monetary Policy Committee to represent the Scottish voice in the policy debate (a similar arrangement, in other words, to that which exists with the European Central Bank, where all seventeen members of the euro are represented), or will he simply abide by decisions determined solely for the benefit of England, Wales and Northern Ireland? There are examples of countries that accept these latter arrangements – Panama uses the US dollar even though it has no influence on policy, and similarly, Kosovo uses the euro – but few of them are happy situations, and there tend to be quite idiosyncratic reasons behind them.

Monetary union between two fiscally sovereign states would eventually produce much the same problems as we've seen in the eurozone – a possibly quite severe divergence in competitiveness accompanied by a balance of payments and intra-union debt crisis. Indeed, it might well be that English regulators (for indeed they would be after separation) would be forced to impose controls on Scottish lending by UK banks to prevent just such a crisis developing, quite a challenge given that the two largest UK banks are Scottish domiciled.

In any case, it is pretty obvious that the SNP hasn't properly thought through these issues. In practice, an independent Scotland would have no option but to move rapidly towards adoption of the euro – a case of out of the frying pan into the fire if ever there was one – or it would have to start issuing its own currency, and very probably the latter given the strict rules that now exist on convergence before EU member states can join the euro. An independent Scottish currency is quite unlikely to command support among investors, making deficit funding problematic.

It is somewhat ironic that in "escaping" Britain, so as to be able to pursue fiscal policies free of Westminster control, Scotland would only be subjecting itself to ones determined in Berlin and Frankfurt instead. Monetary union implies ever closer fiscal union; there is no other way it can be made to work in the long term.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance...y-problematic/

Now given that I'm usually against any stitch up consensus between 'The Boy', Cleggover and the 'Thrush', strangely I find myself in agreement. I don't want my country dismantled. If it is, it's down to the axis of evil Blair and Brown who started this bloody mess in the first place. Besides which, who will the Scots blame when and if they do become independent?

[rory_20_uk]

If the Scots want to go, then that is their call. Good bye and good luck. I'd not fight to keep that dreary dump tied in with England. The threat of a Catholic invasion has decreased.

I do not understand why the English don't get a referrendum to boot Scotland out of the UK. It's as if we all have to sit there meekly, hoping that they will deign to stay with us.

As it stands, they have their politicians in Westminster and in their own parliment. When there was only one this was OK, but now this isn't right.

If they go it alone and thrive, then good on them. If they go it alone and fail at least they can only blame themselves.

[rvg]

I'm curious as to what do they stand to gain from seceding... Pride? Perhaps, but pride is not a very hot commodity.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If the Scots want to go, then that is their call. Good bye and good luck. I'd not fight to keep that dreary dump tied in with England. The threat of a Catholic invasion has decreased.

I do not understand why the English don't get a referrendum to boot Scotland out of the UK. It's as if we all have to sit there meekly, hoping that they will deign to stay with us.

As it stands, they have their politicians in Westminster and in their own parliment. When there was only one this was OK, but now this isn't right.

If they go it alone and thrive, then good on them. If they go it alone and fail at least they can only blame themselves.

We could have a referendum on US leaving the Union, we couldn't very well have one on kicking the Scots out.

Anyway, most Scots are neither stupid nor racist bigots like Salmond - they don't want independance, simply less interference from London, and don't we all want that?

Beyond that basic point - the article is built on a fallacy because the Scottish Pound is seperate from the English one, all that has to happen is for the bank of England to stop redeeming the notes and the currency union ends.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I'm curious as to what do they stand to gain from seceding... Pride? Perhaps, but pride is not a very hot commodity.

Oil, gas. Lot's of that round their part of the North Sea and Atlantic, you know.

[rory_20_uk]

We could have a referendum on US leaving the Union, we couldn't very well have one on kicking the Scots out.

Anyway, most Scots are neither stupid nor racist bigots like Salmond - they don't want independance, simply less interference from London, and don't we all want that?

Beyond that basic point - the article is built on a fallacy because the Scottish Pound is seperate from the English one, all that has to happen is for the bank of England to stop redeeming the notes and the currency union ends.

Yes, I agree that my phrasing was deliberately poor - we could opt to leave.

I agree that all areas would like less interference from Westminster. BUT with the Scots, they along with the Welsh (wno are both overly represented in Westminster) can vote for one thing... and then their local parliments can choose to do something completely different - they vote on laws that England has to abide by, whereas they on many issues can do differently.

I think that there should be a referrendum - and a simple yes or no. The half way house (devolution max) again appears to be trying to cherry pick all the bits that are good, and avoid all the bits that aren't.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The whole thing is a disagrace, I will refuse to vote in a referendum or take part in this discussion as it is currently being framed.

