MegaSack DRAW - 6pm Christmas Eve - LIVE on our YouTube Channel
Points and laughs at ransos.
I realise that it's an unpalatable truth.
For the purpose of international conventions, England and Scotland are not separate countries. For example, Scotland cannot join the UN.
And neither can England.
Just remember that in addition to England, Scotland would also be saying goodbye to Wales and NI. Therefore when talking about Independence, remember that it is not Independence from England.
Just had a quick read through the consultation document. Think I might write back and add in my 2p worth (how much will that be in groats? Is is it centi-groats?)
ransos does it really matter why the act of the union was signed, other than your petty attempt at point scoring?
Why are all you Englanders so scared of Scotland going it alone.?
Very strange if you ask me.
Ransos - there may well have been financial mismanagement but there was certainly some degree of Scotland getting caught between England and Spain - arguably two of the superpowers of the day.
Note also that immediately following the union and the access to English capital that it brought Scotland's economy started growing - to the extent that it was the second biggest in the world within 30 years (and you can guess that England's was the biggest).
Personal view is that both Scotland and England have benefited immensely from the union, but are still different countries with seperate legal and educational systems.
I don't support the break up of this partnership, but if one partner feels the relationship isn't working any more then I do support their right to leave.
And neither can England.Just remember that in addition to England, Scotland would also be saying goodbye to Wales and NI. Therefore when talking about Independence, remember that it is not Independence from England.
Which is why I said "England and Scotland are not separate countries".
ransos does it really matter why the act of the union was signed, other than your petty attempt at point scoring?
Because some people argue that Scotland was forced into the union against its will. Because England bailed Scotland out, something pro-independence people like to forget when they're talking about oil reserves.
Ransos - there may well have been financial mismanagement but there was certainly some degree of Scotland getting caught between England and Spain - arguably two of the superpowers of the day.
That's quite an understatement: it's estimated that Scotland lost around 1/5 of its entire wealth on the Darien scheme.
It was over 300 years ago. I thought the English press still bleating on about 1966 was bad, but this is worse.
Ransos - because of the separate legal system in Scotland when the north sea oil fields were starting to be developed they were split into Scottish, English and Norwegian territory.
The English and Scottish boundaries were changed in 1991 and are therefore not the same any more it isn't simply a 55° Latitude now
Donald Dewar agreed the change with Blair at the time
Looking at election results, it is pretty obvious that England, Wales, Scotland and NI don't have a huge amount in common. The scots, NI and welsh are consistently campaigning for devolution of differing levels. In short, it doesn't seem to be a happy marriage. If independence is on the agenda, could we not just absolve the union entirely?
Could England absolve the union should they choose to?
How's about we all just go it alone?
Why are all you Englanders so scared of Scotland going it alone.?Very strange if you ask me.
Currently polling suggests that Englanders are more keen on Scotland going it alone than Scotlanders are.
Why are all you Englanders so scared of Scotland going it alone.?Very strange if you ask me.
I'm scared of Scotland taking a disproportionately high percentage of the UK's assets, and a disproportionately low percentage of its liabilities.
What's strange about that?
Ransos - correct, the Darien scheme. Actually the Scots and English monarch failed to support the Scots because it got in the way of some English deals being done with Spain and a compensatory deal whereby parliments were unified and Scots losses caused by English actions were made good.
Both sides benefitted.
ah so its about money not democracy or principles
Because some people argue that Scotland was forced into the union against its will. Because England bailed Scotland out, something pro-independence people like to forget when they're talking about oil reserves.
What bearing on oil wealth do the actions of a government over 300 years ago have today?
Or are you saying that Scots are incapable of managing themselves economically on a genetic level?
It was over 300 years ago. I thought the English press still bleating on about 1966 was bad, but this is worse.
You don't think that the terms of the Act of Union are pertinent? Curious...
Because England bailed Scotland out,
Over 300 years ago, got anything more current? What about where Thatcher's economic disasters would have left England without Scottish oil money to bail it out.
What bearing on oil wealth do the actions of a government over 300 years ago have today?Or are you saying that Scots are incapable of managing themselves economically on a genetic level?
Basically, this ^
Still it must be hard, watchng the remnants of England's once-great empire sailing off into the sunset and all you can do is keep whinging onabout what happened before your great great great great great great gandparernts were even conceived off.
