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 Independance? Still on track?

Options
2

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    As for the partition idea. I do think the English have very much learned that lesson. They're not a stupid people.:)

    The Scots aren't going to give up their capital and the last thing England needs is another sectarian ****hole hanging round its neck :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


    Why on earth would England want to retian part of Glasgow or Edingurgh? Aberdeen I could understand, but neither of those has anything that would be of interest to England.

    A significant portion of one city is English and voted against independence (I believe).

    Having trouble find the story, but I couldn't see it happening anyway.

    Most of the world already has England on their hit list, the last thing they need is their next door neighbours adding them aswell.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 987 ✭✭✭diverdriver


    A significant portion of one city is English and voted against independence (I believe).
    Well it won't be Glasgow. If that logic was followed Dublin would still be British connected to NI by the M1. (Some would say that Dublin is still a bit British;)). It won't happen their fellow English would abandon them to their Scottish fate!:p

    Are you sure, you're not thinking of Wales? There is a significant English presence in South Wales and the borders. Any independance for Wales would be problematic on that score. But yet again, I say it, no partition this time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


    Some of the more important stories I guess




    Power clawback "unacceptable"

    http://www.snp.org/node/15025


    Regulation failures 'made in Downing Street'

    http://www.snp.org/node/15017


    Unions back fight against Labour cuts

    http://www.snp.org/node/15032


    New legislation brings inquiries to Scotland

    http://www.snp.org/node/15029


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


    Well it won't be Glasgow. If that logic was followed Dublin would still be British connected to NI by the M1. (Some would say that Dublin is still a bit British;)). It won't happen their fellow English would abandon them to their Scottish fate!:p

    Are you sure, you're not thinking of Wales? There is a significant English presence in South Wales and the borders. Any independance for Wales would be problematic on that score. But yet again, I say it, no partition this time.

    I've already agreed with you. It was suggested in 1 of the newspaper articles.

    I can't see it happening, the Scottish would bomb them to pieces with the new nuclear weapons they're supposed to be dumping in Scotland.:p


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


    I'm not aware of any English presence on Scotland TBH. Ok there may be a few "Grey" areas around Carlisle and Gretna and maybe Berwick, but other than that the border region is pretty sparsely populated. Certainly the likes of Glasgow, Edinburgh and Stirling would have no more English people than Dublin.

    Wales, sure when you get around Hereford or Chester the border is like the RoI/NI border, other than road signs it is hard to tell what country you are in. Also, if you ask the people of North Wales, they'll tell you everyone south of the Brecons are no better than the English anyway:D


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Dannyboy83 wrote: »
    The main thing really is that they would be operating within the EU, and trading with England, so they would be significantly wealthier than they are now.
    ...
    England would probably be a lot poorer in reality as it would be trading with Wales and Scotland (who would be a lot richer)...
    What exactly are you basing all that on? Both Wales and Scotland would be better off outside the union, but England would be worse off?
    Still waiting for a reply to this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,439 ✭✭✭Richard


    Kev_ps3 wrote: »
    No country should be ruled by another.

    Tell that to the British Prime Minister, the Scot Gordon Brown!

    And think about those poor Cork inhabitants ruled by the foreigners in Dublin!


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,439 ✭✭✭Richard


    I'm not aware of any English presence on Scotland TBH. Ok there may be a few "Grey" areas around Carlisle and Gretna and maybe Berwick,

    Carlisle and Berwick have lots of English people... given that they're in England!

    I think Edinburgh does have a significant percentage of English people, though I don't have the figures.

    As for this whole topic, I think it's strange that there seems to be an expectation that the UK will break up even though the majority of NI, Scotland, Wales and probably England too, want it to continue.


  • Registered Users Posts: 32 Alan1988


    Hey, I love Scotland and its people, you deserve your Independance. Alan, Ireland.


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


    Richard wrote: »
    Carlisle and Berwick have lots of English people... given that they're in England!

    I think Edinburgh does have a significant percentage of English people, though I don't have the figures.