The whole framework of the discussion is obviously orientated towards the position of the Scottish nationalists. For Mr. Cameron and all the opposition parties at Holyrood to talk about the "collective sovereignty" of the "Scottish people" in itself gives legitimacy to the idea of Scottish nationhood.

I don't even like the term 'unionist' since it suggests that Britain in not a nation in itself, but just a collection of nations. As a British nationalist I don't feel such a term is appropriate so I prefer to call myself a 'loyalist'.

For a long time now mainstream unionists have identified as both Scottish and British and supported devolution. Such a position has created a cycle of destroying the British identity and British institutions, to the point that we have spiralled into the current situation - something that would have been unthinkable even 15 years ago.

My position here as a loyalist is a fringe one, unacceptable in mainstream debate, and unrepresented by the major parties. Although I do wonder how the working-class loyalist enclaves dotted around Scotland's central belt will react in the event of independence. The Orange Order has in the past said some pretty extreme things on the matter. Although it backed down over those statements, its more conciliatory approach of late has meant it has lost a lot of ground to similar groups that have a much more militant stance. And I say this as someone that lives in the little town that hosts what has been dubbed Scotland's Garvahy Road.

[gaelic cowboy]

hmm Mr Osbourne obviously doesnt know his history he has forgotten there is precendent for breaking links with Sterling.

Seeing as that happend in the 1920s the financial system is probably far better equiped to adapt to a new currency in Scotland.

First you maintain one for one status and then later you float the currency freely and voila you have a new currency in Alba.

Beyond that basic point - the article is built on a fallacy because the Scottish Pound is seperate from the English one, all that has to happen is for the bank of England to stop redeeming the notes and the currency union ends.

Indeed Irish people are often caught out on holidays in the UK as sometimes the banks here give out sterling notes printed by the Northern Bank which many places in the UK wont accept.

Technically Actually both Scots and Northern notes are separate currencies with a one for one status.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

hmm Mr Osbourne obviously doesnt know his history he has forgotten there is precendent for breaking links with Sterling.

Seeing as that happend in the 1920s the financial system is probably far better equiped to adapt to a new currency in Scotland.

First you maintain one for one status and then later you float the currency freely and voila you have a new currency in Alba.




Indeed Irish people are often caught out on holidays in the UK as sometimes the banks here give out sterling notes printed by the Northern Bank which many places in the UK wont accept.

Technically Actually both Scots and Northern notes are separate currencies with a one for one status.

Really? The shops are supposed to take them.

Anyway, look - Racist: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ctics-scotland

Salmond must have missed the part where most Scottish Westminster MP's are anti-Independence.

[Furunculus]

i'm a unionist and thus i consider scotland 'family'.

that however is a reciprocal relationship, and the relative that is seen to spend all its time whinging about the inequities of its family is likely to find itself cast-out even if it never gets the courage to leave voluntarily.

it is past time for the Scots to decide whether they consider themselves my family, willing to stand at my back as I would at theirs, and willing to see to the welfare of me and mine, as I would with theirs?

oh, and should you decide to leave think carefully about defence and foreign policy, we value the security that our island nation grants, so don't ever act as a staging ground for a hostile fifth column as that was what made the union a necessity in the first place. pull a stunt like that and you will be crushed.

[tibilicus]

I feel very strongly about this.

First of all, lets talk Salmond. The man is a good politician, he knows how to build an image and play the system. he is however opportunistic, wanting independence for his own gain and to boost his ego further as "the man who freed Scotland". Mutual union with England has brought great benefit to Scotland. it provided stability in which an enlightenment flourished, Scotland grew, and economic stability was brought to to this island of ours. Salmond's idea of a Scottish identity is false. His concept is based on a Catholic, nationalist view bolstered by main stream support due to his liberal views and anti-English rhetoric. Countries go to war with themselves to preserve territorial integrity and am I supposed to just accept the destruction of my national identity. The reality Scottish independence would destroy my nationality. It would also be a huge security risk. If Scotland goes the Sinn Fein crowed will kick of causing bloodshed and further disintegration. Within a decade, perhaps minus Wales, the union would have crumbled and we will all be worse off, thanks to one man peddling his selfish vision.

I can say that if Scotland goes I will go. I will refuse to live in "England". I'm not English I'm British. If I'm in the forces at that point I'll see my contract our and quit. I wont defend England, I care not for England, I care for Britain. I would rather create a new national identity for myself in some other Anglo country, I Canada's nice than sit down and accept the destruction of my own.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I feel very strongly about this.

