PDA

View Full Version : Scotland Independence Party



Boozeburglar
12-Nov-06, 23:20
Isn't it about time that the SNP redesignated themsleves?

Thier name has negative associations, rightfully or not.

We are campaigning for an Independent Scotland, not an independent Scottish populace. We are looking to free our country from the shackles of the two party jiggy jiggy running on and on South of the border, we don't need to align on the basis of our nationality, merely on the basis of being part of Scotland, incomer or not.

I would prefer anyone from anywhere who likes it here to feel free to campaign to get us a 100% say in our affairs, and to take part in that with all of us.

Naive maybe, but we need to distance ourselves from the general perception of Nationalism and Zenophobia associated with us, rightly or wrongly.

I feel it would improve support and realign the existing support along the correct principles.

pultneytooner
12-Nov-06, 23:23
Makes me laugh how country the size of luxembourg has more say in it's affairs then scotlans has.

sjr014
12-Nov-06, 23:48
scotland should be free and have our own independence

Dreadnought
12-Nov-06, 23:54
Makes me laugh how country the size of luxembourg has more say in it's affairs then scotlans has.

You've got a hell of a lot more say in your affairs than the people of England have in theirs. We have no English Parliament or assembly, and Blair has outright stated that we never will have. That is why this (http://www.thecep.org.uk/) has come into being.

Boozeburglar
12-Nov-06, 23:57
What ssssshhhyyyyyy


The day nth Ireland, wales and scotland are freed by YOUR gvnmnt you will be an englsh prlmnt.

Pish takers.

Dreadnought
13-Nov-06, 00:02
What ssssshhhyyyyyy


The day nth Ireland, wales and scotland are freed by YOUR gvnmnt you will be an englsh prlmnt.

Pish takers.

Westminster is no more 'my' government than it is yours. It is the British government. Nth Ireland, Wales and Scotland all have their own Parliaments or Assemblies, England has none. We are ruled by all the Scots in Westminster, look at their names: Blair, Cameron, Menzies-Campbell, Brown...where are the English in that lot?

Boozeburglar
13-Nov-06, 00:11
That has site all to do with it, under our system they are all entitled to run the show.

You are hoist on your own petard.

If you don't want Scots running England, then set up exclusion legislation preventing non nationals participating in the English parliamentary system.

Go on.

Of course, you will have to devolve completely to the Scots, Irishg and Welsh to do that, and face the prospect of being castigated as a zenophobic totality.

Dreadnought
13-Nov-06, 00:16
That has site all to do with it, under our system they are all entitled to run the show.

You are hoist on your own petard.

If you don't want Scots running England, then set up exclusion legislation preventing non nationals participating in the English parliamentary system.

Go on.

Of course, you will have to devolve completely to the Scots, Irishg and Welsh to do that, and face the prospect of being castigated as a zenophobic totality.


Again you totally fail to understand. How do we pass legislation favouring England when there is NO representation for England in Westminster? There is NO ENGLISH PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM. There is a Scottish Minister, a Welsh Minister and a Minister for Northern Ireland, but there is NO Minister for England.

I suggest you read this (http://www.thecep.org.uk/england_disadvantaged.shtml) and learn some facts, then you may speak on the subject without sounding like an English hating xenophobe spouting nothing but blind rhetoric.

David from Stockport
13-Nov-06, 00:30
Although it sounds a romantic notion to have an independent Scotland where do you stop with independence for Scotland - i believe there are people in Orkney that want independence from Scotland , would you grant it ? perhaps then we can be all polititions , what we need is a strong UK with Scotland retaining its own identity within it and less polititions all round and those that we keep it d be nice if they were honest and worked for the good of the UK and not just to feather there own nests.

JAWS
13-Nov-06, 01:07
Lets go the whole hog and bring back the Clan System! Lets do away completely with the paraphernalia of Parliaments.

Freedom for the Clans! Who needs this "One Nation" rubbish, it's just another form of Domination from elsewhere!

Rheghead
13-Nov-06, 02:04
Again you totally fail to understand. How do we pass legislation favouring England when there is NO representation for England in Westminster? There is NO ENGLISH PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM. There is a Scottish Minister, a Welsh Minister and a Minister for Northern Ireland, but there is NO Minister for England.

I suggest you read this (http://www.thecep.org.uk/england_disadvantaged.shtml) and learn some facts, then you may speak on the subject without sounding like an English hating xenophobe spouting nothing but blind rhetoric.

At least someone understands.

Kenn
13-Nov-06, 02:23
In my wildest dreams that would be a reality but unfortunately we are now integrated into the the global economy and it would be impossible for us to exist as a seperate entity.
I suspect that the same thing applies to Scotland, if you had been allowed to keep your oil and gas revenues and wisely use the money then the political map could look very different.
Strange that you get devolution just when the stocks are runing out!

JAWS
13-Nov-06, 03:16
What puzzles me is that the very people who are anxious to win their Independence from a load of Foreigners in London are the same ones who want to hand it over to a different load of Foreigners in Brussels.

Seems to be rather a strange concept of Independence to me. :confused

Rheghead
13-Nov-06, 11:28
Let us not forget that it was Scotland and the Monarch who pressed for Union in the first place, English politicians were fairly indifferent to the idea.

peter macdonald
13-Nov-06, 14:44
Is that why there were riots in Edinburgh after the Union ?? Is that why there was 2 rebellions?? the ordinary people of Scotland were largely against Union whilst some of the pro Union politians of the day had their morals decribed by Burns "a parcel of rogues etc"
As for Scottish domination of the UK parliament cast your mind back to 1997 and remember that the government of the time could not even have a Scottish MP as secy of state as they(Conservatives)had been totally wiped out in Scotland We also in the 1st develution vote in 1979 The Scottish people voted in a referendum to set up a Scottish Assembly. For a Scottish Assembly 1,230,937 votes (51.6 %), against 1,153,502 votes (48.4 %). However, London Labour, later SDP, MP George Cunningham had proposed that 40 % of the electorate must vote Yes, thus effectively counting abstainers as No voters. 32.9% of the electorate had voted Yes I have never heard of this being done anywhere else
In 2004 the people of North England were given the choice of having an elected assembly The people voted NO
"Too small to go it alone"?? Go read the Economists data on Finland Iceland Norway Eire Luxemburg and compare the standard of living in Scotland

"Tony Blair is Scottish" ? 'Sovereignty remains with me as an English MP and that is the way it will stay.'
The Right Honourable Anthony Charles Lynton Blair.

A wee thought provoking question ...the Barnett Formula is based on need as it stands today ..Why have Westminster politians resisted calls from Scottish MPs to have the payments linked to TAX revenues ??? Hmmm I wonder could be they are afraid to let us know where the oil revenues have gone perhaps
Anyway we will all be British when it comes to paying for the London Olympics !!

Rheghead
13-Nov-06, 15:25
It only takes a minority to make a riot, even in Edinburgh. The Act of Settlement was voted and agreed upon by Jacobites in 1701 thus precluding the pretender cause, 6 years before Union!

Burns speaks for a nation? Are you wanting a poet for dictator now?[lol]

I think the big problem is 'Maggie', before her the SNP had no support. She has gone now and her ilk are never to return

If you think that one bad PM is the basis for a separation from a Union that has favoured both nations, the northern one imparticular, is a very dyfunctional view of what is best for Scotland.

Every one knows that the flow of taxation flows northward rather than southward.

Just think about this, Scottish oil, what Scottish oil? The oil is British and if Scotland cedes from the Union then she will lose out big style. Like it or lump it, but that is the reality of it all.

weeboyagee
13-Nov-06, 15:33
Ahh, Rheggers, you know that this is my favourite subject of all time! :)


Let us not forget that it was Scotland and the Monarch who pressed for Union in the first place
Oh we don't forget that - in as much as we don't forget the rest of history where instead of the English politicians being rather erm,...indifferent to the idea, the English Monarchy of the earlier periods were brow beating and battering Scotland into submission.

It's not a romantic notion to have independence - it's as real as you and I are. Why couldn't or shouldn't we be independent? Why should we be one nation with the 50 million below the border that are jammed in 6 times more per square mile than us - of course our environment costs more per head as shown in the statistics we have been told to go and look up. The fact that we are so sparsley populated means our country will cost more per head to administrate. Of course, if we were able to have the entire "real" income that our independent nation would be able to realise at our disposal then our neighbours south of the border would not be able to laud it so much about paying for us. ;) And as for home rule for Kernow, give it to them - they are a nation in their own right as well!

DrSzin
13-Nov-06, 16:00
I think the big problem is 'Maggie', before her the SNP had no support.The SNP had their most successful general election in October 1974 when Ted Heath was still PM - 11 SNP MPs were elected. Look here (http://www.alba.org.uk/elections/snpbyvote.html) for a pic. Thatcher became Tory leader soon afterwards (in February 1975), but she didn't become PM until May 1979.

Note also that the worst SNP general-election performances in the last 30 years came in the three elections that Maggie contested as Tory leader - namely '79, '83 & '87. (Look at the graph here (http://www.alba.org.uk/elections/pelect.html).)