    As for this whole topic, I think it's strange that there seems to be an expectation that the UK will break up even though the majority of NI, Scotland, Wales and probably England too, want it to continue.
    I know where Carlisle is, passed through it plenty of times. Just trying to point out there areas where people may move to a new estate just over the border, there isn't to my knowledge a huge English enclave north of the border, unlike Corby for example that has its own Rangers and Celtic supporters clubs and second generation scots speaking with Glasgow accents. I don't think Britain wll split up, mainly because I don't see what it would achieve. Ok a fisherman from the west coast of scotland has different wants and aspirations to someone from London, just like a farmer from Kerry has different needs to a banker from Dublin.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,394 ✭✭✭Riddle101


    This is off topic but what is Scotland's Exact population?


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Riddle101 wrote: »
    This is off topic but what is Scotland's Exact population?
    Scottish.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,272 ✭✭✭Deedsie


    Riddle101 wrote: »
    This is off topic but what is Scotland's Exact population?

    2007 estimate - 5,144,200


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,439 ✭✭✭Richard


    Alan1988 wrote: »
    Hey, I love Scotland and its people, you deserve your Independance. Alan, Ireland.

    What if they don't want it?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,478 ✭✭✭magick


    Richard wrote: »
    What if they don't want it?

    then things stay the same


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,207 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    If Scotland votes for independence, what system will it adopt? Republicanism?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭jimmmy


    It reminds me of the old song " Freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose "

    When it comes down to it, Scotland will never vote for total independence. They would be calling in the IMF ( it it will still exist ) in no time. United they stand.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 88,978 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    Why on earth would England want to retian part of Glasgow or Edingurgh? Aberdeen I could understand, but neither of those has anything that would be of interest to England.

    Edinburgh would be retained for the Arts festival of course ;)

    Seriously though who comes up with such Bullsh1t?

    As for Scottish independence, I would suggest now would be the perfect time, for England.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,207 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    I would be very very surprised if Scotland voted for independence...history has shown repeatedly that they have no real appetite for it and somebody somewhere will 'sell out' and hijack the whole thing anyway..


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    I know where Carlisle is, passed through it plenty of times. Just trying to point out there areas where people may move to a new estate just over the border, there isn't to my knowledge a huge English enclave north of the border, unlike Corby for example that has its own Rangers and Celtic supporters clubs and second generation scots speaking with Glasgow accents. I don't think Britain wll split up, mainly because I don't see what it would achieve. Ok a fisherman from the west coast of scotland has different wants and aspirations to someone from London, just like a farmer from Kerry has different needs to a banker from Dublin.

    Just back from Corby myself, its were my girlfriend comes from, it does indeed have its own rangers club (the biggest in England),was in there on sunday even the corby accent has a sort of scottish twang to it and this is in the midlands


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    I would be very very surprised if Scotland voted for independence...history has shown repeatedly that they have no real appetite for it and somebody somewhere will 'sell out' and hijack the whole thing anyway..

    But the SNP is their largest party........They had plenty of appetite for it throughout their history. They successfully resisted English occupation until 300 years ago which is recent relative to Irelands experiences.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    T runner wrote: »
    But the SNP is their largest party...
    The majority of Scottish voters did not vote for the SNP in the last general election.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,191 ✭✭✭Unpossible


    It looks like the referendum bill will not get out of hollyrood
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7616706.stm
    BBC news wrote:
    HOLYROOD VOTE ON THURSDAY 5 MARCH, 2009

    MSPs voted by 72 to 47, with one abstention, to call on the Scottish Government to abandon plans for a Referendum Bill on independence.

    The amendment was added to a Labour motion noting "broken" SNP election promises, which was passed in a 72 to 47 vote with one abstention.

    MSPs then voted by 62 to 16, with 41 abstentions, to back a response by the Local Government and Communities Committee on the proposed national planning framework.

    The motion was amended by Labour calls to include a high-speed rail link in a list of planning priorities.

    MSPs voted 64 to 14, with 42 abstentions, in favour of Tory calls to remove references to technology in the framework.

    They voted 65 to 54, with one abstention, to note that the framework does not support construction of new nuclear power stations in Scotland.

    Parliament unanimously backed a legislative consent motion on the UK Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    junder wrote: »
    Just back from Corby myself, its were my girlfriend comes from, it does indeed have its own rangers club (the biggest in England),was in there on sunday even the corby accent has a sort of scottish twang to it and this is in the midlands

    They moved a steel factory from Glasgow to corby in the 60s or 70s and moved all the workers with it. to accomodate them, they built new estates, schools etc, so effectively they picked up a chunk of the Gorbals and moved it to Northants.
    T runner wrote: »
    But the SNP is their largest party........They had plenty of appetite for it throughout their history. They successfully resisted English occupation until 300 years ago which is recent relative to Irelands experiences.

    In holyrood it is the largest party, not sure about Westminster though.

    Engalnd never occupied Scotland, in fact it was a Scottish king who inherited the englsih throne in the early 17th century, so you could argue Scotland has actually occupied England.

    Still, I'm sure Hollywood's version of history is more enjoyable:D


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


    djpbarry wrote: »
    The majority of Scottish voters did not vote for the SNP in the last general election.

    Sorry I don't have time to discuss this right now, but have a read off these links:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/may/04/localgovernment.scottishparliament
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/6622379.stm
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/6637387.stm
    http://www.alba.org.uk/polls/070930.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament_election,_2007

    SNP cleaned up despite suspicious voting problems in strong SNP areas with Salmond calling for an independent enquiry.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


    They moved a steel factory from Glasgow to corby in the 60s or 70s and moved all the workers with it. to accomodate them, they built new estates, schools etc, so effectively they picked up a chunk of the Gorbals and moved it to Northants.



    In holyrood it is the largest party, not sure about Westminster though.

    Engalnd never occupied Scotland, in fact it was a Scottish king who inherited the englsih throne in the early 17th century, so you could argue Scotland has actually occupied England.

    Still, I'm sure Hollywood's version of history is more enjoyable:D


    James 1 attempt was aborted.
    AOU was 1707

    Read the links mate:
    http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/scotland_and_devolution.htm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707#Previous_attempts_at_union
    http://www.goscotland.info/sections/?Section_Id=4&Page_Id=31

    Sorry gotta run

    The ultimate securing of the treaty in the unicameral Scottish Parliament is sometimes attributed to the weakness and lack of cohesion between the various opposition groups in the House, rather than to the strength of pro-incorporationists[citation needed]. The combined votes of the Court party with a majority of the Squadrone Volante were sufficient to ensure the final passage of the treaty through the House.

    Personal financial interests were also involved. Many Commissioners had invested heavily in the Darien Scheme and they believed that they would receive compensation for their losses; Article 15, the Equivalent granted £398,085 10s sterling to Scotland to offset future liability towards the English national debt. In essence, it was also used as a means of compensation for investors in the Darien Scheme.

    Even more direct bribery was said to be a factor.[citation needed] £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. (Other studies suggest 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.) 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". Years later John Clerk of Penicuik, originally a leading Unionist, wrote in his memoirs that,

    (Defoe) was a spy among us, but not known as such, otherwise the Mob of Edinburgh would pull him to pieces.

    Defoe recalls that he was hired by Robert Harley.

    The Treaty was widely 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'. Public opinion against the Treaty as it passed through the Scottish Parliament was voiced through petitions from shires, burghs, presbyteries and parishes. The Convention of Royal Burghs also petitioned against the Union and not one petition in favour of an incorporating union was received by Parliament. On the day the treaty was signed, the carilloner in St Giles Cathedral, Edinburgh, rang the bells in the tune Why should I be so sad on my wedding day?[11]There were also massive protests in Edinburgh and several other Scottish burghs on the day it was passed by Parliament[citation needed], as threats of widespread civil unrest resulted in Parliament imposing martial law.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Dannyboy83 wrote: »
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament_election,_2007

    SNP cleaned up despite suspicious voting problems in strong SNP areas with Salmond calling for an independent enquiry.
    They "cleaned up" with about one third of the vote (only a fraction more than Labour), meaning that the majority of Scots voted for someone other than the SNP, yes?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    They have 47 seats as opposed to Labour's 46. I think Cleaning up may be a bit of an overstatement.


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


    Dannyboy83 wrote: »

    call that an occupation?

    It came about the same way as most things did 300 years, the wealthy decided what was the most profitable for them and **** everybody else.

    There was no invasion, occupying troops, enforced legal system, snatching of lands etc.


Advertisement