First of all, lets talk Salmond. The man is a good politician, he knows how to build an image and play the system. he is however opportunistic, wanting independence for his own gain and to boost his ego further as "the man who freed Scotland". Mutual union with England has brought great benefit to Scotland. it provided stability in which an enlightenment flourished, Scotland grew, and economic stability was brought to to this island of ours. Salmond's idea of a Scottish identity is false. His concept is based on a Catholic, nationalist view bolstered by main stream support due to his liberal views and anti-English rhetoric. Countries go to war with themselves to preserve territorial integrity and am I supposed to just accept the destruction of my national identity. The reality Scottish independence would destroy my nationality. It would also be a huge security risk. If Scotland goes the Sinn Fein crowed will kick of causing bloodshed and further disintegration. Within a decade, perhaps minus Wales, the union would have crumbled and we will all be worse off, thanks to one man peddling his selfish vision.

I can say that if Scotland goes I will go. I will refuse to live in "England". I'm not English I'm British. If I'm in the forces at that point I'll see my contract our and quit. I wont defend England, I care not for England, I care for Britain. I would rather create a new national identity for myself in some other Anglo country, I Canada's nice than sit down and accept the destruction of my own.

You just became my new hero! Everything you said is absolutely spot on, well done for seeing beyond the framework that both nationalists and mainstraeam unionists have created for this debate.

I also will refuse to be part of any country that springs up should Britain fall apart. I will not vote in its elections or support its institutions, and I am livid every time I hear Mr. Salmond talk about the "will of the Scottish people" and things to that effect, as if he can talk on my behalf!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I feel very strongly about this.

First of all, lets talk Salmond. The man is a good politician, he knows how to build an image and play the system. he is however opportunistic, wanting independence for his own gain and to boost his ego further as "the man who freed Scotland". Mutual union with England has brought great benefit to Scotland. it provided stability in which an enlightenment flourished, Scotland grew, and economic stability was brought to to this island of ours. Salmond's idea of a Scottish identity is false. His concept is based on a Catholic, nationalist view bolstered by main stream support due to his liberal views and anti-English rhetoric. Countries go to war with themselves to preserve territorial integrity and am I supposed to just accept the destruction of my national identity. The reality Scottish independence would destroy my nationality. It would also be a huge security risk. If Scotland goes the Sinn Fein crowed will kick of causing bloodshed and further disintegration. Within a decade, perhaps minus Wales, the union would have crumbled and we will all be worse off, thanks to one man peddling his selfish vision.

I can say that if Scotland goes I will go. I will refuse to live in "England". I'm not English I'm British. If I'm in the forces at that point I'll see my contract our and quit. I wont defend England, I care not for England, I care for Britain. I would rather create a new national identity for myself in some other Anglo country, I Canada's nice than sit down and accept the destruction of my own.

I'm not sure what to make of this, but I have an inkling it has to do with the Indian flag in your sig.

I am English, whilst also being part-Swedish and part-Welsh. If you were to push me though, I would say I was "West Saxon" because that is where my family lives, and where they have come from - from the rolling hills of Devon and the bleak moors to the chalk downs of Hampshire and the wide fields in Surrey. There are places I can go in the South of England where my ancestors litterally helped build the churches, the railways and the towns. I have nothing like that in Scotland, or even the North of England and as a "Southerner" I have observed no better opinion than tollerence of my English identity from Northerners, Scots, Welsh or Irish - casual hostility or outright racism are far more common and these mostly from people who choose to live in England.

So, ultimately, while I do not want to see the breakup of the United Kingdom I am not going to vest my identity in it. After all, the Commonwealth is already a ragged ruin, even Australia agitates for complete independce, and the UK began to disintegrate in the 1910's when Ireland rose up and the 26 Counties subsequently achieved independence.

[Greyblades]

I honestly don't know why Scotland would want to leave the union, I mean what's Scotland on its own? Seriously in the UK Scotland share the large influence the name Britain holds over the political world and still has a degree of self government, heck a scotsman can become leader of the fifth most powerful country in the world without having spend half thier lives applying for citizenship. I don't know what Salmond expect to gain from this, even his own meager position would lose importance outside of the Union. On thier own, Scotland would probably end up just another EU hanger on like Ireland, benefiting but not powerful enough on thier own to make a bit of difference in European policy. You think France and Germany would gives a toss what a "liberated" sicily would have to say about the Euro?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I am English, whilst also being part-Swedish and part-Welsh. If you were to push me though, I would say I was "West Saxon" because that is where my family lives, and where they have come from - from the rolling hills of Devon and the bleak moors to the chalk downs of Hampshire and the wide fields in Surrey. There are places I can go in the South of England where my ancestors litterally helped build the churches, the railways and the towns. I have nothing like that in Scotland, or even the North of England and as a "Southerner" I have observed no better opinion than tollerence of my English identity from Northerners, Scots, Welsh or Irish - casual hostility or outright racism are far more common and these mostly from people who choose to live in England.

