Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Scottish Independence

Options
24567…27

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    Cathal O wrote: »
    An impending referendum that WILL happen is not a "non story", even if it does pass and remain part of the Uk the Union will be nothing but in name.
    The future of the union will not be realisticon the ground. Independant parliaments of the Welsh, N.I and Scotlan will only gain more power in the future, and with talk of Taxing powers being given to scotland themselves, the union may soon become obsolete
    So what? I don't get the big deal. I see no evidence that support for Scottish independence is enough to get an overall majority and to make it happen.

    Keeping the Union together is VERY important for England and people like David Cameron. David Cameron has given his support to keep the Union together which is positive. Lets hope he can keep working on that.


  • Options
    #33
    Cathal O
    Registered Users Posts: 219 ✭✭Cathal O


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    So what? I don't get the big deal. I see no evidence that support for Scottish independence is enough to get an overall majority and to make it happen.

    Keeping the Union together is VERY important for England and people like David Cameron. David Cameron has given his support to keep the Union together which is positive. Lets hope he can keep working on that.

    Well the SNP being in power would be "evidence" that a bigger proportion of the scottish people would prefer out of the union than before, while i accept there may be a sizable proportion of voters for the SNP that would not vote for independance i think there is evidence to suggest a referendum is needed, and that the result should be accepted either way

    Keeping the union together being important for England is irrelevant, it is out of their hands at this stage. The scottish an NI parliaments have the powers to call referendums themselves so it doesnt matter whether david cameron supports the union or not.


  • Options
    #34
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    Well the SNP being in power would be "evidence" that a bigger proportion of the scottish people would prefer out of the union than before
    Not really. Could be a lot of reasons why people voted for the SNP in such big numbers. People who are pro union seem to think they are at least competent in running Scotland but who is to say what will happen in the next few years? Perhaps more might be expected of them? They could have a complete nightmare.


  • Options
    #35
    Cathal O
    Registered Users Posts: 219 ✭✭Cathal O


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    Not really. Could be a lot of reasons why people voted for the SNP in such big numbers. People who are pro union seem to think they are at least competent in running Scotland but who is to say what will happen in the next few years? Perhaps more might be expected of them? They could have a complete nightmare.

    Have you ever read discussion boards or newspapers around the time of scottish devolution? The same arguments that are arising now have been raised before, the sky did not fall in when devolution was given, in fact business in fact grew in scotland.
    All I am saying is that the only way to answer this question is to call a referendum, that will settle the question, for now at least. Would you answer that last point just
    thanks


  • Options
    #36
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    I do think a independence ref wouldnt pass tomorrow but just wondering what is the feelings of the english regarding scottish independence?


    last poll I saw had about 40% of Scotland in favour of an independant Scotland. The same poll showed of 50% of people in England in favour of an independent Scotland.
    dlofnep wrote: »
    The Acts of Union was done without the support of the Scots.

    Really? that's odd. how did it come about then? lets see what wikipedia has to say
    The Acts of Union were two Parliamentary Acts passed in 1706 by the Parliament of England, and in 1707 by the Parliament of Scotland, which put into effect the terms of the Treaty of Union that had been agreed on 22 July 1706, following negotiation between commissioners representing the parliaments of the two countries. The Acts joined the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland (previously separate states, with separate legislatures but with the same monarch) into a single, united kingdom named "Great Britain".[1]
    The two countries had shared a monarch since the Union of the Crowns in 1603, when King James VI of Scotland inherited the English throne from his double first cousin twice removed, Queen Elizabeth I. Although described as a Union of Crowns, until 1707 there were in fact two separate Crowns resting on the same head (as opposed to the implied creation of a single Crown and a single Kingdom, exemplified by the later Kingdom of Great Britain) . There had been three attempts in 1606, 1667, and 1689 to unite the two countries by Acts of Parliament, but it was not until the early 18th century that the idea had the will of both political establishments behind them, albeit for rather different reasons.
    The Acts took effect on 1 May 1707. On this date, the Scottish Parliament and the English Parliament united to form the Parliament of Great Britain, based in the Palace of Westminster in London, the home of the English Parliament.[2] Hence, the Acts are referred to as the Union of the Parliaments. On the Union, historian Simon Schama said "What began as a hostile merger, would end in a full partnership in the most powerful going concern in the world ... it was one of the most astonishing transformations in European history."[3]


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Really? that's odd. how did it come about then? lets see what wikipedia has to say

    I suggest buying a history book. The Acts of Union did not have the support of the Scots.