The SNP "recovery" in '92 (when Major was Tory leader) was in part due to Maggie's poll tax, but I think a lot more Scots voters were anti-Maggie rather than pro-SNP.

The SNP are riding high in the polls right now, but this is partly due to anti-Labour sentiment. Again, the situation is pretty complicated.

golach
13-Nov-06, 16:14
Let us not forget that it was Scotland and the Monarch who pressed for Union in the first place, English politicians were fairly indifferent to the idea.
Why was it then that the Earl of Queensberry was going around with approx £1400 of English silver in his grubby little fist bribing all the Lowland nobles at the time, to sign the Union of the Parliaments?

A little note of history here below, poetic justice I think

Located on the Canongate in Edinburgh, backing on to Holyrood Road, is Queensberry House, which now forms part of the Scottish Parliament complex. Built in 1681, it was bought by the 1st Duke of Queensberry in 1686 to provide him with an Edinburgh residence. It is best remembered as the site of the incident whereby James Douglas, the lunatic Earl of Drumlanrig (1697 - 1715), eldest son of the 'Union' Duke of Queensberry, escaped confinement to roast and devour a kitchen-boy in 1707 on the same evening his father was signing the Act of Union

Rheghead
13-Nov-06, 16:18
It's not a romantic notion to have independence - it's as real as you and I are.

Well I think it is up to a point, as with all romances, they fade.

The fact remains is that the SNP stand for independance for Scotland with a seat at Brussels. Can you be sure that independence will come with a vote to join Brussels. I assume that Scots will be allowed a separate referendum on both issues? The anti Brussels feeling is rife in Scotland, out of both Unions could be a very high price to pay indeed. Better to stay put me thinks.[lol]

gleeber
13-Nov-06, 16:20
Ordinary decent people building imaginary walls between themselves and their neighbours. If the price of independance is the strenghtening of those walls you can keep it for me.
Someday, I dream, the whole world will be one. The imaginary walls built between men since time began will begin to crumble. It's not idealism gone mad. Who could have considered present day Europe 60 years ago?
Somehow, those walls, built first in the minds of men, and then at mountain ranges and rivers, will need to be brought down.
I'm as Scottish as the most tartan clad of you but I know where the future of insular politics lie.

peter macdonald
13-Nov-06, 16:21
"Everyone knows Taxation flows North" Do you know that ?? Where are the figures for this?? Why wont Westminster publish revenues ???

"I think the big problem is 'Maggie', before her the SNP had no support. She has gone now and her ilk are never to return "

Untrue.. the SNP had 30.44% of the vote in the 1974 general election

Just think about this, Scottish oil, what Scottish oil? The oil is British and if Scotland cedes from the Union then she will lose out big style. Like it or lump it, but that is the reality of it all.

Did the Slovaks grab all the industry fom the Czech Rep when they split Did the Swedes assett strip Norway in the 1900s??? Did the Russians from Estonia Kazachstan etc etc What do you base this on??

re the Union of 1707 the whys and why nots I suggest you read the following accounts The History of the Working Classes in Scotland by Thomas Johnston (EP Publishing ) pages211 -216 (It mentions the stoning of the Dragoons stationed to curtail anti union riots ) Johnson also cross refences to the following The Union of the Parliaments .. P Hume Brown P127-131 where it tells of rioting in Glasgow and Dumfries It also tells of the monies paid to the Scottish nobles by the Kings Commisioner Lord Melville ..the 20000 pounds given to Lord Breadabane to use to bribe the Highland cheiftains to ensure their loyalty etc etc The act of settlement was only one of many factors in the Union the Jacobites were so impressed they spent the next 40 years gathering support in Europe and having 2 unsuccessful revolts A more marked factor was the buying off of the Scots investors in the failed Darien Scheme I beleive it was £398,085 10s that was offered as an equivilance to be used in refunding the speculators ,their capital, "with interest" and in discharging arrears of Government pay ,in return for a Union of parliaments

Also referenced The unreformed House of Commons by A and E G Porritt vol1 page 151

Rheghead
13-Nov-06, 16:23
Why was it then that the Earl of Queensberry was going around with approx £1400 of English silver in his grubby little fist bribing all the Lowland nobles at the time, to sign the Union of the Parliaments?

A little note of history here below, poetic justice I think

Located on the Canongate in Edinburgh, backing on to Holyrood Road, is Queensberry House, which now forms part of the Scottish Parliament complex. Built in 1681, it was bought by the 1st Duke of Queensberry in 1686 to provide him with an Edinburgh residence. It is best remembered as the site of the incident whereby James Douglas, the lunatic Earl of Drumlanrig (1697 - 1715), eldest son of the 'Union' Duke of Queensberry, escaped confinement to roast and devour a kitchen-boy in 1707 on the same evening his father was signing the Act of Union

A modern equilivalent would be Alex Samond and Tommy Sheridan going around (similarly unwashed with whisky on their breath) with the idea that Scotland will take control of its oil and having a seat at Brussels. When that won't necessarily be the case.[lol]

Rheghead
13-Nov-06, 16:26
I suggest you read the following accounts The History of the Working Classes in Scotland by Thomas Johnston (EP Publishing ) pages211 -216

[lol] please, I think I'll save myself the bother, the title says it all thank you.

j4bberw0ck
13-Nov-06, 16:26
"Too small to go it alone"?? Go read the Economists data on Finland Iceland Norway Eire Luxemburg and compare the standard of living in Scotland

Just to be Devil's Advocate here; Finland and Norway have small populations and massive land areas; in Finland's case they have wood and high-tech and engineering industries, and in Norway, oil (of very high quality) and fishing, plus several heavy engineering businesses. Norway has huge hydroelectric resources for low cost energy. Norway is not part of the EU but are members of the EEA and so don't pay massive sums to Europe, but benefit from being in a free trade area (which IMHO is exactly the position the UK should be in - we pay an "annual sub" of £15 billion to the EU).

Finland has received massive inward investment from the EU.

Iceland is also in the EEA, has a population of a quarter million, largely sustained by fishing their protected waters; not being part of the EU they don't have to share. They have one of the highest per capita incomes in the world. Not to mention the world's best reserves of geothermal energy which is so cheap that heating and hot water are free in Reykjavik (as I understand it).....

Eire has received maybe the greatest financial aid from the EU and their economy boomed over the past 10 years. So much so that the EU interest rates set by the European Central Bank (set for the benefit of Germany and France, who were in recession) were far too low and the Iriish ended up with inflation running at 10%+ and rampant, huge, house price inflation. You think Scottish first time buyers have a hard time? Look at Eire. Eire also has a cheaper cost base for farmers than Scotland because of the better climate and lower proportion of hill farms.

Luxembourg is a services-based economy founded on low taxes for corporates and people alike, with a huge financial services sector based on anonymity and even lower taxes. Although small, so is its population. It continues to thrive on the financial services sector and the proximity of the corrupt and bloated EU governance in Strasbourg.

Scotland has a small population and a biggish but by no means massive land area. It has few natural resources since trees vanished long ago, the fish stocks are decimated, it has only minor hydroelectric power resources compared with its needs, and the (British, as Rheghead said) oil resources are winding down. Plus nobody wants windmills or nuclear power and the engineering industries were put out of business by incompetent management, bolshie staff, overactive unions, and competition from the Far East.

It has a buoyant services sector and financial services are well represented. The SSP has a particular eye on the financial services sector as a tax target but anyone who thinks it would still be here if Scotland became independent, adopted the euro, and worse yet elected an SSP government is either mad or stoned or both. Not for nothing have many functions of the former Bank of Scotland been moved south after becoming HBoS, and although the RBoS notionally has headquarters in Edinburgh, it also has massive resources down south.

So I submit that income / GDP / GNP / employment comparisons with the countries you named are irrelevant.

And if you really want to play with fun concepts, try this; an independent London. London's industries and services generate a surplus to the UK economy of between £7 and 10 BILLION p.a. If that wasn't there, the Barnett Formula might get adjusted very quickly.....

golach
13-Nov-06, 16:26
A modern equilivalent would be Alex Samond and Tommy Sheridan going around (similarly unwashed with whisky on their breath) with the idea that Scotland will take control of its oil and having a seat at Brussels. When that won't necessarily be the case.[lol]

How can you compare Alex Salmond and that Nyaaf Sheridan in the same paragraph?
See what a gent Alex is

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6143244.stm

Rheghead
13-Nov-06, 16:32
Golach, I wasn't comparing the two, I was just putting the same bias on modern history as you were doing to the past.

Anyway, it is amazing how history can tell a story. People here have mentioned riots in Edinburgh in opposition to Union. Well, there have been riots since the day dot about everything but that does mean that the rioters represent public opinion, the NF riots of the 70s spring to mind, but then again...

peter macdonald
13-Nov-06, 16:48
Originally Posted by peter macdonald View Post
I suggest you read the following accounts The History of the Working Classes in Scotland by Thomas Johnston (EP Publishing ) pages211 -216

please, I think I'll save myself the bother, the title says it all thank you.