I have a particular connection to my local area as well. But every time you pick up a book to read up on your history, its British history you see - that's got to mean something.

Medieval Scotland was more Anglicised than England itself. By the 17th century England had a Scotsman on the throne. The 'Scots' language developed in northern England. And yet 18th century Scots was closer to Shakespearean English than the English of the same time period. Union was originally a Scottish vision, yet it was first enforced by an Englishman. William Wallace's family were Welsh immigrants. The place names of north-east Scotland could easily pass for Welsh. Half the population of Northern Ireland is basically a forging of English and Scots peoples. The very term 'British' was first used to apply to a population group when the Scots Gaels of Clan Campbell appealed to the King to refer to the settlers in Ulster as such.

The fact is, even before there was a British nation, we all share a British history. If anything, there is far less diversity in the history of the component parts of the UK when compared to the component regions of France, Italy, Germany etc that would never contest the fact that they have a shared history.

It's all very well to talk about the finer points of how independence will affect Scotland in terms of oil revenue, EU membership, any possible currency changes etc. But the fact is that what really matters is a shared history. That is the reason I can look at the people around me and say - yes, I have something in common with these people, I share a similar identity and values, and I want to take part in their government and institutions.

Now, I can say that I feel this with Britain. Or at least, my concept of Britishness. But I can't say the same with Mr. Salmond's idea of Scottishness.

[naut]

I can say that if Scotland goes I will go. I will refuse to live in "England". I'm not English I'm British. If I'm in the forces at that point I'll see my contract our and quit. I wont defend England, I care not for England, I care for Britain. I would rather create a new national identity for myself in some other Anglo country, I Canada's nice than sit down and accept the destruction of my own.

Despite your location set to "England". Heh.

[Papewaio]

Meh go for a federated model. All the former countries become states and have localized responsibility for education and health whilst the federal government can focus on tax, defense and external diplomacy.

Mind you I'm part Welsh, Swedish with Scot, Irish and English via New Zealand... Living in Australia.

[tibilicus]

Despite your location set to "England". Heh.

I don't think I've changed my "location" on these forums since I was a wee scamp. Funnily enough I didn't think about future political ramifications or concepts of national identity when I was 14..

+ England is a location, its technically a region within the UK. If I put down "Hull" (thank God I don't actually live in Hull) as my location it doesn't mean I advocate independence for the North East.

I'm not sure what to make of this, but I have an inkling it has to do with the Indian flag in your sig.



So, ultimately, while I do not want to see the breakup of the United Kingdom I am not going to vest my identity in it. After all, the Commonwealth is already a ragged ruin, even Australia agitates for complete independce, and the UK began to disintegrate in the 1910's when Ireland rose up and the 26 Counties subsequently achieved independence.

It depends what you think my flag means. It's in my sig to refer to my ancestry. My grandfathers side of the family were Anglo-Indians. He was born in Karachi to the son of an Anglo-Indian working for imperial tobacco. He served in the Indian army and would tell me wonderful stories of his time their. Although I never have visited when I have the money I plan to. I had about three generations of my family in India and if I traced my tree I could still find relatives from my great-grandmothers side of the family. I still think if independence didn't happen the family would still be in India. Surprisingly my grandfather was actually very supportive of Indian independence. He understood the Indian culture very well and was troubled by the British partitioning India, he always said it wasn't the right thing to do. I beleive I still have his photos somewhere with a picture under the Indian flag in which he annotated as "free India".

Anyway, despite my ramblings, I guess I've kind of supported my own argument. India was part of the empire as Australia was part of the commonwealth.
But the Scots, they've sat in parliament, ruled the throne and conquered the world in the name of Britannia. Salmond's view genuinely appalls me. Were the Scots some how coerced into Union or did they join for mutual benefit? Which seems more likely? I understand your view but I don't understand the logic you've linked to it. The commonwealth was a lose organisation of countries with British heritage. The UK is a sovereign nation made up of composing nations who have a shared history of roughly 1000 years. It's easy for Salmond to say Scotland's identity is distinct yet he doesn't acknowledge a superior over-arching British identity.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't think I've changed my "location" on these forums since I was a wee scamp. Funnily enough I didn't think about future political ramifications or concepts of national identity when I was 14..