Over 300 years ago, got anything more current? What about where Thatcher's economic disasters would have left the UK [s]England[/s] without UK [s]Scottish[/s] oil money to bail it out.
FTFY.
I'm scared of Scotland taking a disproportionately high percentage of the UK's assets, and a disproportionately low percentage of its liabilities.
don't know why you are.
Its all been said quite clearly assets and liabilities should be split on the basis of population or gdp - both similar at around 8% for Scotland.
You don't think that the terms of the Act of Union are pertinent? Curious...
OK, can you explain, preferably using small words because I'm a bit thick, what relevance it has today?
A federal Britain - ie devolution for England - with a British parliment at Westminster and an English one at say York (or vice versa) - is not a daft suggestion.
The United Kingdoms rather than the United Kingdom if you will. I'll even offer W&NI kingdom status.
Ransos - correct, the Darien scheme. Actually the Scots and English monarch failed to support the Scots because it got in the way of some English deals being done with Spain and a compensatory deal whereby parliments were unified and Scots losses caused by English actions were made good.Both sides benefitted
Scotland raised enough money for the Darien scheme - the problem was that it spent it badly. Why the monarch didn't support it is simple: he didn't want war between England and Spain.
OK, can you explain, preferably using small words because I'm a bit thick, what relevance it has today?
this
watching the remnants of England's once-great empire sailing off into the sunset and all you can do is keep whinging onabout what happened before your great great great great great great gandparernts were even conceived off.
It's hard to accept when someone says they're leaving because they'll be better off without you, and the best abnswer you have is hundreds of years ago that wasn't the case. Especially after pissing the wealth you should have had against the wall.
OK, can you explain, preferably using small words because I'm a bit thick, what relevance it has today?
In case you hadn't noticed, it's the reason why England and Scotland are both part of the UK.
don't know why you are.Its all been said quite clearly assets and liabilities should be split on the basis of population or gdp - both similar at around 8% for Scotland.
It's not really that simple though. What about assets and liabilities that are based in only one of the countries?
In case you hadn't noticed, it's the reason why England and Scotland are both part of the UK.
And how we got into the Union is relevant how? You've still not answered the question.
Or are you saying that Scots are incapable of managing themselves economically on a genetic level?
I hear they're generally quite careful with their money these days....
In case you hadn't noticed, it's the reason why England and Scotland are both part of the UK.
OK, words aren't working for me. To me it doesn't even look like you're answering the question I asked. Can you draw me a picture?
And how we got into the Union is relevant how? You've still not answered the question.
Of course it's relevant: when considering dissolving the union, it's reasonable to look at why it was created in the first place, and the benefits and disbenefits of having continued it to the present day.
This issue of 'scottish' oil...
How can waters.. protected from the clutches of other predatory countries throughout history by the might of a primarily English navy suddenly only belong to the Scots?
I'd hazzard a guess that without the protection offered by the English navy over the years that there would be no 'scottish' waters, much less any 'Scottish' oil.
You've still not answered the question.
I'd advise against holding your breath whilst waiting for the answer. the boy'll just repeating the same suff over and over and over and over.
As for myself, I like vanilla ice cream with chocolate chips. Which is about as relevant
OK, words aren't working for me. To me it doesn't even look like you're answering the question I asked. Can you draw me a picture?
You asked me why the Act of Union was relevant. I've told you. If you still don't get it, I can't help you further.
I don't see why the rest of the UK should have to put up living a lot longer than the Scots and therefore paying more taxes
If the union splits, they should be made to stop dying so bloody early, it's not fair
Will Salmond give the British areas (as opposed to Anglo Saxon areas) of England the opportunity to join Scotland in recognition of their shared heritage?
And will someone please stop to consider Berwick?
Ok I'm probably into trolling territory now - or close anyway.
How can waters.. protected from the clutches of other predatory countries throughout history by the might of a primarily English navy suddenly only belong to the Scots?
I didn't realise a lot of sea battles had been fought in the North Sea. Which nations did the 'English' navy protect us Scots from.
Junkyard
Self determination trum,ps the union each time
If that were true, no nation state would exist as self determination would continue down to the lowest common denominator and that would be silly. Of course, there will be points at which the benefits of self-determination will outweigh those of union and vice versa. The only question is where is that point?