    But if you want to go buy your wiki-article, then we can do that too.
    Even more direct bribery was also said to be a factor.[21] £20,000 (£240,000 Scots) was dispatched to Scotland for distribution by the Earl of Glasgow. James Douglas, 2nd Duke of Queensberry, the Queen's Commissioner in Parliament, received £12,325, the majority of the funding. (Some contend that all of this money was properly accounted for as compensation for loss of office, pensions and so forth not outwith the usual run of government. It is perhaps a debate that will never be set to rest. However, modern research has shown that payments were made to supporters of union that appear not to have been overdue salaries. At least four payments were made to people who were not even members of the Scottish Parliament.) Robert Burns referred to this:

    We were bought and sold for English Gold,
    Sic a Parcel of Rogues in a Nation    .
    Some of the money was used to hire spies, such as Daniel Defoe; his first reports were of vivid descriptions of violent demonstrations against the Union. "A Scots rabble is the worst of its kind," he reported, "for every Scot in favour there is 99 against".
    The Treaty could be considered unpopular in Scotland: Sir George Lockhart of Carnwath, the only member of the Scottish negotiating team against union, noted that "The whole nation appears against the Union" and even Sir John Clerk of Penicuik, an ardent pro-unionist and Union negotiator, observed that the treaty was "contrary to the inclinations of at least three-fourths of the Kingdom".


  • Options
    #38
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    dlofnep wrote: »
    I suggest buying a history book. The Acts of Union did not have the support of the Scots.

    But if you want to go buy your wiki-article, then we can do that too.

    The Scots managed to bankrupt their country after a failed attempt at building a colony. Union and a bail out by the English was a way out for them.

    If it didn't have the support of the Scots, who the **** signed the act?

    The Scot were willing partners in the union and fully exploited it for all it was worth, whilst at the same time pointing the finger at the English.


  • Options
    #39
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    If it didn't have the support of the Scots, who the **** signed the act?

    So basically, you ignored a rebuttal that destroyed your entire argument and then expect me to answer the same question I have already answered? The Scottish people did not support the acts. This is widely accepted. It was passed by a political elite through bribery and greed.

    I'm not sure how clearer I can be on this.


  • Options
    #40
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    deise go deo wrote: »
    It is rather ridiculus to suggest that the Scots democratically choosing Independance from the UK would destabilise the region. It may accelerate political change and lead to the further brake up of the UK, But that is far from the same thing as destabelising the region. The vastly more likely result is the breakup of the UK into a number of smaller stable nation states.
    How could the break up of a regional great power like the United Kingdom be anything but destabilising?It won't happen though. It's questionable whether or not Scotland is economically viable nevermind Wales or Northern Ireland.


  • Options
    #41
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    dlofnep wrote: »
    So basically, you ignored a rebuttal that destroyed your entire argument and then expect me to answer the same question I have already answered? The Scottish people did not support the acts. This is widely accepted. It was passed by a political elite through bribery and greed.

    I'm not sure how clearer I can be on this.

    A lot of the negotiating team received nothing for voting in favour of the union.

    The allegation of it being the result of greed and corruption is as disingenuous as the other view that England bailed out Scotland.

    The union had been discussed, proposed, rejected and revised for the best part of the previous century and whilst unpopular in Scotland, it wasn't as unpopular as is often suggested. That doesn't negate the fact that the negotiating team were inept and got a bad deal.

    But to say as you originally did that it was against the wished of the Scots implies some sort of forced annexation by England which is not what happened.

    You have to take other factors in play at the time as well, such as the Scottish act of security, the English Alien act, the act of settlement and of course the Darien scheme.

    And of course all this was going on whilst the House of Stewart were on the throne.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,978 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/english-demand-say-on-future-of-scotland-1.1110272
    ALMOST half of English people oppose Scottish independence and want to have a say if Scots vote to control their own affairs, a new poll shows.

    :pac:

    Transalation = Fvck off Scotland (in the nicest possibly way).


  • Options
    #43
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    How would a referendum work? Would Scottish people living in England, or English people living in Scotland get a vote?


  • Options
    #44
    Cathal O
    Registered Users Posts: 219 ✭✭Cathal O


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    How would a referendum work? Would Scottish people living in England, or English people living in Scotland get a vote?

    I would imagine anyone with a scottish address would have a vote, being in the country for X amount of years, the same way as it is currently for parliament elections.


  • Options
    #45
    Cathal O
    Registered Users Posts: 219 ✭✭Cathal O


    Westminister at the minute is quite ridiculous in that while the welsh, N.I and Scottish have their own parliament to vote in their own domestic issues without external interference, the english themselves do not have a domestic parliament, just a "brittish" one. This means that people representing Scotland, N.I. and wales are able to vote on purely domestic english issues, which makes no sense.

    If independence was passed i am sure the voting would remain the same and that voting for westminister would simply stop, for use of a better word, and the current parliament would simply take on all powers of westminster regarding scotland.