+ England is a location, its technically a region within the UK. If I put down "Hull" (thank God I don't actually live in Hull) as my location it doesn't mean I advocate independence for the North East.

"Technically" England is a Kingdom, Scotland is a Kingdom, Northern Ireland is a Kingdom, and Wales is a Principality who's Soveriegn Prince is a vassal of the Queen of England. Than Mann is an independant Lordship.....etc. Describing England as a "region" is however completely wrong, Mercia is a region within England, as is Wessex, because they are only loosly and geographically defined. England, however, like the other Kingdoms etc., is very specifically defined and there is a "Queen of England" seperate from a Queen of Scotland, the fact that the two kingdoms are in a political union is peculiar which is why it is the topic of discussion.

Rhy may be a Unionist but I suspect even he would bristle if you described Scotland as a "region" of the UK, though in that case "province" might be more accurate and that would not go down over-well either.

It depends what you think my flag means. It's in my sig to refer to my ancestry. My grandfathers side of the family were Anglo-Indians. He was born in Karachi to the son of an Anglo-Indian working for imperial tobacco. He served in the Indian army and would tell me wonderful stories of his time their. Although I never have visited when I have the money I plan to. I had about three generations of my family in India and if I traced my tree I could still find relatives from my great-grandmothers side of the family. I still think if independence didn't happen the family would still be in India. Surprisingly my grandfather was actually very supportive of Indian independence. He understood the Indian culture very well and was troubled by the British partitioning India, he always said it wasn't the right thing to do. I beleive I still have his photos somewhere with a picture under the Indian flag in which he annotated as "free India".

As opposed to my Great Grandfather, who was a Royal Engineer and helped build the Indian Railway but then came home to his wife and children to the Pub in Alton. That's the difference between us, then, wherever else they have gone my family has always been "from" here, and "here" has been mostly England. The sole exceptions being my Anglo-Swedish father's family emigrated (my great grandfather Henric lived here during the war anyway) and the Welsh cattle drover who left Wales and decided England was a better bet.

On the other hand, I suppose your identity makes more sense if it is more expansive, that's fine but it's typical of "Brits" who came "home" after the Empire fell, because out there Brtish was as complex as it got. Back here the issues have not become more simple.

Anyway, despite my ramblings, I guess I've kind of supported my own argument. India was part of the empire as Australia was part of the commonwealth.
But the Scots, they've sat in parliament, ruled the throne and conquered the world in the name of Britannia. Salmond's view genuinely appalls me. Were the Scots some how coerced into Union or did they join for mutual benefit? Which seems more likely? I understand your view but I don't understand the logic you've linked to it. The commonwealth was a lose organisation of countries with British heritage. The UK is a sovereign nation made up of composing nations who have a shared history of roughly 1000 years. It's easy for Salmond to say Scotland's identity is distinct yet he doesn't acknowledge a superior over-arching British identity.

Ah, but "Australians" and probably Anglo-Indians, et al., served in parliament in the 19th Century, moved unhindered throughout the Empire and administered parts of it; Governor Generals came from the UK and the first Prime Minister of Canada was a Scot.

If you can seperate out the Commonwealth into individual nations, as we have done, don't suppose you can't seperate Scotland and England.

[tibilicus]

"Technically" England is a Kingdom, Scotland is a Kingdom, Northern Ireland is a Kingdom, and Wales is a Principality who's Soveriegn Prince is a vassal of the Queen of England. Than Mann is an independant Lordship.....etc. Describing England as a "region" is however completely wrong, Mercia is a region within England, as is Wessex, because they are only loosly and geographically defined. England, however, like the other Kingdoms etc., is very specifically defined and there is a "Queen of England" seperate from a Queen of Scotland, the fact that the two kingdoms are in a political union is peculiar which is why it is the topic of discussion.

Rhy may be a Unionist but I suspect even he would bristle if you described Scotland as a "region" of the UK, though in that case "province" might be more accurate and that would not go down over-well either.

Perhaps so. They may be individual kingdoms but they share the same laws, same institutions and same over-arching British identity. Theres a bigger difference between a Texan than a New Englander and yet they've accommodated themselves within the USA. What distinct features is it you feel separate the English from the Scots and the Scots from the Northern Irish? Is nearly half a millennium of shared heritage and culture not enough to build a binding national identity?

On the other hand, I suppose your identity makes more sense if it is more expansive, that's fine but it's typical of "Brits" who came "home" after the Empire fell, because out there Brtish was as complex as it got. Back here the issues have not become more simple.