Next up can we have a learned discussion of the difference between treaties and acts? Surely between two countries it should have been a treaty not an act? Was it legal in the first place?
Why are all you Englanders so scared of Scotland going it alone.?
We're not
We just want to make sure you've emptied your pockets and settled your bill before you go
Please stop going on its getting boring.
In 2 years we will go our sepperate ways.
Wee will take approx 1/10 of the UK fixed assest wealth developed during the union, and 1/10 of the debt. Based on approx populations.
The Oil is ours in the same way the coal and tin etc thats in the ground is Englands.
Then we can all live happily ever after with England buying our Oil, Water, Gas and tidal, wind wave power. While your at it you can Pay rent for the Nuclear bases and pay for any war you want to join with uncle sam as his bitch.
teamhurtmore - you will need to rewrite the UN charter then.
TJ - explain please?
I didn't realise a lot of sea battles had been fought in the North Sea. Which nations did the 'English' navy protect us Scots from.
Do you seriously believe that without the protection offered by the British navy that the waters around the Scottish mainland would have simply been left alone out of good heartedness by the surrounding countries?
As I already said.. an unsavoury side effect of this Scottish nationalism has been the rapid rise in resentment. Even as an ex resident with family still up there, I rarely if ever give the miserable place a second thought. I just want the breakup to be fair to the rest of the UK.
Do you seriously believe that without the protection offered by the British navy that the waters around the Scottish mainland would have simply been left alone out of good heartedness by the surrounding countries?
Norway? Sweden? Denmark? Iceland? (oh wait, you're right. we did have sea battles with the Icelandic navy. Thanks for bailing us out)
Any you wonder why there is a problem elzorillo. Haste ye back not!
the waters around the Scottish mainland would have simply been left alone out of good heartedness by the surrounding countries?
You do know Scotland's surronded by water on three sides and has England to the south? And that Norway and the Faroes don't really have much a reputation as aggressors? In fact the only one of our neighbours who likes fighting is the one to the south. So once we're shot of them, we'll be fighting a few less pointless and probably illegal wars.
And based on the number of irish travelers, you haven't done a great job of keeping them out, have you?
I rarely if ever give the miserable place a second thought.
that'll be why your opinion is so poorly thought out then.
You do know Scotland's surronded by water on three sides and has England to the south? And that Norway and the faroes don't reaaly have much a reputation as aggressors?
I suggest you have a look at the naval battles fought in the north sea during WW1 and WW2.
Will the SRU allow cameras into the dressing rooms at Murrayfield, so that we can listen to Andy Robinson do a Phil Bennett and wind up the Scots team to a frenzy of anti-English hatred? It would be very funny to watch!
Or are there too few players on either side that are true Scots/English for it to matter (beyond the cash)? 😉
I suggest you have a look at the naval battles fought in the north sea during WW1 and WW2.
Like the Battle of May Island?
Incidentally, where did the Navy keep it's Grand Fleet during these wars?
Do you think it might have been in England's interest to keep the eastern seaways open?
You do also know that the aim of naval action during these wars was to maintain a blockade on Germany maintaining an offensive position rather than a defensive "protect the homeland" one?
Probably not, probably just staying true to form and posting more irrelevant drivel. You're probably best sticking with 1707 and all that
Like the Battle of May Island?
That was in the Firth of Forth. Try again.
Serious question.
I'm a Scot by ancestry - a bit of a mongrel truthfully, but a properly Glaswegian mother. As such I'm assuming that I'd be entitled to a Scottish passport - (not so) Wee Alex wouldn't deny me my birthright, surely?
Given the above, why would I not be entitled to a vote?
And before anyone says: "because that's what the rules say" - I can read, I get what the SNP are saying. But that doesn't make it right.
On voting in the referendum - its very hard to see any mechanism that would be reasonable that would allow anyone but those normally resident in Scotland to vote ie those on the electoral roll.
On nationality its different. IIRC " people with strong ties to Scotland" would be able to apply for nationality so yes you could be a scots national
its very hard to see any mechanism that would be reasonable that would allow anyone but those normally resident in Scotland to vote ie those on the electoral roll.
I see that but surely the whole of Corby will be allowed to vote?
Hang on - you'd let me have a passport but not let me vote?