What do you mean ?? This book is a mine of information of that times It has also a very fine collection of references It has been used by as a reliable reference by many notable historians such as Ian Grimble and MacKenzie

weeboyagee
13-Nov-06, 20:30
Nah, nah, nah,........stay put? C'mon.....I am no fan of Brussels, and no fan of the Union. Brussels is swallowing up everything it lays it's hands on the further east it stretches,.....all with it's qualifying price, where will it stop?


Someday, I dream, the whole world will be one
The United States of Europe?...then,....... All the problems that are happening now will become manifest with greater intensity. The only way you will govern such a tapestry of nations will be to become more dictatorial and less democratic, think about it.....

The more integrated we all become, the less identifiable we will be - and yes, we should value our identity, Scotland is still identifiable - although how much more will we be able to sell ourselves (as Ireland does) if we were an independent country in our own right.

We have the business and the financial clout, we sit on a potential tourist gold mine, we have water, wind, wave and mineral wealth.


Plus nobody wants windmills or nuclear power....
Something tells me that Scotland would be a lot more PRO-windmills and nuclear power if we were independent and providing for ourselves as necessary. The same energy crisis would be facing us as an independent nation as would be if we continue to be appended! We have the technology and have led the world in invention, we also have more natural resource than our southern neighbours.


The SSP has a particular eye on the financial services sector as a tax target but anyone who thinks it would still be here if Scotland became independent, adopted the euro, and worse yet elected an SSP government is either mad or stoned or both.
Here, here!

....and we still have a pound note, but we can always put that one right and find favour with the US and Canada by adopting the dollar (sorry, just a wee laugh! ;))!

Rheghead
14-Nov-06, 01:48
Something tells me that Scotland would be a lot more PRO-windmills and nuclear power if we were independent and providing for ourselves as necessary. The same energy crisis would be facing us as an independent nation as would be if we continue to be appended! We have the technology and have led the world in invention, we also have more natural resource than our southern neighbours.

You seem to have a very short-sighted view on the wider problem of Global Warming and energy supply. If you think that Scotland should only supply renewable energy for herself and deny her closest neighbour the excess, then a viable resource is wasted let alone England may have to use fossil fuels. All nations are in this together, it is not a 'we are self sufficient, you aren't! neh neh ne neh neh' thing.

An analogy would be if Australia refused to export pitchblende, where would we all be then?

Rheghead
14-Nov-06, 01:57
It also tells of the monies paid to the Scottish nobles by the Kings Commisioner Lord Melville ..the 20000 pounds given to Lord Breadabane to use to bribe the Highland cheiftains to ensure their loyalty etc etc

Ah yes, just been reading about the infamous Jacobite Breadabane. He put his own clansmen into force labour inorder to be in a position to credit English Shipbuilders with timber. Nice chap I'm sure.:roll:

peter macdonald
14-Nov-06, 09:16
Rheghead I am glad you have begun to realise the calibre of rogue who signed away the Scots Parliament ...Argyll was no better In 1690 he had in place "a schudule of places and pensions by means of which 30 members of Parliament might be detached from the opposition ".. Melvilles role as Kings commisioner is both well known and documented
The role of the King and East India company in the Darien scheme failure is well documented in "The early history of the Darien Company" by Hiram Bingham neither come out of that well
The level of corruption was such that by the late 18th century Lecky said "Scotland was habitually looked upon as the most servile and corrupt portion in the British Empire " This was the residue of the Union in Scotland

weeboyagee
14-Nov-06, 09:44
You seem to have a very short-sighted view on the wider problem of Global Warming and energy supply. If you think that Scotland should only supply renewable energy for herself and deny her closest neighbour the excess, then a viable resource is wasted let alone England may have to use fossil fuels. All nations are in this together, it is not a 'we are self sufficient, you aren't! neh neh ne neh neh' thing.

An analogy would be if Australia refused to export pitchblende, where would we all be then?
OK, then let's look at it this way. If we were an independent nation and had managed to have "our" oil, (get this fanciful thinking of "british" oil out of your head) then we would have had the ability to boost our economy as we saw fit by trading it with our neighbours as we saw fit, in the same manner as Australia, Saudi Arabia and any other nation trades their resource as it sees fit being independent. We wouldn't deny our neighbour the benefit of our natural resource (perish the thought!) - we'd make them pay for it justly like any other nation we would trade with. But you're right in thinking that we may be able to reap back that which was raped with the plundering of the oil fields that, as you correctly say, are now much reduced.

We are all in the "global warming" thing together - in as much as the togetherness of the world is acted out on the global stage by the USA, China and the rest of them. We would guard our resources and riches in the same manner as the rest - including as much as the UK itself undertakes to guard presently.

Whilst we are appended to our neighbours - "they" have our natural resource at "their" disposal. They took the oil, they will harness our wind resource and before you know it - and this is no joke, the water will soon be piped over the border as well. We're all in this together - aye right,.....not! The royal "we" extends one way at the moment - south! :eyes

Dreadnought
14-Nov-06, 10:09
Whilst we are appended to our neighbours - "they" have our natural resource at "their" disposal. They took the oil, they will harness our wind resource and before you know it - and this is no joke, the water will soon be piped over the border as well. We're all in this together - aye right,.....not! The royal "we" extends one way at the moment - south! :eyes


What complete and utter nonsense! At this moment the world's largest offshore windfarm is under construction in the mouth of the Thames Estuary. When complete it will comprise over 250 wind turbines, each over 15 stories tall. I can see it towering over the container ships as the come up the estuary.
If that is harnessing 'your' wind resource I can ony assume it is the wind from the hot air of arguments such as yours.
As for resources only heading south... If Scotland became fully independent tomorrow, how would it survive without the cash cow of the southern (nice euphemism for English eh? [disgust] ) taxpayer?

I also see someone mentioned the North east's rejection of a regional assembly. Damn right it was rejected! Just as any proposal to break England up piecemeal should be rejected! We want the same rights granted the Welsh, Scots and Northern Irish, our own Parliament representing the whole of our country, no more no less.

pultneytooner
14-Nov-06, 10:56
Westminster is no more 'my' government than it is yours. It is the British government. Nth Ireland, Wales and Scotland all have their own Parliaments or Assemblies, England has none. We are ruled by all the Scots in Westminster, look at their names: Blair, Cameron, Menzies-Campbell, Brown...where are the English in that lot?
Where are all the capable english politicians, that's what you should be asking.

weeboyagee
14-Nov-06, 11:13
Just as any proposal to break England up piecemeal should be rejected! We want the same rights granted the Welsh, Scots and Northern Irish, our own Parliament representing the whole of our country, no more no less.
And you should have it, no sooner than if you kick the Scots MP's back to Scotland, reducing the double administration bill for both countries. Have your parliament in Westminster all with the exception of Kernow. Give them back their place and their language,.....if they want it!

Wind power, plant it on your hills, hundreds of them like the development planned on Barvas Moor,.... the analogy is still the same - you don't think if we had a surplus of it (since we only have to serve a tenth of the populaton of England with only a 20% reduction in land mass to site the things) that the surplus wouldn't go south? Nonsense I speak? I don't think so. We have a much greater ability to provide from our natural resource than our neighbours. There is more wind in Scotland (natural resource, mind you probably the other form as well no doubt but that's hardly the point) given our natural climate (onshore AND offshore) than down south. We'll produce more per head here than you will per head down there. Your eyes may behold the windfarm in the sea. Mine behold the oil rigs from my village - and the revenue of that is all coming back North? I don't think so.

You don't think that we would have our own cash cow here in the central and southern belt of Scotland on our own within the same context as that which would be continually provided by your south east area to your own country?

The fact that the assemblies were granted to the countries in their own right was a recognition of what? If they needed an English parliament you would have got one. Why did they give us our own Parliament - maybe to partly satisfy the sudo-nationlistic feeling that lurks in all native Scots, hmmmm? ;) As a stepping stone to independence they should devolve the entire four and let them make their own way with key areas such as defence being the only one governed by a representative body of all four parliaments. How would you like that one?

golach
14-Nov-06, 11:19
I have said for many years "Give England Home Rule" [lol]

j4bberw0ck
14-Nov-06, 11:31
If we were an independent nation and had managed to have "our" oil, (get this fanciful thinking of "british" oil out of your head) then we would have had the ability to boost our economy as we saw fit .....<snip>....But you're right in thinking that we may be able to reap back that which was raped with the plundering of the oil fields

Fanciful, nothing. That's the way it is, and was, and whether it's right or wrong in your view, that's the reality you need to deal with. As for boosting the economy, well, maybe. Personally, I think it's highly likely it would have been frittered away supporting pet government projects - mostly involving keeping the government in style and decadence, as the Scottish Parliament has shown - and keeping hopeless industries alive in the face of foreign competition. Oh, and in annual subscriptions to Brussels, of course. Pretty much what the UK did with it, to a great extent!

And let's not forget that Scotland may not have received revenue directly from oil, but for years before oil was discovered it received financial support from those self-same English "robber barons" whose existence must be proved because people talk about them :roll: . It's hardly Scotland's fault it was that way round, and it's no disgrace; having a large centralised population is economically far more efficient than having a small population, widely scattered, and much more distant from local European markets.