Ah, but "Australians" and probably Anglo-Indians, et al., served in parliament in the 19th Century, moved unhindered throughout the Empire and administered parts of it; Governor Generals came from the UK and the first Prime Minister of Canada was a Scot.

I have to disagree. Out there being British wasn't as complex as it got. If that was the case when my grandad came home I highly doubt he would of have received the problems he did. he was turned down for numerous jobs for being a "paki" and not quite like everyone else, despite the fact he was pretty much white. Hence the reason he went from managing an entire production site to only being able to find work as a porter. I don't think true Anglo-Indians would have served in parliament either. Lord Curzon and Lord Mountbatten may have been governors of the Raj but they were hardly Anglo-Indians. They were British lords put over the Raj's affairs.

If you can seperate out the Commonwealth into individual nations, as we have done, don't suppose you can't seperate Scotland and England.

And Spain could let Catalan and the Basque region go and Canada could let Quebec go. Do you not think there's a reason those nations fight to keep them though. Are they better off without them or better off with them. Why would the Spanish and the Canadian's want to sacrifice a shared history for autonomy which makes everyone poorer. At the rate we're going they'll be over 400 nation states by the end of the century with London finally fulfilling its dream of breaking away from the UK to form its glorious haven of banking.

[Sarmatian]

oh, and should you decide to leave think carefully about defence and foreign policy, we value the security that our island nation grants, so don't ever act as a staging ground for a hostile fifth column as that was what made the union a necessity in the first place. pull a stunt like that and you will be crushed.

Ouch, this brings back memories...

[Papewaio]

Of course history might point out that from the Normans to the Romans that the only successful staging ground of Britain has been ~:drumroll:





England

[Furunculus]

our papist enemies have always sought to bust in our back door, it is in their nature:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of...h_Independence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Scottish_Wars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobite_Risings

;)

[gaelic cowboy]

our papist enemies have always sought to bust in our back door, it is in their nature:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of...h_Independence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Scottish_Wars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobite_Risings

;)

Well you see thats what happens when you forcibily take over a four bedroom house but neglect to remove or compensate the original occupants.

Anyway said agitation was mearly a product of ye leting the dastardly foreigners in the front door in reality.

William

House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

[gaelic cowboy]

Why would the Spanish and the Canadian's want to sacrifice a shared history for autonomy which makes everyone poorer.

Because Scotland was a nation that signed a union and therefore they should have the right to unsign. (I am sure our American friends would love such a precendent in international law)

Looking from the outside it says a lot about Britishness that it cannot defend itself, instead the debate is all bout genetics as per the Neo-Unionists or worrying about the "Greatness" of the country etc etc.

Ye cant have it both ways either your allowed to negotitate new treaties with the people concerned or your an autocracy, if the UK can agitate for powers back from the EU then Scotland can do the same.

It is no longer a Union signed in good faith if it must be maintained by refusing to let it go, let it stand for itself or not at all.

And after all that craic the vote is likely to fail anyway, so whats is the big fuss about??




Plus if you a Tory you should be out acting all perfidious to get the Scots to vote yes, it would instantly cut the legs from under the left.

it could take them a generation or more to recover the loss of Scottish labour seats.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Perhaps so. They may be individual kingdoms but they share the same laws, same institutions and same over-arching British identity. Theres a bigger difference between a Texan than a New Englander and yet they've accommodated themselves within the USA. What distinct features is it you feel separate the English from the Scots and the Scots from the Northern Irish? Is nearly half a millennium of shared heritage and culture not enough to build a binding national identity?

No, half a millenium is not long enough, over a millenium of coexistence has not smoothed the differences between the AEngelish and the Danelaw. The current North-South divide is the same one as between "Dane and "Saxon" since the time of Athelstan, and being North of the line STILL means you are disenfranchised. As to shared laws and institutions; England, Scotland and Northern Ireland have seperate legal codes (and currencies) and even Wales has a different system of local government to England.

I have to disagree. Out there being British wasn't as complex as it got. If that was the case when my grandad came home I highly doubt he would of have received the problems he did. he was turned down for numerous jobs for being a "paki" and not quite like everyone else, despite the fact he was pretty much white. Hence the reason he went from managing an entire production site to only being able to find work as a porter. I don't think true Anglo-Indians would have served in parliament either. Lord Curzon and Lord Mountbatten may have been governors of the Raj but they were hardly Anglo-Indians. They were British lords put over the Raj's affairs.

So you mean Anglo-Indian as in "part British part Indian" (a point, does Anglo-Indian covers Scots-Indians as well?) rather than as, "British but born in India". Rudyard Kipling was "Anglo-Indian" in the latter sense, which was what I assumed you meant because you were talking about your grandfather.

And Spain could let Catalan and the Basque region go and Canada could let Quebec go. Do you not think there's a reason those nations fight to keep them though. Are they better off without them or better off with them. Why would the Spanish and the Canadian's want to sacrifice a shared history for autonomy which makes everyone poorer. At the rate we're going they'll be over 400 nation states by the end of the century with London finally fulfilling its dream of breaking away from the UK to form its glorious haven of banking.

Well, Great Britain let go of the Canada and Australia, you used to be able to use Australian notes in the UK just like Scots ones, and "British Subject" included English, Scots, Canadians and Australians among others:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_subject

All that has now passed into dust of history, so to assume that the UK is in some way organic is absurd, it reamins together only by common consent, and the consent is cracking.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Rhy may be a Unionist but I suspect even he would bristle if you described Scotland as a "region" of the UK, though in that case "province" might be more accurate and that would not go down over-well either.

I prefer the term 'northern Britain'.

Also like I said I prefer 'loyalist' over 'unionist (small 'u' remember), because I don't think of Britain as a union of two (or more) nations, and I am loyal to the British government, British institutions, and above all the concept of the British nation itself.

Because Scotland was a nation that signed a union and therefore they should have the right to unsign. (I am sure our American friends would love such a precendent in international law)

Scotland was not a nation, it was a feudal kingdom. And I don't see how internation law can come into it given that the Union happened before any (modern) concept of international law existed. Surely all the other historic kingdoms that were annexed by larger powers and currently want independence would have more of a right to seceed given they were subjected purely by brute force?

Looking from the outside it says a lot about Britishness that it cannot defend itself, instead the debate is all bout genetics as per the Neo-Unionists or worrying about the "Greatness" of the country etc etc.

Indeed, this may well be the downfall of the British nation. I have always said that mainstream 'unionists' lost the battle when they held the debate on nationalist rhetoric and terms. Devolution was supposed to compromise with the nationalists, but I always said it just gives legitimacy to Scottish nationhood. As does the fact that mainstream unionists continue to talk of themselves as being "proudly Scottish", and talking of the "Scottish people" having a collective sovereignty.

Ye cant have it both ways either your allowed to negotitate new treaties with the people concerned or your an autocracy, if the UK can agitate for powers back from the EU then Scotland can do the same.

You can't compare the relationship of a sovereign state within an international organisation to that of a component region within a sovereign state.

It is no longer a Union signed in good faith if it must be maintained by refusing to let it go, let it stand for itself or not at all.

Well tbh it wasn't really ever signed in good faith and was in fact widely opposed in Scotland. Although that was more because of the terms of the union itself, just a few decades ago the Scots had of course went to the trouble of holding the English king ransom in order to enforce their own idea of union (which was actually a much fuller union that would have saw the two national churches united as well).

And after all that craic the vote is likely to fail anyway, so whats is the big fuss about??

There's a good chance it could succeed, and public opinion is shifting ever in favour of it, especially with younger generations. Salmond actually wanted to get all 16+ voting in the referendum although it looks like he's given up on that.

[Furunculus]

There's a good chance it could succeed, and public opinion is shifting ever in favour of it, especially with younger generations. Salmond actually wanted to get all 16+ voting in the referendum although it looks like he's given up on that.

good chance that was only ever a negotiating position designed to become an easy concession.

[gaelic cowboy]

I


Scotland was not a nation, it was a feudal kingdom

Signed with another feudal kingdom who both had kingship as an idea and parliments that agitated on matters relating to the future of said monarchies.

And I don't see how internation law can come into it given that the Union happened before any (modern) concept of international law existed.

Why not?? I see no contradiction in updating our understanding of a person/country/thing/treaty etc the Union was signed due to various international and local factors which people felt moved to legislate for. If there is a need for everything to have a supposedly modern concept as you claim then the Act of Union is by implication out of date.

Since many of these origanal motivating factors do not exist or have no relevance today we must ask why the Act of Union is apparently sacrosanct.
The answer will not be independence in my view purely on mathematical grounds, granted a sizeable vote may go yes but the Union is in no danger.

I cant for the life of me figure exactly what Unionists are worried about even if the SNP wins, it is not as if there being abandoned to the electoral mathmatics of eternal opposition as would have been the case in Ireland. (which neccesitated in Unionist circles the creation of Northern Ireland as a lifeboat)

Surely all the other historic kingdoms that were annexed by larger powers and currently want independence would have more of a right to seceed given they were subjected purely by brute force?

And 80-90% of them would vote for the status quo or even reject having a vote entirely on grounds of annoyance.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Signed with another feudal kingdom who both had kingship as an idea and parliments that agitated on matters relating to the future of said monarchies.

But of course, one of those parliaments effectively signed itself out of existence.

Why not?? I see no contradiction in updating our understanding of a person/country/thing/treaty etc the Union was signed due to various international and local factors which people felt moved to legislate for. If there is a need for everything to have a supposedly modern concept as you claim then the Act of Union is by implication out of date.

I never said everything had to be justified according to our modern concepts, I just said that just can't write modern concepts back into political decisions that were made hundreds of years ago.

Since many of these origanal motivating factors do not exist or have no relevance today we must ask why the Act of Union is apparently sacrosanct.

The Act/Treaty of Union is the founding document of the modern British state, it determined the very laws that the component parts of the British state would operate by.

And from a more practical perspective, the Union occured at the beginning of the modern nation building period. So when nation states as we recognise them today began to appear, it was a British nation state that developed. We have British institutions, a British civil society, British political parties etc.

As you say the original reasons for the Union may be gone, but in those 300 years the fabric of Scotland and England has become inseperable.

I cant for the life of me figure exactly what Unionists are worried about even if the SNP wins, it is not as if there being abandoned to the electoral mathmatics of eternal opposition as would have been the case in Ireland. (which neccesitated in Unionist circles the creation of Northern Ireland as a lifeboat)

Well the debate means different things to different people. For some, it is a practical matter based on considerations of oil money, the effect of integration into the EU etc. For others, its about more lofty ideals of self-determination, and for such types the possibility of Scotland becoming a liberal-left Nordic-style country is attractive.

But for some others and myself, it is more than that. It is a battle over the very heart of our identity. Salmond has a vision of Celtic (or Gaelic) Scotland, the Scotland of the Celtic fringe, of tartan and the Jacobites. The Scotland of the untamed glens and the noble savage. The romanticised Scotland of heroes that paint their faces blue and drive away the English against all odds.

But then you have the other Scotland. The Scotland of, dare I say it, White Anglo-Saxon Protestantism. The Scotland where up in the Isles they lock up playgrounds and refuse to let ferries sail on the Sabbath. The Scotland of John Knox and his unique fiery brand of very puritanical Calvinism that kind of scared Calvin himself. The Scotland where music, dancing, alcohol and Christmas were for a long time prohibited. Of course when this social system broke down with industrialisation which also happened to bring in many Ulster Protestants, this provided the roots for the Scotland of the Billy Boys, the Scotland of sometimes violent working-class Orangeism.

These two visions of Scotland have been competing with each other from the 16th century. The former drives Scotland towards Ireland and its Celtic brethren, the latter towards Anglosaxonland which obviously includes England. Then of course just to really mix things up you have to add in the fact that a hefty chunck of the modern population in Scotland are descended from a mix of Catholic Irish and Ulster Protestants from 19th century immigration, which have merged into their respective sides and had their own input into this older divide.

Well this is all getting too complicated, so I'll try to sum up. You have two visions of Scotland. Let's say Celtic-Nationalist-Catholic on the one hand. And there there's Anglosaxon-Loyalist-Protestant on the other. But they each also have a middle-class and working-class version. While the middle-class versions originated in old Scottish divides, the working-class ones have merged with Irish political issues due to Irish Catholic immigration (the working-class version of the C-N-C) and Ulster Protestant (the working-class version of the A-L-P).

The middle-class CNC is the social, most likely left-leaning liberal, that is attracted to the romanticism of the view of 'Jacobite Scotland'. The working-class CNC is similar, but often taking a more radical and perhaps militant left-wing view that is heavily connected to Irish Republicanism. So, the kind of guys that sing "ooh ah up the (I)RA" at Celtic Park.

The middle-class ALP is like I said earlier the guy that chains up playgrounds in Sundays, although outwith the Isles and in the Scottish central belt, they are your more moderate Protestant churchgoer. These are the 'mainstream unionists' I mentioned earlier. The the working-class ALP is like a more extreme and dysfunctional version of the above. They will either not go to church, or will go to fringe hardline ones (as opposed to mainstream Church of Scotland). And they are the kind of guys who like to stick on their sash on the 12th and sing the Billy Boys and such like at Ibrox.

So... there.

And 80-90% of them would vote for the status quo or even reject having a vote entirely on grounds of annoyance.