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

You can't quit UK without my approval, David Cameron warns Scots

Options
24567…15

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    maggy_thatcher
    Registered Users Posts: 1,056 ✭✭✭maggy_thatcher


    Should Scotland secede from the UK, has anybody figured out what percentage of the British national debt that they'd have to take with them would be? As they were part of the group when the money was spent, it'd only be fair for them to take a reasonable percentage of the debt with them...


  • Options
    #33
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    maggy_thatcher wrote: »
    Should Scotland secede from the UK, has anybody figured out what percentage of the British national debt that they'd have to take with them would be? As they were part of the group when the money was spent, it'd only be fair for them to take a reasonable percentage of the debt with them...

    Considering that a big chunk of that was spent bailing out a Scottish bank, quite a lot I would say.


  • Options
    #34
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    What was Wallace fighting for if it wasn't the crown?

    It certainly wasn't for the British crown.
    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    If the SNP thought an independence referendum would succeed tomorrow, they would call it. The reason they are putting it off is because they know it would lose.

    The SNP have been making a case for Scottish independence since their conception, a year or two more isn't going to make any difference.

    Indeed they have - but only as of late have they been given a legitimate platform to express their views. It will take time to build their case, and isn't something that they should rush through.


  • Options
    #35
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Considering that a big chunk of that was spent bailing out a Scottish bank, quite a lot I would say.

    And along with it, Scotland can take all of it's oil reserves. :)


  • Options
    #36
    NinjaK
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 963 ✭✭✭NinjaK


    Lapin wrote: »
    If the Scots had any sense, they'd be fighting to remain in the union.

    Independence isn't worth a damn.

    Look at us.

    Independence isn't worth a damn? Thats one of the dumbest things ive ever read


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    dlofnep wrote: »
    It certainly wasn't for the British crown.

    Indeed they have - but only as of late have they been given a legitimate platform to express their views. It will take time to build their case, and isn't something that they should rush through.

    There was no such thing as a "British" Crown in the 13th century and at that time even the English King spoke French.

    Anyway, quoting Braveheart in a debate about Scottish independence is about as relevant as quoting Wallace and Grommit in a discussion about the Kennel Club.

    If being a Member of Parliament isn't a legitimate platform, then what is? What have the SNP been doing all these years?


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


    dlofnep wrote: »
    And along with it, Scotland can take all of it's oil reserves. :)

    What will be interesting is the Shetland question. If they get independence they could be, per capita, one of the wealthiest nations on the planet.


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


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    There was no such thing as a "British" Crown in the 13th century and at that time even the English King spoke French.

    Anyway, quoting Braveheart in a debate about Scottish independence is about as relevant as quoting Wallace and Grommit in a discussion about the Kennel Club.

    I didn't bring up the topic of Braveheart, but you were content to perpetuate it.
    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    If being a Member of Parliament isn't a legitimate platform, then what is? What have the SNP been doing all these years?

    I'm not referring to a political platform, I'm referring to a media platform. For years, the establishment scoffed at SNP proposals. But since the SNP won a majority Government - the media's hands are now tied to ensure they give the SNP a platform to express their view, and give them at least a modicum of respect.


  • Options
    #40
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    What will be interesting is the Shetland question. If they get independence they could be, per capita, one of the wealthiest nations on the planet.

    Shetland is a part of Scotland, and is administered as such.


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


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Shetland is a part of Scotland, and is administered as such.

    Scotland is part of the UK and is administered as such.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Scotland is part of the UK and is administered as such.

    We're quite aware of that, but the proposition is that Scotland receives independence - I don't see any reason why they would cede territory during this process, especially one as critical as Shetland.


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


    dlofnep wrote: »
    We're quite aware of that, but the proposition is that Scotland receives independence - I don't see any reason why they would cede territory during this process, especially one as critical as Shetland.

    Cede territory?

    Like the UK will be doing?


  • Options
    #44
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    blindjustice wrote: »
    dlofnep wrote: »
    No, but the actions of the crown are well documented in an array of historical books and it isn't a positive account.

    yes, history! How many hundred years ago ?

    Deago garcia.


  • Options
    #45
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    lugha wrote: »
    Could we for example veto say Kerry from ceding from the rest of Ireland were they to make a massive oil find? Most I think would say yes and invoke the somewhat vague notion of an ancient Scottish nation to distinguish between these two scenarios.

    There is nothing vague about a Scottish nation. Scotland is well defined. It's borders are set in stone. It's culture is unique to Scotland, and it has it's own devolved parliament.

    I don't see the same case being made for Kerry I'm afraid. An absurd scenario on your behalf - but if that what's it takes to try and garner support for a pro-union stance on Scottish independence, then it doesn't say much for your argument.


  • Options
    #46
    Batsy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,341 ✭✭✭Batsy


    I can't see why the English should be denied a referendum on independence. If the Scots can have a referendum on Scottish independence why can't the English have one on English independence? I'd laugh if all four of the Home Nations had such referenda and only the English voted for independence and England becomes the only one to secede from the Union.

    Also, what if the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish all have rereferenda on independence but the English aren't given one (for some bizarre reason the English are often forgotten about in such matters despite making up about 84% of the UK population) and the other three all vote for independence? It would mean that England would become an independent nation only because the other three seceded from the Union even though the English would never have had a say on whether or not they want to be an independent nation and may not have wished to be so.


  • Options
    #47
    Batsy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,341 ✭✭✭Batsy


    Lapin wrote: »
    If the Scots had any sense, they'd be fighting to remain in the union.