Whilst we are appended to our neighbours - "they" have our natural resource at "their" disposal. They took the oil, they will harness our wind resource and before you know it - and this is no joke, the water will soon be piped over the border as well. We're all in this together - aye right,.....not! The royal "we" extends one way at the moment - south!

Well, Dreadnought and I have a history of disagreement :lol: but on this one I'm right with him. Scotland's wind resource? You mean there's no wind anywhere else? Ever heard of ROCs? That's how you get paid for generating electrical power which is piped to the National Grid. If a Scottish wind generator - no, that's you :-) , let me rephrase - if a Scottish company builds windmills to generate power and feeds surplus to the Grid, then the Scottish power generator gets the cash. Where's the problem?

Rheghead
14-Nov-06, 12:28
The role of the King and East India company in the Darien scheme failure is well documented in "The early history of the Darien Company"

The role of the King was definitely against the whole idea in the first place,if Paterson et al had listened to the King then non of this whole Union thing might have taken place.


The level of corruption was such that by the late 18th century Lecky said "Scotland was habitually looked upon as the most servile and corrupt portion in the British Empire "

Corruption on the part of Scottish Government as well as bad decision making. In 1702 even after the sham of Darien had collapsed, they still persisted on a 'Mercantile' trading strategy rather than a free-trade strategy. Errr, but every economist knows that that will only work IF you have a healthy colonial empire to trade with..........DOH!

I'm afraid they were quite inept.

Rheghead
14-Nov-06, 12:42
Have your parliament in Westminster all with the exception of Kernow. Give them back their place and their language,.....if they want it!

They probably don't want it really. Their independence call just seems to be restricted to obscene graffiti on toilet walls.

Rheghead
14-Nov-06, 12:50
OK, then let's look at it this way. If we were an independent nation and had managed to have "our" oil, (get this fanciful thinking of "british" oil out of your head) then we would have had the ability to boost our economy as we saw fit by trading it with our neighbours as we saw fit, in the same manner as Australia, Saudi Arabia and any other nation trades their resource as it sees fit being independent. We wouldn't deny our neighbour the benefit of our natural resource (perish the thought!) - we'd make them pay for it justly like any other nation we would trade with. But you're right in thinking that we may be able to reap back that which was raped with the plundering of the oil fields that, as you correctly say, are now much reduced.

We are all in the "global warming" thing together - in as much as the togetherness of the world is acted out on the global stage by the USA, China and the rest of them. We would guard our resources and riches in the same manner as the rest - including as much as the UK itself undertakes to guard presently.

Whilst we are appended to our neighbours - "they" have our natural resource at "their" disposal. They took the oil, they will harness our wind resource and before you know it - and this is no joke, the water will soon be piped over the border as well. We're all in this together - aye right,.....not! The royal "we" extends one way at the moment - south! :eyes

So now now what you are proposing is abandoning a Union/friendship that has disproportionately benefitted Scotland and at the same token deny her old friend the resources that she has been accustomed to?

Now that sounds like a nice basis for a relationship doesn't it?:roll:. I say that because it breaches the ethics of free trade, an principle on which the EU is built upon. So if we are out of the EU and the UNION then it will be a lonely destiny and a poor one.

Cattach
14-Nov-06, 12:59
So now now what you are proposing is abandoning a Union/friendship that has disproportionately benefitted Scotland and at the same token deny her old friend the resources that she has been accustomed to?

Now that sounds like a nice basis for a relationship doesn't it?:roll:. I say that because it breaches the ethics of free trade, an principle on which the EU is built upon. So if we are out of the EU and the UNION then it will be a lonely destiny and a poor one.

The UK govenment has raided Scotland's economy and resources for decades, nae 100s of years, and treated a proud nation like a colony. No different from the way the African colonies, India, etc. were treated.

Rheghead
14-Nov-06, 13:04
The UK govenment has raided Scotland's economy and resources for decades, nae 100s of years, and treated a proud nation like a colony. No different from the way the African colonies, India, etc. were treated.

And Scotland has disproportionately took advantage of Englands economic weight for the last 300 years as well. It is a 2 way street and if you read any reputable book written by any Scotsman like Michael Fry then you'll realise that Scotland has done it disproportionately to suit her own needs.

peter macdonald
14-Nov-06, 16:36
Rheghead The people of Scotland gained so much????Aye maybe the capitalists at the time did ...that same people who sold their country but Im not sure the aprox 125000 cleared from the Highlands and Galloway did ... Im not sure the occupants of the worst slums in Glasgow did .. I wonder what benefit the Union gave to the Soldiers of the 78th who were taking Cawnpore and crushing that revolt when at the same time the fathers mothers and children of the 78th were being evicted a few miles from Dunrobin ??/ or the cleared crofters at Lednagullen where marriage was outlawed mussell bailiffs installed to stop the starving folk eating mussells off the rock 17 water baliffs installed to see that nothing was taken from river to estuary etc etc etc etc etc etc
Every thing outside instaneous murder was done to exterminate the working class in Sutherland at the beginning of the 1800s (I can and will if asked provide references for these events and comments)
But look at the names of the Landlords and how did they maintain their wealth ??? Breadalbane Argyll etc etc ?? Easy if you sell a country
Re the king William was sold on the Darien idea as a cash cow Money had been spent !! "it is said many great men would receieve 2% of the profits for their good services in securing Royal assent" He was however unimpressed when he realised he had been deceived into granting a charter for the Darien company A company that would be likely to detrimentally effect the fortunes of the monopoly enjoyed by his friends at the East India Co... he then turned aside his 2 Scottish Secys and ordered the English Colonial governers to boycott the Darien settlement The governer at Jamacia did so with such effiency he declined to help Scottish ships flying distress signals and refused provisions to starving refugees (William was king of both Scotland and England remember!)
the haste the Scottish parliament used to pass a bill to enable trust funds and burgh funds to invest in the scheme looks to say the least "unusual" ....... corruption????
regarding Scottish trade patterns before Darien Europe especially the low countries was one of the main markets as was trade with England These trading routes were in some cases Tithe regulated in other cases not ..so to call it either mercantile or Free trade is inaccurate

Rheghead
14-Nov-06, 16:39
Rheghead The people of Scotland gained so much????Aye maybe the capitalists at the time did ...that same people who sold their country but Im not sure the aprox 125000 cleared from the Highlands and Galloway did ... Im not sure the occupants of the worst slums in Glasgow did ..

The clearances were not restricted to the Highlands and islands. Parts of England were similiarly cleared but nothing is made of this. But the events are just labelled under the general heading, the industrial revolution.

Rheghead
14-Nov-06, 16:43
starving folk eating mussells off the rock 17 water baliffs installed to see that nothing was taken from river to estuary etc etc etc etc etc etc
Every thing outside instaneous murder was done to exterminate the working class in Sutherland at the beginning of the 1800s (I can and will if asked provide references for these events and comments)
But look at the names of the Landlords and how did they maintain their wealth ??? Breadalbane Argyll etc etc ?? Easy if you sell a country
Re the king the King was sold on the Darien idea as a cash cow Money had been spent to get the charter "it is said many great men would receieve 2% of the profits for their good services in securing Royal assent" He was however unimpressed when he realised he had been deceived into granting a charter for the Darien company A company that would be likely to detrimentally effect the fortunes of the monopoly enjoyed by his friends at the East India Co he then turned aside his 2 Scottish Secys and ordered the English Colonial governers to boycott the darien settlement The governer at Jamacia did so with such effiency he declined to help Scottish ships flying distress signals and refused provisions to starving refugees (William was king of both Scotland and England remember!)
the haste the Scottish parliament used to pass a bill to enable trust funds and burgh funds to invest in the scheme looks to say the least "unusual" corruption????
regarding Scottish trade patterns before... Darien Europe especially the low countries was one of the main markets as was trade with England These trading routes were in some cases Tithe regulated in other cases not ..so to call it either mercantile or Free trade is inaccurate

Most of that happened before the Union. King William was never sold on the idea of Darien.

peter macdonald
14-Nov-06, 17:04
The clearances were not restricted to the Highlands and islands. Parts of England were similiarly cleared but nothing is made of this. But the events are just labelled under the general heading, the industrial revolution.
Please read post Galloway is not in the Highlands ...it was there that the whole thing began in 1724 with the "levellers" Little was made of the "Clearances" in Scotland until the last couple of decades as it was not taught in Scottish school history until after 1975 In fact if it hadnt been for a stone mason from Strathnaver called Donald MacLeod and his letter campaign against the Sutherlands (or what ever you want to call them) and his pamphlet "Gloomy memories" I wonder what we would ever have heard !

peter macdonald
14-Nov-06, 17:15
Most of that happened before the Union. V King William was never sold on the idea of Darien.
Exactly what I said about King Williams attitude
Darien was colonised at New Caledonia November 1698 and abandoned July 1699 It had to be before the Union it was its main cause!!! ie The payment of the debt to the out of pocket Scottish capitalists in exchange for the delivery of a parliament/country

Cattach
14-Nov-06, 17:53
And Scotland has disproportionately took advantage of Englands economic weight for the last 300 years as well. It is a 2 way street and if you read any reputable book written by any Scotsman like Michael Fry then you'll realise that Scotland has done it disproportionately to suit her own needs.

I have probably read and studied more historic and economic books on this topixc than you have had the proverbial 'hot dinners'. It has been more of a one way street with Scotland on th whole losing out. But then this happens in many spheres - media, sport, devlopment of industry, etc, etc.
By te way, I am not a Nationalist but just someone who wants fair play from the UK government for the country and a good devolved structure of government.

The_man_from_del_monte
14-Nov-06, 18:21
And just who exactly would subsidise the Scots to the tune of £2,200 per head (http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/subsidy1.html) if they became "independent"? This report may also be of interest (http://thecep.org.uk/media/yp_mk_30aug.pdf)

Cattach
14-Nov-06, 19:14
And just who exactly would subsidise the Scots to the tune of £2,200 per head (http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/subsidy1.html) if they became "independent"? This report may also be of interest (http://thecep.org.uk/media/yp_mk_30aug.pdf)

Bloomin' eyesores these huge supermarkets are they take all the fun out of shopping and cause smaller shops to go bust, I say demolish them all!

Same might apply to those huge groups of countries with no national identity - bring back the small unit - Scotland!

peter macdonald
14-Nov-06, 19:27
And just who exactly would subsidise the Scots to the tune of £2,200 per head (http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/subsidy1.html) if they became "independent"? This report may also be of interest (http://thecep.org.uk/media/yp_mk_30aug.pdf)
Where do they get the figures from ?? There are no published figures of revenues from Scotland ??
I think the CEP should to try to convert their own brethern in the North of England who turned down an assembly in 2004

peter macdonald
14-Nov-06, 19:47
To cut 20mins of a train journey from St Pancrass to the continent
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2095-2449374_2,00.html =£5.3 billion
contrast total yearly roads budget in Scotland
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1673392006 =£1 billion

Oh I forgot the St Pancrass link is "infrastructure" Scotland transport system gets a subsity ..................... Silly me

The_man_from_del_monte
14-Nov-06, 19:54
Where do they get the figures from ?? There are no published figures of revenues from Scotland ??
I think the CEP should to try to convert their own brethern in the North of England who turned down an assembly in 2004


Some stuff on this here (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmhansrd/vo990609/debtext/90609-07.htm) also do a Google for "English subsidise the scots"

The_man_from_del_monte
14-Nov-06, 20:05
To cut 20mins of a train journey from St Pancrass to the continent
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2095-2449374_2,00.html =£5.3 billion
contrast total yearly roads budget in Scotland
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1673392006 =£1 billion

Oh I forgot the St Pancrass link is "infrastructure" Scotland transport system gets a subsity ..................... Silly me

You must remember that there are only 5 million punters up here and 50 million punters in England so 5 billion for 50 million is nowhere near as much as 1 billion for 5 million if you look at it that way (if my maths are correct 5 billion divided between 50 million people is less per head than 1 billion between 5 million)

DrSzin
14-Nov-06, 20:22
Hmm, with a few honourable exceptions, this "debate" seems to be split between those of English origin and those of Scots origin throwing claims of subsidy and counter-subsidy at each other. Please correct me if I'm wrong about folks' origins.

I have no objections to an English Parliament, or a set of regional assemblies, or whatever our friends south of the border might choose to create. Indeed, I quite like the model of a federal UK. An English Parliament could sit in what's currently the House of Commons and a new UK-wide upper house or "Senate" could sit in the Lords. With increased devolution, the elected Senate wouldn't need a huge number of members, so the new system wouldn't necessarily stink of "big government". Not that I've really thought this through, mind...

The arguments for an English Parliament sound rather familiar to those of us who campaigned for a Scottish one during the 80s and 90s. Some of the arguments are as strong as the best of those we used, and some are a little disingenuous - as were ours.

Did anyone else take part in the march along Princes St in Edinburgh on a cold Saturday morning during the European Summit in December 1992? The atmosphere was pretty amazing both on the march and at the rally in the Meadows afterwards. Somewhat ironically, having watched huge numbers of SNP members and "supporters" in action on that day, I haven't voted SNP since. But that's another story entirely...

JAWS
14-Nov-06, 21:52
In 2004 the people of North England were given the choice of having an elected assembly The people voted NO
"Too small to go it alone"??

Anyway we will all be British when it comes to paying for the London Olympics !!
Just shows how sensible the folks in the North of England are. They have more sense than to want to pay for another load of windbags doing nothing but tell everybody how important they are.

Anybody know who has the odd 400 million to spare? I can recommend a good Architect! [lol]

Oh yes, and as to the nonsense over the London Olympics, the only people who are coughing up for that are Londoners.
The IOC Rules state that the Games go to a City, not a Country, and are paid for by that City.

Gogglebox
14-Nov-06, 22:00
Oh yes, and as to the nonsense over the London Olympics, the only people who are coughing up for that are Londoners.
The IOC Rules state that the Games go to a City, not a Country, and are paid for by that City.

Why do they have national lottery games in our shops designated specifically to support the 2012 Olympics then??

I think we will find we will all pay for the Olympics especially now they have realised they messed up the cost estimates

(they wrongly assumed they wouldnt have to pay VAT so that'll be an extra few Billions to pay the 17.5%, )

THink you would struggle to recommend the architect too without a Medium!!

JAWS
14-Nov-06, 22:16
Now, now, DrS, what makes you think the majority of those South of the Border want anything to do with rule from London?

Both York and Winchester have a better claim than London to have any English Parliament just as Stirling has a better claim than Edinburgh to be the seat of the Scottish Parliament.

j4bberw0ck
14-Nov-06, 22:18
Indeed, I quite like the model of a federal UK. An English Parliament could sit in what's currently the House of Commons and a new UK-wide upper house or "Senate" could sit in the Lords. With increased devolution, the elected Senate wouldn't need a huge number of members, so the new system wouldn't necessarily stink of "big government".

I think you're right. Most would classify my politics as right-wing and on economics, I confess I veer towards the Thatcherite wing and free markets / low tax (that in itself sets me apart from the BNP who have no time for free markets - rather like that lovely trio of fascists Mr Stalin, Mr Mao, and Mr Hitler, amongst others). But I'd be happy to see the monarchy replaced by an elected Upper House and elected President, with a Bill of Rights and formal Constitution, which is definitely not Thatcherite and not even Conservative.

The downside of a Constitution is that once the lawyers get going on it you have scope for some of the absurdities of the American Constitution where the thoughts and words of some very wise men 220 years ago are twisted and turned and interpreted in the light of contemporary events, meanings and circumstances.

I question the need for an English Parliament (and a Scottish or Welsh one, for that matter) because any government structure like that is a gravy train for the politicians at the taxpayer's expense; think MSPs buying houses at the public expense, MPs having very favourable pension schemes and expenses paid whether they spend the money or not, MEPs having special tax rates and even more generous pension arrangements, special tax-free allowances and so on.

The concept of public service as an honour and an obligation of the fortunate to the less fortunate, disappeared 150 years ago unfortunately.

Dreadnought
14-Nov-06, 22:19
Why do they have national lottery games in our shops designated specifically to support the 2012 Olympics then??

Buying Lotto tickets/scratch cards is not compulsory.

The_man_from_del_monte
14-Nov-06, 22:23
Please correct me if I'm wrong about folks' origins.



Wrong as far as I'm concerned man, born in Scotland lived in London most of my life so have seen both "sides" of the coin. One good aspect of living in London was they didn't constantly go on about the Scottish, in fact they rarely mentioned them, all I seem to hear up here (in parts) is "English this" "English that" and how bloomin' "great" Scotland is and how the English are being subsidised by North sea oil..... argh! absolute hogwash fuelled by silly people in certain parties trying to whip up a few members so they can get into power... independence? and just what, exactly, would this country produce and how much tax would you have to pay to support things?

JAWS
14-Nov-06, 22:36
Why do they have national lottery games in our shops designated specifically to support the 2012 Olympics then??

I think we will find we will all pay for the Olympics especially now they have realised they messed up the cost estimates

(they wrongly assumed they wouldnt have to pay VAT so that'll be an extra few Billions to pay the 17.5%, )

THink you would struggle to recommend the architect too without a Medium!!Taxes you have to pay, the Lottery is quite voluntary and nobody will insist that any Scot, or anybody from England, Wales or N. Ireland for that matter, has to buy the Lottery Tickets.

The operative words over VAT you quoted correctly, "wrongly assumed". I can "assume" whatever I want but that won't necessarily make it reality.

Architects are easy to find. First you catch a train and then you just happen to get into conversation with a passing stranger and Bingo, you suddenly find you have found just the right architect. Then you sign contracts which mean you have no control whatsoever on costs. Then you get the mugs to cough up and cough up and cough up and then the roof falls in! Does anybody know if that’s been fixed yet?

If anybody asks nicely I’ll cough that Westminster was also jerry built with rubbish materials. It’s just that it took over a century to find that out whilst some major maintenance was being carried out.
I thought I’d add that fact just so everybody can have a snigger. ;)

peter macdonald
14-Nov-06, 22:40
Buying Lotto tickets/scratch cards is not compulsory. Thats why I wont Why ?? not because its English but if the pattern of the last few games is repeated the money will made by Londoners hiring out there flats/houses to journalists and tourists while the rest of the country is left to pick up the bill Athens is a prime example Then we have Montreal please note the role of the Quebec govt


Montreal massively overspent on the Olympics, following Mayor Jean Drapeau's adage, The Olympics can no more lose money than a man can have a baby (a statement mocked in a political cartoon depicting him on the telephone asking for a "Morgentaler"). Montreal did indeed lose money, over US$2 billion, when it was all said and done. In fact, the Quebec government — afraid the province would be humiliated internationally — stepped in at the eleventh hour and essentially put the entire municipal Olympic organizing effort under trusteeship. The facilities would likely not have been ready in time for the games had this not happened, a reality trumpeted by the provincial government in a series of "Because of Quebec, we've done it all!" TV commercials. The Olympic Stadium is still known colloquially as the Big Owe (a play on the stadium nickname, the Big O, for the shape of its opening). It's expected that in the fall of 2006, Montreal will finish paying its Olympic debt.

Cattach
14-Nov-06, 22:43
Wrong as far as I'm concerned man, born in Scotland lived in London most of my life so have seen both "sides" of the coin. One good aspect of living in London was they didn't constantly go on about the Scottish, in fact they rarely mentioned them, all I seem to hear up here (in parts) is "English this" "English that" and how bloomin' "great" Scotland is and how the English are being subsidised by North sea oil..... argh! absolute hogwash fuelled by silly people in certain parties trying to whip up a few members so they can get into power... independence? and just what, exactly, would this country produce and how much tax would you have to pay to support things?

One good aspect of living in London was they didn't constantly go on about the Scottish,

Exactly! the English, and particuarly the further south you go, treat the other members of the Union with contempt. Take from them but give little in return.

And if you have lived in England almost all your live you certainly have not seen both sides. You have,of course, been subject to a very blinkered English view of the rest of the UK. I am afraid you are not qualified to speak about Scottish life and deprivation at the hands of our southern neighbours having not experienced it.

Dreadnought
14-Nov-06, 22:55
One good aspect of living in London was they didn't constantly go on about the Scottish,

Exactly! the English, and particuarly the further south you go, treat the other members of the Union with contempt. Take from them but give little in return.

And if you have lived in England almost all your live you certainly have not seen both sides. You have,of course, been subject to a very blinkered English view of the rest of the UK. I am afraid you are not qualified to speak about Scottish life and deprivation at the hands of our southern neighbours having not experienced it.

And how many years have you spent living in London or southern England that you can make such an inaccurate judgement? I know no-one who treats the rest of Britain with contempt. Speaking for myself I have been spending at least seven weeks a year in Wales every year for the last 36 years. I love Wales and the Welsh. I cannot say anything about the Irish or the Scots because I have been to neither country, but one day I will.

So far the only contempt I have seen, for any of the peoples of Britain, was in your post I have quoted here. [disgust]

The_man_from_del_monte
14-Nov-06, 22:59
You have,of course, been subject to a very blinkered English view of the rest of the UK. I am afraid you are not qualified to speak about Scottish life and deprivation at the hands of our southern neighbours having not experienced it.

What the hell are you talking about man? I've been living in Scotland for 16 years. I think it's you who's got a blinkered view have you actually ever been out of the Country and experienced life anywhere else? If so you'll realise it's not as bad as you make out.

Not qualified to speak about Scottish life? What a friggin' cheek! I have not experienced any deprivation from our "Southern neighbours" the only barriers I have come across up here are the occasional people with small minds.... can you maybe elaborate a little, how have you been deprived by the English? Come on, I'd like to hear about how bad they've been to you.........

The_man_from_del_monte
14-Nov-06, 23:08
Thats why I wont Why ?? not because its English but if the pattern of the last few games is repeated the money will made by Londoners hiring out there flats/houses to journalists and tourists

Just like they do in St. Andrews at the open golf championship. Where the hell are people supposed to sleep, on the pavements? and what's wrong with hiring out a room to make a few bob? you expect people to provide free accomodation I suppose just like they do here in all the B&B's and hotels. Suppose it was a different kettle of fish when Edinburgh hosted the Commonwealth games with everybody opening their doors and providing free beer and accomodation.... yeh, right.

golach
14-Nov-06, 23:12
TMFD, in 1970 my house was open door to lots of folk up here for the Games

peter macdonald
14-Nov-06, 23:13
As I said before I look at myself as a mongrel Pict/Viking I know that where I have lived has never been an area where Gaelic was spoken as the main language Im proud of my origins in the backside o pultney and my accent
I dont think of myself as a natural SNP voter (as my voting pattern will testify)
I am economically left of centre though not as much as I once was
I get annoyed at the way people in the North of Scotland have proved diffident to governments who basically have walked over them in the past
I baisically give as much thought to what happens in England as they do for me
I get annoyed when people move up here and disregard the legal system of Scotland wrt rights of ways ,traditions and try to interpret a complex history they think they know by reading a couple of tourist guides
I get annoyed when I go to England and comments are passed about my banknotes (I notice they are always accepted though!!) despite me working for a national company
I also get soddin angry when I read all these race threads on this forum which always seem to be started by people who "are not of this ilk" and who dont understand when they gripe about "Poles" that we have had "Poles" in Wick for 50 years Very hard working ones who served with honour in WW2 most of them.. I get annoyed at people who complain on here about immigration and immigrants yet whenever there is a comment about English people they complain bitterly that the Scots are anti English !!!!
Anyway rant over
Good luck to all

The_man_from_del_monte
14-Nov-06, 23:46
I baisically give as much thought to what happens in England as they do for me

To the contrary, Your 11 posts in this thread would suggest you spend quite a lot of time thinking about the English ;)


I get annoyed when people move up here and disregard the legal system of Scotland wrt rights of ways ,traditions and try to interpret a complex history they think they know by reading a couple of tourist guides

You certainly don't want to move to England then, they don't have any traditions left, they've all been outlawed by the incomers from across the globe. Scotland is relatively unspoilt yet you are actually "complaining", I'd hate to think how you would feel if you actually had something to complain about like the people in certain areas of England do.... you think you've got it hard? think again, this is easy going up here.


I get annoyed when I go to England and comments are passed about my banknotes (I notice they are always accepted though!!) despite me working for a national company

Seems you're easily annoyed man, a chill pill may be the order of the day. Comments about banknotes, whoah.... what a horrible breed all the English are aren't they... how dare they comment about a banknote... they're racist! racist I tell you ;)


I also get soddin angry when I read all these race threads on this forum
And most of them unjustified as there's not exactly a huge influx of asylum seekers up here are there?


whenever there is a comment about English people they complain bitterly that the Scots are anti English !!!!

No no, it's evident that certain types of Scottish people are very anti English and they blame the English for their lot, whether self inflicted or not, generally these types have never been out of their town, let alone out of their county, and have this venemous hatred toward people they have never met... and it's never "a few of those English people that I have met....." no, it's the "English" full stop as if every single English person is some sort of evil monster.... these guys must have very low self esteem indeed and very misguided with their opinions of an entire race.

The_man_from_del_monte
15-Nov-06, 01:54
TMFD, in 1970 my house was open door to lots of folk up here for the Games

Cool man, I used to operate an open door policy for the England / Scotland international at Wembley, back in the day, with Scottish guys getting in free of charge... great times.... I lived 2 miles away from Wembley. Things are a lot different these days and you'd probably be in breach of some crazy health and safety law or open to be sued by some drunkard who falls down your staircase...... but, yeh, the 70's were good times and and the Londoners I lived with made them the best times of my life, fantastic people, shame they've all been forced to move to Spain by the PC gestapo :(

DrSzin
15-Nov-06, 02:18
Now, now, DrS, what makes you think the majority of those South of the Border want anything to do with rule from London?Thanks JAWS. I worded the relevant part of my post with you in mind, and I was hoping you'd say something like that. :grin:


Wrong as far as I'm concerned man, born in Scotland lived in London most of my life so have seen both "sides" of the coin. One good aspect of living in London was they didn't constantly go on about the Scottish, in fact they rarely mentioned them, all I seem to hear up here (in parts) is "English this" "English that" and how bloomin' "great" Scotland is and how the English are being subsidised by North sea oil..... argh! absolute hogwash fuelled by silly people in certain parties trying to whip up a few members so they can get into power... independence? and just what, exactly, would this country produce and how much tax would you have to pay to support things?There's always at least one that doesn't fit any gross simplifications that one might make on forums such as these. I knew the word "origin" wouldn't fit the bill in all cases, but the more-accurate alternatives of cultural-English and cultural-Scottish seemed a bit obscure. You may have been born in Scotland but you'd be described as culturally-English by most people, and cultural-Londoner would perhaps be much better still. But that sort of labelling is the intellectual equivalent of collecting car number plates so let's drop it right now.

I agree that the "English this" and "English that" attitude that's prevalent in some parts of Scottish society is a pain in the butt and should be booted out forthwith - if only because it's mostly pointless and counterproductive. The Scottish Parliament may not be a panacea (candidate for understatement of the year?) but it's given us some control over our own affairs and I think it's reduced the "let's blame the English" attitude of a lot of Scots, and that's surely a good thing.

Rheghead
15-Nov-06, 02:38
I agree that the "English this" and "English that" attitude that's prevalent in some parts of Scottish society is a pain in the butt and should be booted out forthwith - if only because it's mostly pointless and counterproductive.

Whenever I hear anyone going on and on and on and on like that(yawn) I just can't help thinking 'there goes an SNP voter'. So long as there are such displays of 'non-niceness'(lol) then I am sure the SNP will not gain broader support, at least they shouldn't do! :lol:


The Scottish Parliament may not be a panacea (candidate for understatement of the year?) but it's given us some control over our own affairs and I think it's reduced the "let's blame the English" attitude of a lot of Scots, and that's surely a good thing.

I think Scottish politics needs some kind of outside faction to dominate their affairs, for them to unite against because as history is already repeating itself (compare first parliament with events with SSP and SNP), the Scottish politicians will take personal differences more seriously than the question of commonsense Government.

DrSzin
15-Nov-06, 02:46
I think you're right. Most would classify my politics as right-wing and on economics, I confess I veer towards the Thatcherite wing and free markets / low tax (that in itself sets me apart from the BNP who have no time for free markets - rather like that lovely trio of fascists Mr Stalin, Mr Mao, and Mr Hitler, amongst others). But I'd be happy to see the monarchy replaced by an elected Upper House and elected President, with a Bill of Rights and formal Constitution, which is definitely not Thatcherite and not even Conservative.Is it worth considering anything other than right-wing economics ? :)

We might agree on the economic front but I would guess I'm far more more liberal on social issues than you are.

I couldn't care less whether we have a monarchy or a titular president right now, but I'd have to think long and hard about the best solution for the sort of federal UK that I was proposing earlier. I guess the German model comes closest but their federal government is probably stronger than the UK one I was suggesting.


I question the need for an English Parliament (and a Scottish or Welsh one, for that matter) because any government structure like that is a gravy train for the politicians at the taxpayer's expense; think MSPs buying houses at the public expense, MPs having very favourable pension schemes and expenses paid whether they spend the money or not, MEPs having special tax rates and even more generous pension arrangements, special tax-free allowances and so on.I'm not particularly bothered about the gravy-train business. Buying houses at the public expense is just not on, and the European Parliament is an absurd law unto itself, but these rules can be tightened up. Politicians don't make huge amounts of money by the standards of the upper echelons of the private sector so I don't get overly excited about such things.

JAWS
15-Nov-06, 02:49
Any Scots managed to get further South than Derby in the last two or three Centuries?

I seem to have vague recollections of my birthplace having suffered at the hands of the occasional visit by armies from North of the Border including, one occasion when it was burned down. I think that was the Spiderman, what was his name, Robber the Brute, you know the one, the real Braveheart, not the fake Holiwood one! It's just one of those bits of trivia I've come across whilst browsing the web.
I'm not even sure if the Drunkard was one of them or not before he abandoned the Highlanders and fled, like the coward he was, back to France.
I think we asked him to give us a miss because we got into trouble for helping his Dad in 1715 when he tried the same thing. We might be slow learners, but we aren't completely daft, once was enough. Them ropes round your neck don't half make your eyes water!

I do know that it was a Highland Regiment, The Duke of Albany's Own Highlanders, nicknamed 'The Wild Macraes', (apparently that was the name given to them by the surrounding Clans), who later become The Seaforth Highlanders, shot and killed unarmed striking Cotton Workers in my home town in 1842.

That was of such significance that I only found out who was involved, quite by accident, this last 12 months or so.

I could bother to search for all the details, but it hardly seems worth the effort. It has as much effect on my life as worrying about the Ancient Greeks of Egyptians.
It’s fun to know, but I ain’t going to stick my bottom lip out over things that happened that long ago.
I leave the getting all hot and bothered about things that long ago to those who have nothing better to occupy their minds.

I might as well start moaning about the terrible Italians because that Murderous Swine Julius Seize Her came raiding across the Channel. Terrible they were, running round butchering my ancestors! And that’s before I even get to the Danes, the Norsemen, the Northern French, the Dutch, the Spanish, and I won't even bother with modern history.
Even the Barbary Pirates from the North Coast of Africa raid the coastal villages of South West England so I suppose I should moan about the North Africans as well.
About the only People I can’t find an excuse to complain about are the Portuguese, but that’s probably because they are one of the few European Nations that haven’t been intent on conquering England at one time or another.

I find the whole concept of such rubbish highly amusing. It’s not difficult to pick out the bits of History you like and paint a picture you find convenient.

I’m going to go and sit in a corner now and feel all picked on by the whole World and feel all sorry for my poor oppressed Country. [lol]
Well, it's far easier than saying, "Look what a mess we made!" even if it is called "Passing the Buck!"

squidge
15-Nov-06, 11:56
Hmm

I hestitated to enter the fray here because the actual ECONOMICS of the situation sort of baffles me. I keep thinking ill sit down one night with two informed people from either side of the "independance" fence and try to get a good handle on the whys and why nots but i havent quite managed it yet.

I am an lancashire woman living with a Scottish man in Scotland and i have lived here for ten years now. I LOVE Scotland and I would like for it to be an independant country. My reasons are largely "romantic" - Scotland is a proud and independant minded country and there is a rich tradition of language and culture that should be recognised and celebrated and they should be independant Scots - thats how it was and thats how it should be. Wales is different - Wales was never an independant country and has no history or background of independance or its own monarch. In fact i know a certain warrior poet who maintains that Wales doesnt exist but thats maybe for the literature board.

This emotional connection to an independant Scotland is very powerful but it has to come down to cold hard money and i cant get to the bottom of whether my ideal of living in an inclusive independant Scotland has any foundations in financial reality or not. I have a re enactors party this weekend - full of Scottish knights and warriors The Bruce, William Wallace, Andrew De Murray, Red Comyn will all be there and maybe i will get an interesting discussion on the subject - anyone fancy coming along?

Rheghead
15-Nov-06, 14:33
Wales is different - Wales was never an independant country and has no history or background of independance or its own monarch.

You should read a little bit more on the subject.

scotsboy
15-Nov-06, 14:56
Any Scots managed to get further South than Derby in the last two or three Centuries?

Is Northampton south of Derby? There are quite a few around there, and we used to manage a trek to Wembley in the not too distant past:)

What a strange thing that in deciding what will be best for our future the majority have debated what is ancient (sic) history. Those events have occurred whether right or wrong - they make no basis for the good of the population today.

squidge
15-Nov-06, 15:17
You should read a little bit more on the subject.

Maybe i should but I understood that there was never a country of wales wales prior to or after the Roman invasion. After the roman invasion there were a number of warring tribes and this continued until Edward 1st conquered all the tribes and the whole of what we know as Wales and turned it into a principality. it was never a kingdon of wales nor was there a King of wales - EVER

Is that not what happened?

Edit

In the Dark ages there were four Kingdoms. Powys, Gwent Morganwyn and
llandlllagywglll. In 1271 Daffyd Ap Grythiffs was in charge of all four, but
he was a prince.
In 1272 Edward I of England annexed all four of them to Englund, so Wales
NEVER exsted as an independent Country.

golach
15-Nov-06, 15:28
I do know that it was a Highland Regiment, The Duke of Albany's Own Highlanders, nicknamed 'The Wild Macraes', (apparently that was the name given to them by the surrounding Clans), who later become The Seaforth Highlanders, shot and killed unarmed striking Cotton Workers in my home town in 1842.

Only joking Jaws, you could hardly expect Queen Victoria to send in the Royal Lancashire Fastest of Foot to put down rioters and strikers in the cotton mills[lol]

DrSzin
15-Nov-06, 16:19
I think Scottish politics needs some kind of outside faction to dominate their affairs, for them to unite against because as history is already repeating itself (compare first parliament with events with SSP and SNP), the Scottish politicians will take personal differences more seriously than the question of commonsense Government.I'd like to think you're wrong about the need for a scapegoat to unite against. It's my hope that this "scapegoat" will eventually be seen as healthy competition - with or without any change in the current constitutional arrangements.

peter macdonald
15-Nov-06, 20:22
Originally Posted by Rheghead View Post
I think Scottish politics needs some kind of outside faction to dominate their affairs, for them to unite against because as history is already repeating itself (compare first parliament with events with SSP and SNP), the Scottish politicians will take personal differences more seriously than the question of commonsense Government.
I think you are right to a great extent Rheghead There has always been the English as the big beast to blame whereas the to look at history the Scots capitalists in post Union Scotland (with a few honourable exceptions ) treated their own people terribly Remember there were a heck of a lot of Scots workers who were little better than slaves due to the truck system
The Scots shipyard owners did not hesitate to use Irish labour to drive down wages ..the list goes on ...Scots clearance landlords and their henchmen through Breadalbane ,Dalrymple, Balfour (the same as the liberal PM) to Loch and Sellar who commited what would now be termed "cleansing" in their desire to get rid of their own
The role of the Church (with the exception of the Minister at Farr ) in the clearances was to put it bluntly a disgrace I wont bore you with the details of how the church supplied highland labour to the Carolinas you can use your imagination
But there was always the English to blame never the Scots ... always the nasty English
Handy that for the Scots establishment wasnt it??
(to those who didnt understand my point about the common folk of Scotland and the Union (and accuse me of Anti Englishness in the thread) ..the rogues were almost to a man Scots ..greedy capitalists who sold a country ..aided by a King (son of Mary Stuart daughter of Charles1)whose character was shown by his role in the Massacre of Glencoe amongst other more notorious things
He was of course Dutch

j4bberw0ck
15-Nov-06, 21:03
We might agree on the economic front but I would guess I'm far more more liberal on social issues than you are.

Maybe so. I keep surprising myself as I get older with how liberal I seem to be becoming :lol: but of course, things really only work properly if people take their responsibilities as seriously as they do their rights.

P J O'Rourke again - from the same Cato Institute speech I linked to before:


Freedom is not empowerment. Empowerment is what the Serbs have in Bosnia. Anybody can grab a gun and be empowered. It's not entitlement. An entitlement is what people on welfare get, and how free are they? It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights -- the "right" to education, the "right" to health care, the "right" to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery -- hay and a barn for human cattle. There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.


I guess the German model comes closest but their federal government is probably stronger than the UK one I was suggesting.

Their system of regional government works quite well but is expensive; multi-layered bureaucracy.


Politicians don't make huge amounts of money by the standards of the upper echelons of the private sector so I don't get overly excited about such things.

I would argue in return that politicians don't generate wealth; they merely consume it or direct it. The upper echelons of the private sector can earn pretty much as much as they like, imho, because they generate the wealth that pays the taxes that provides the politicians with their generous pension schemes and more importantly, enables the public sector to operate.

@Peter MacDonald: Peter, you're much more knowledgeable than I about Scottish history - there's an enormous gulf between what you know and understand and the paucity of what I know. But is it really productive or realistic to get so hung up on real and maybe even imagined "crimes" of 200, 300, or even 350 years ago?

Does it matter? It's a new world here and heaven knows the Irish came in for some stick during the Troubles because basically what they're celebrating / remembering / commemorating are Protestants beating the crap out of Catholics in 16 hundred and something, and Catholics returning the compliment shortly after, repeated ad nauseam ever since. The Muslims remember the Crusades a thousand years ago and haven't moved on very much, in certain quarters.

How does it serve a modern Scotland to rant about Clearances (organised by Scots anyway, for most part) or how the Act of Union came about? How does it serve to get wound up about whether it was a scrofulous Highlander or a flea-bitten English nobleman with a bad case of BO who committed atrocities of various sorts three hundred years ago? Surely we need to move on and address the realities of the 21st century U.K?

Just curious.......

Now, you must excuse me, DrSzin. I have a pair of jackboots to go polish and I feel the need to annexe Swona. :eek:

peter macdonald
15-Nov-06, 21:26
Hi JWok i take your point and will leave the old stuff alone Just bugs me the misinformation that is out there as "popular beleif" Its funny the more I read the more I find ........Ill stand back and leave the modern economic stuff to you (part of my part degree is in Economics (Central planning and the Soviet system !!)
Hope you saw the PM
Peter

JAWS
16-Nov-06, 10:59
The Bruce, William Wallace, Andrew De Murray, Red Comyn will all be there and maybe i will get an interesting discussion on the subject - anyone fancy coming along?Come on, squidge, Bruce was Robert de Brus and was of Norman descent.
De Murray sort of gives a hint of the same origins.
Wallace was a descendant of Richard Waleis (Anglo-Saxon – The Welshman) who left Shropshire and came north with one of the several Norman Nobles who King David brought back with him for protection on his return from the Norman Court in England.
Comyn I thought I might have problems with but no. The name originates from the town of Comines in France. And guess who they came to England with. Wilhelmus Comyn, Bishop of Durham, also came north with King David and was made Chancellor of Scotland.
Not one of true Scots origins amongst them, every one from families of Incomers. Even the Stewarts were of Norman origins.

Of course, as a poor uneducated Englishman I wouldn't know about such things. It does have one advantage though, it means you have to search for things instead of just accepting the "Popular" Version.

I'm amazed at the double dealing, the back-stabbing (literally in some cases), the treachery and the down right thuggery. And I thought our lot South of the Border were a load of thugs. Good Grief, they were amateurs by comparison.

It has solved one piece of confusion for me. I’ve always wondered how so many families of Norman origin became so powerful in Scotland. Well, now I know.
Your good King David brought the Heavy Mob north with him to make sure he kept you lot of Hooligans from getting out of hand and then handed the whole place to them. ;)

I never realised that thug Duke William and his Normans gave you as many problems as he gave us. It's obvious that they were the ones who gave you the Feudal System of Land Ownership which still causes problems.

Well, that's my version and I'm sticking to it. And if you think that's bad, you want to hear my version of English History. [lol]

squidge
16-Nov-06, 11:10
Come on, squidge, ....
Not one of true Scots origins amongst them, every one from families of Incomers. Even the Stewarts were of Norman origins.



Well Jaws - i did talk about an INCLUSIVE independant scotland ;) and it makes for lively discussion

JAWS
16-Nov-06, 11:20
Well Jaws - i did talk about an INCLUSIVE independant scotland ;) and it makes for lively discussionLively? Not on your life, I was trying to start a riot! [lol]

DrSzin
16-Nov-06, 12:29
I would argue in return that politicians don't generate wealth; they merely consume it or direct it. The upper echelons of the private sector can earn pretty much as much as they like, imho, because they generate the wealth that pays the taxes that provides the politicians with their generous pension schemes and more importantly, enables the public sector to operate.A simple-minded argument deserves a simple-minded response...

You forgot about all the private-sector workers who do the work to generate the wealth that pays the taxes that provides the politicians with their generous pension schemes and more importantly, enables the public sector to operate.

Where's Frank when we need him? :lol:

Here's a simple-minded but serious question...

If you believe so strongly in an economic and social model that's so close to the American one, why don't you live the US? I can't imagine there's much scope for massive wealth generation in Orkney.

Yes, I am being serious, and I'm not being derogatory or winding you up in any way.

weeboyagee
16-Nov-06, 18:51
You forgot about all the private-sector workers who do the work to generate the wealth that pays the taxes that provides the politicians with their generous pension schemes and more importantly, enables the public sector to operate.
You took the words right out of my mouth in that statement! If the public sector had their way they wouldn't have a private sector - they would have in the extreme - communism. The public sector, controlling the public sector, controlling the public sector, controlling the public!

Anyone wanting to move into private enterprise would be risking a certain fate. The idea of the public sector existing to allow the private sector to operate is simply ridiculous. Competition provides for value for money - taxes and wealth that the public control in the form of political activity that twists and turns for power and uses the public sector to fund their activity - sorry AB McNeil - I know you're trying to sort this out in Parliament at the moment. And doing not a bad job at it either - takes a Scots Nat to blow it all into the open, doesn't it? ;)

scotsboy
16-Nov-06, 19:33
Dr Szin wrote
I can't imagine there's much scope for massive wealth generation in Orkney.

Got to say the spirit of free enterprise is alive and well in Orkney Doc. They seem to have a much more progressive outlook on the entrepreneurial front, than exists in Caithness.

j4bberw0ck
17-Nov-06, 16:45
You forgot about all the private-sector workers who do the work to generate the wealth that pays the taxes that provides the politicians with their generous pension schemes and more importantly, enables the public sector to operate.

Not at all; I was limiting my response to the category of worker you referred to and the point you made about their earnings compared with politicians. Simple, really :lol:


Where's Frank when we need him?

Same place he was when I asked about wealth generation in another thread?


Here's a simple-minded but serious question... If you believe so strongly in an economic and social model that's so close to the American one, why don't you live the US? I can't imagine there's much scope for massive wealth generation in Orkney.

Yes, I am being serious, and I'm not being derogatory or winding you up in any way.

I'm not at all sure I do believe strongly in the US social model. There's much to admire about the place, but that's not to say it's some kind of paradise. Great if you've got money, and not so great if you haven't.

I made great efforts at the beginning on the Nineties to move to the US; the company I worked for was HQ'd just outside San Francisco. I'd got a new role agreed them and we were sorting out contract details; then there was a change of CEO who immediately decided to stamp his authority on things by making some changes..... my new job was a casualty, so it's perhaps as well I hadn't actually moved :lol: .

Why I live in Orkney now is a much longer story and one I won't bore you with in here.