  • Options
    #46
    Fr Tod Umptious
    Registered Users Posts: 15,061 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    Cathal O wrote: »
    Westminister at the minute is quite ridiculous in that while the welsh, N.I and Scottish have their own parliament to vote in their own domestic issues without external interference, the english themselves do not have a domestic parliament, just a "brittish" one. This means that people representing Scotland, N.I. and wales are able to vote on purely domestic english issues, which makes no sense.

    If independence was passed i am sure the voting would remain the same and that voting for westminister would simply stop, for use of a better word, and the current parliament would simply take on all powers of westminster regarding scotland.

    Yes, the famous West Lothian Question


  • Options
    #47
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    A lot of the negotiating team received nothing for voting in favour of the union.

    Some did, some didn't. It's irrelevant - as it did not have the support of the 'people', which I have already outlined previously.
    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    The allegation of it being the result of greed and corruption is as disingenuous as the other view that England bailed out Scotland.

    No, it isn't disingenuous. There is strong evidence to support the theory that bribery played a large role in cementing the acts of union.

    Here's what's quite apparent to me. You have jumped into this argument to be the 'opposing voice', without actually having a grasp on even the most basic historical issues of the Acts of Union. Acknowledging that, you lack the dignity to admit that you were wrong - and now continue to peddle the notion that the Acts of Union was supported by Scotland. It was not. The majority of the Scottish people opposed it. The political elite that did support it, some did so only because of bribery. This is a historical fact that every single historian would attest to.
    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    The union had been discussed, proposed, rejected and revised for the best part of the previous century and whilst unpopular in Scotland, it wasn't as unpopular as is often suggested.

    Based on what evidence? It's very easy for you to state that it wasn't unpopular. I have provided a number of quotes, from even the most ardent Unionists of the time who supported my view that the Scottish people overall were not in favour of the Union. Sir John Clerk for example who stated that the treaty was "contrary to the inclinations of at least three-fourths of the Kingdom".
    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    But to say as you originally did that it was against the wished of the Scots implies some sort of forced annexation by England which is not what happened.

    I say it was against the wishes of the Scots, because it was against the wishes of the Scots. It was the Scottish political elite, many of which whom were bribed passed the Acts.

    Show me evidence that the Scottish people as a majority supported the union. I have already pointed out a number of quotes from that specific time-frame, that demonstrate the complete opposite.


  • Options
    #48
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    It was the early part of the 18th century. Everything that was done was done purely for the benefit of the political elite. You seem to think that democracy as we know it today existed and that the wishes of a Highland farmer, or a Glaswegian mill worker would even be considered. Or for that matter, would their views make up any of the four fifths.

    You take an event that happened 400 years ago and relate it to modern day logic.

    Scotland needed to sort out internal problems, one of which was the fact the 25% of the money in circulation had been lost in the Darien scheme. Union with England was seen as their best option at the time, similar to the bank bailout today.


  • Options
    #49
    Cathal O
    Registered Users Posts: 219 ✭✭Cathal O


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    It was the early part of the 18th century. Everything that was done was done purely for the benefit of the political elite. You seem to think that democracy as we know it today existed and that the wishes of a Highland farmer, or a Glaswegian mill worker would even be considered. Or for that matter, would their views make up any of the four fifths.

    You take an event that happened 400 years ago and relate it to modern day logic.

    Scotland needed to sort out internal problems, one of which was the fact the 25% of the money in circulation had been lost in the Darien scheme. Union with England was seen as their best option at the time, similar to the bank bailout today.

    You have just went against your own point. While you originally stated that the scottish favoured the union , now you have backtracked and stated it was for the "political elite". This was exactly the counter point you have been arguing against. The political elite indeed voted for the union due to the ir own monetary interests. Thanks for backing up our earlier posts


  • Options
    #50
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    It was the early part of the 18th century. Everything that was done was done purely for the benefit of the political elite. You seem to think that democracy as we know it today existed and that the wishes of a Highland farmer, or a Glaswegian mill worker would even be considered. Or for that matter, would their views make up any of the four fifths.

    You take an event that happened 400 years ago and relate it to modern day logic.

    Scotland needed to sort out internal problems, one of which was the fact the 25% of the money in circulation had been lost in the Darien scheme. Union with England was seen as their best option at the time, similar to the bank bailout today.

    And yet despite being universally unpopular with the masses, it was still unpopular enough to require four attempts over 100 years to pass acceptance even with the political elite - it was hardly a case of Scotland jumping at the chance of a union thought up and signed up to over a single historic event...