So anyone resident in Scotland (could be any nationality - German, French, American - so long as they're qualified to vote through residence) [b]can[/b] vote on what happens to Scotland, but Scots in the rest of the UK [b]can't[/b]?
Right-o. Makes total sense.
Will Sean Connery be aloud to vote?
Will Sean Connery be aloud to vote?
No. He'll have to vote silently, same as everyone else.
Does he normally vote quietly then? 😉
(edit - cross post sorry!)
Incidentally, where did the Navy keep it's Grand Fleet during these wars?
Do you think it might have been in England's interest to keep the eastern seaways open?
It was in the UK's interest to keep the North Sea open. It was in the UK's interest to put a naval base where it could defend itself against Germany.
That was in the Firth of Forth. Try again.
Really, |I thought you were looking for examples of how our poor, helpless little nation was defended by the mighty English fleet. can you let me know then, which of these naval actions related to an imminent invasion of Scotland,rather than to access to the seaways to allow the greater battle to take place in the North Atlantic?
Actually mint choc chip's maybe better, providing they don't overdo the mint.
So anyone resident in Scotland (could be any nationality - German, French, American - so long as they're qualified to vote through residence) can vote on what happens to Scotland, but Scots in the rest of the UK can't?
That's right, some foreign nationals will be allowed the vote but Scots that have already decided to do a runner are excluded - after all they may be biased
You do also know that the aim of naval action during these wars was to maintain a blockade on Germany maintaining an offensive position rather than a defensive "protect the homeland" one?
You don't think that attempting to defeat Germany was a good way of protecting the UK? Interesting.
Really, |I thought you were looking for examples of how our poor, helpless little nation was defended by the mighty English fleet.
You thought wrong. Just as you thought wrong that there had been no great amount of naval activity in the north sea.
That's right, some foreign nationals will be allowed the vote but Scots that have already decided to do a runner are excluded - after all they may be biased
As I say, if you're prepared to give me a passport (and you'd have to, regardless of where I live), then why not let me vote?
I totally get the point that you're then opening it up to a load of other people, who'd have to prove that they were entitled through birthright to express their opinion, but legally I'm more of a Scot than TJ, and if he's having a vote, sod it, I want mine!
Errrmmmm - you are confusing the "Scots people" with the "people of Scotland". In what way are you legally a scot and I am not?
I think having voting eligibility decided through the electoral roll has been taken because its the only way of doing it, no? I reckon big Eck would be happy for a load of Scots to vote, but there's no way CmD would allow it,
It was in the UK's interest to put a naval base where it could defend itself against Germany.
ok, back to the not really relevant - your point seems to have been that poor defenceless little Scotland couldn't have defended itself with the English navy (because the wars were going sooooo well before America joined in). Therefore naval battles were more about defending the seaways and keeping them open, not about defending the country from imminent invasion. Had scotland been independant, these batles would still have been fought.
I am interested in this concept of an English navy. when was there an English navy defending Scotland?
Just as you thought wrong that there had been no great amount of naval activity in the north sea.
And where did I say that? Not only irrelevant, now reduced to making stuff up.
Still please do provide an example of a battle fending off the invasion of Scotland.
TJ - you moved there in your teens and have English parents, correct? Makes you an immigrant, if my facts are correct.
I didn't say you weren't legally a Scot (clue: read what people say, now what you [i]think[/i] they say), just that I'm probably more of one, having a Scottish parent.
And anyway, who's the almighty authority stating that the right electorate is the "people of Scotland" and not the diaspora you describe as the "Scots people"?
[edited for accuracy]
I am interested in this concept of an English navy. when was there an English navy defending Scotland?
since about 10 minutes when ransos decided to make one up.
not only that but, apparently there were battles fought to defend Scotland from invasion, although I'm still waiting to find out more about this.
Errrmmmm - you are confusing the "Scots people" with the "people of Scotland
that's not what the fat fella said
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-16478121
Eh?
the "scots people" are the ethnic scots wherever they live. The "people of Scotland" are those who live here and / or who have strong ties to the country.
Eh?
He said [on the VT] that the Scottish people should decide.
who have strong ties to the country.
So having a Scottish parent doesn't count as a strong tie? Really?
I've got a yellow tartan tie.
Does that count?