    Nah. Scotland could always join Alex Salmond's "Arc of Prosperity", containing countries such as Ireland and Iceland. He was once very keep on an independent Scotland joining it. I'm sure the Scottish people would jump at the chance.


  • Options
    #48
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    dlofnep wrote: »
    There is nothing vague about a Scottish nation. Scotland is well defined. It's borders are set in stone. It's culture is unique to Scotland, and it has it's own devolved parliament.

    I don't see the same case being made for Kerry I'm afraid. An absurd scenario on your behalf - but if that what's it takes to try and garner support for a pro-union stance on Scottish independence, then it doesn't say much for your argument.
    I couldn’t give a monkey’s what Scotland do, I am simply querying if there is a universal approach that can be taken to these kind of questions.

    As for borders set in stone (aren’t all borders artificial?) and devolved parliament, well that sounds like some place a few miles up the road. :) And I suspect that if there ever is a united Ireland, and if subsequently there were an unlikely surge in the unionist population, you would have little time for a separatist argument from them, though they may be able to cite exactly the arguments you do for Scotland.

    So my question remains; what are the conditions whereby a state can say, we are a sovereign state with recognized borders and any change in our state must only come about with the consent of the citizens?


  • Options
    #49
    Batsy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,341 ✭✭✭Batsy


    dlofnep wrote: »
    It's not really relevant what David Cameron thinks. His party has no mandate in Scotland.

    David Cameron is the Prime Minister of Scotland.


  • Options
    #50
    Batsy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,341 ✭✭✭Batsy


    PARKHEAD67 wrote: »
    Are the Irish the only nation who ever had the balls to stand up to the tyrants?

    Definitely not. The British stood up to tyrants between 1939 and 1945 whilst the Irish did nothing.


  • Options
    #51
    Batsy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,341 ✭✭✭Batsy


    dlofnep wrote: »
    And along with it, Scotland can take all of it's oil reserves. :)

    Which will run out soon.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    Batsy wrote: »
    I can't see why the English should be denied a referendum on independence. If the Scots can have a referendum on Scottish independence why can't the English have one on English independence? I'd laugh if all four of the Home Nations had such referenda and only the English voted for independence and England becomes the only one to secede from the Union.
    Has someone said the English can't or shouldn't have such a referendum if they so wish?
    I think anybody who would like to see the Scots or Welsh go their own way would also be in favour of the same for England.


  • Options
    #53
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    Has someone said the English can't or shouldn't have such a referendum if they so wish?
    I think anybody who would like to see the Scots or Welsh go their own way would also be in favour of the same for England.

    No one dare ask the English because they know what the answer would be.


  • Options
    #54
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    No one dare ask the English because they know what the answer would be.
    And that would be?


  • Options
    #55
    who the fug
    Registered Users Posts: 4,041 ✭✭✭who the fug


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    And that would be?

    Bugger off if you want to


  • Options
    #56
    Batsy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,341 ✭✭✭Batsy


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    What will be interesting is the Shetland question. If they get independence they could be, per capita, one of the wealthiest nations on the planet.

    The Shetland Islanders don't like the Scots. They see Scotland as "the land of bad grain and greedy ministers."

    The Shetland Islands were Norwegian and only became Scottish in the 14th century as security for a debt.

    Despite being ruled by Norway, imperialist Scottish kings had long wanted to take control of the islands. This was started by Alexander II and continued with Alexander III. Their nefarious imperialism angered Norway's King Haakon Haakonsson who assembled an invasion fleet to take back the islands, but failed to do so.

    In 1468 Shetland was pledged by Christian I, in his capacity as King of Norway, as security against the payment of the dowry of his daughter Margaret, betrothed to James III of Scotland. The money was never paid, the connection with the crown of Scotland has become perpetual. However, the Shetlands still have a strong connection with Norway.

    In fact, in 2008 an Englishman attempted to persuade Lerwick Sheriff Court that the Shetland Islands are not legally part of Scotland.

    Mr Hill wants to redefine Shetland's relationships with Scotland, the UK, and the European Union.

    He said his research had led him to the "inescapable conclusion" that at no point in Shetland's history did Scotland acquire ownership of the islands.

    And because of this, the islanders are not Celtic, either. They are of Norse descent. But this is something that the SNP fail to recognise, showing their ignorance of the islands. When the SNP Government once outlined its plans to bring back Scottish Gaelic to many parts of Scotland they included the Shetland Islands in their plan, even though gaelic has never been spoken on the islands. The native language of the islands is the Germanic language of Norn, which was spoken by the islanders until as recently as the 19th century.


  • Options
    #57
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    who the fug wrote: »
    Bugger off if you want to
    The question was regarding an English vote for independence for England.


  • Options
    #58
    who the fug
    Registered Users Posts: 4,041 ✭✭✭who the fug


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    The question was regarding an English vote for independence for England.

    Pretty fair odds of it being passed


  • Options
    #59
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    who the fug wrote: »
    Pretty fair odds of it being passed
    If that's the case then the UK is probably being held together against the wishes of the majority of its people, that's not very democratic.


  • Options
    #60
    Dr Galen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,373 ✭✭✭Dr Galen


    Back on Topic, without the sniping or there will be issues

    Cheers

    DrG


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    grizzly
    Registered Users Posts: 2,789 ✭✭✭grizzly


    I've heard that Camerons father-in-law is the third largest landowner in Scotland. If they got independence it's likely that such land would be nationalised (it's currently held by royal title). This may play some part of his personal interests in the question of its status.


Advertisement