  • Options
    #51
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Cathal O wrote: »
    You have just went against your own point. While you originally stated that the scottish favoured the union , now you have backtracked and stated it was for the "political elite". This was exactly the counter point you have been arguing against. The political elite indeed voted for the union due to the ir own monetary interests. Thanks for backing up our earlier posts

    The political elite were Scottish were they not?

    It wasn't just the political elite either, it was an assortment of merchants, traders, fish farmers and Bishops.

    One of the biggest anti union voices was the Scottish Presbytarian Church, but most of them changed their tune after certain conditions were included in the final draft.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    And yet despite being universally unpopular with the masses, it was still unpopular enough to require four attempts over 100 years to pass acceptance even with the political elite - it was hardly a case of Scotland jumping at the chance of a union thought up and signed up to over a single historic event...

    And I believe two of those attempts were instigated by the Scots and rejected by the English parliament.


  • Options
    #53
    Cathal O
    Registered Users Posts: 219 ✭✭Cathal O


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    The political elite were Scottish were they not?

    It wasn't just the political elite either, it was an assortment of merchants, traders, fish farmers and Bishops.

    One of the biggest anti union voices was the Scottish Presbytarian Church, but most of them changed their tune after certain conditions were included in the final draft.

    NO they were english loyalists that were transfered to scotland in order to become landlords of scottish estates , only landlords could vote so therfore the union was passed.

    What the original point was, that while the "Scottish Parliament" passed the act, the parliament did not represent the scottish as a whole, and no matter what you counter argue, you will have to accept that the act of union with scotland was not supported by the vast majority of scottish people


  • Options
    #54
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    It was the early part of the 18th century. Everything that was done was done purely for the benefit of the political elite. You seem to think that democracy as we know it today existed and that the wishes of a Highland farmer, or a Glaswegian mill worker would even be considered. Or for that matter, would their views make up any of the four fifths.

    So do you finally accept that the Acts of Union did not have the support of the Scottish people?


  • Options
    #55
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    dlofnep wrote: »
    So do you finally accept that the Acts of Union did not have the support of the Scottish people?

    You originally stated that the act was against the will of the Scots. That implies the Scots were forced into the union which they were not. There was a significant amount of support for the union as there had been over the previous century.

    Was it deeply unpopular? Yes it was and at one point a majority against it. I'm not sure what the Kirk agreeing to the union did though, that was the biggest opponent and they appeared to be won over.

    It was also unpopular south of the border as well and was nearly repealed a few years later.

    Ultimately though, both countries benefited from the union.


  • Options
    #56
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    You originally stated that the act was against the will of the Scots.

    It was against the will of the Scots. 3/4's of the population according to an ardent Unionist of the time. If that's not "against the will", then I don't know what is.
    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    That implies the Scots were forced into the union which they were not.

    If the majority of the population was not in favour of the union, and the acts were still passed - then yes, they were forced into a union without a mandate from the people.
    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    There was a significant amount of support for the union as there had been over the previous century.

    Hoggleswash. Define 'significant support'? 20%? The only number that counted was the 'majority' - And it did not have a majority support. Until you show me evidence to the contrary, I can only assume that you still have failed to gather the dignity to accept that you are wrong.
    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Was it deeply unpopular? Yes it was and at one point a majority against it.

    So in the same post - you stated that there was significant support for the union, then then accept that the majority opposed it. I've never seen so many contradictions in one single post.

    I don't know whether to find your revisionism amusing, or shocking. At best, it's mildly annoying.


  • Options
    #57
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    We are arguing over semantics to be honest.


  • Options
    #58
    Mr_Hat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 206 ✭✭Mr_Hat


    Personally I think Scottish Independance, its a REALLY REALLY bad thing for anyone living in the Highlands. As someone who has spent some time in the Highlands. I can testify that there infastructure is amazing. The roads are very well maintained and frequently repaired. Which is very importnat after the cold winters. Plenty of local schools, access to health care and hospitals etc, etc. While the cities of Edinbourogh and Glasgow might gain, the Highlands will definatly loose. Scotland just hasnt the cash to look after the area as well as was when in the UK.


  • Options
    #59
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    We are arguing over semantics to be honest.

    No, I don't think so. It was enacted without the consent or approval of the scottish people.
    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    You take an event that happened 400 years ago and relate it to modern day logic..

    That would have been you, arguing that the Scottish parliament was representative.


  • Options
    #60
    dsmythy
    Registered Users Posts: 10,509 ✭✭✭✭dsmythy


    You are arguing about a bunch of dead guys from 300 years ago. What do the Scottish of 2011 think? Not in favour at the moment. All you need to know.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Nodin wrote: »
    No, I don't think so. It was enacted without the consent or approval of the scottish people.

    That would have been you, arguing that the Scottish parliament was representative.

    So they should have had a referendum on it. I'll make sure the ECHR is informed.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement