Scottish Referendum on Independence.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon May 23, 2011 4:59 am

When I consider this referendum, my first reaction is to think that with mealymouth Salmond in charge we'll have a hostile state north of our border, blaming us for everything, within five years.

Then I think that's not far off what we've got anyway.

So let's look at this as a chance to consider the ideal relationship between England and Scotland. Is Scotland looking at becoming a republic, or retaining links to the Crown? Are the Scottish regiments to be handed over to the Scottish Government to run or disband? What proportion of the UK national debt should an independent Scotland take on? Who owns what offshore assets?

Some Scots down here have assured me that the Scots won't vote for independence because turkeys don't vote for Christmas, but that they ought to because it would do Scotland good to stand on its own two feet.

Do you want full independence for Scotland, some sort of devolved status that falls short of independence, or some other arrangement?

Post by **spot** » Mon May 23, 2011 5:11 am

Clodhopper;1360087 wrote: So let's look at this as a chance to consider the ideal relationship between England and Scotland. Is Scotland looking at becoming a republic, or retaining links to the Crown?

What an odd question. I'd always assumed the wishes of the Royal Family would be consulted and I'm damn sure they'd rather move permanently north of the border and rule their monarchies from their old base in Scotland. If England chooses to remain one then fine though I doubt you'd find much fervour here.

It was, you'll remember, the Scots monarchy which took over the English and not the other way round. From 1603 to the Civil War, London was awash with incomprehensible Scots accents. Two decades in France sorted that out and I suppose we all forgot what had happened. Liz and her tribe can scarcely up roots for Holland or Hanover but they can certainly reinstate themselves in Edinburgh.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon May 23, 2011 5:41 am

chuckle. As I'm sure you know, the British Monarch reigns, she does not rule. From Windsor, Edinburgh or anywhere else. (Though wasn't there a Cargo Cult that worshipped Prince Philip somewhere?)

I don't want the Big Brother winner, the England Football captain or a political stooge as Head of State. About the only (vaguely realistic) thing that would make me want to ditch the monarchy would be if they went Catholic. I'm just curious about what the Scots actually want, because one thing seems to be increasingly clear: The current situation is unsustainable.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon May 23, 2011 9:02 am

The anti-english sentiment is hyped up by the newspapers as is the myth that england subsideses the scots. In actual fact our contribution to the exchequer is higher than we get back. Even the most rabid now accept that that is true. Most scots with any intelligence know full well the biggest culprits are our own so called leaders. Why do you think william wallace remained such a heroic figure despite attempts to write him out of the picture.

The oil is a natural resource and as such belongs to scotland, just as any revenue from oil fields in english waters belongs to england. the revenue from it has been squandered by successive westmenster governments on tax cuts, unemployment benefit as thatcher destroyed our industrial base and insane military adventures. The other issue is the revenue from the crown estates which should also be kept in scotland. It's up to us if we keep the monarchy or not she is not party to the discussion and will have to accept the decision of the people. She's a good tourist attraction so odds are we will keep the monarchy. If she objects confiscating all her etates would only be nature taking it's course - after all why should we let the descendants of medeival warlords keep what they took?

Thatcher and the tories are the SNP's two greatest assets. Plus we're pissed off with labour as well. Arguably no tory government has any mandate to rule in government and if scotland become independent there will be a permanent tory government running england - good luck with that one.

I don't know how the referendum will go - it rather depends on david cameron and how annoying he is but if it is a yes vote all that is left is to settle the details. As to the share of the national debt - that is just someone trying to stir up anti-scottish feeling, it rather implies we are the main cause of it does it not? We're a tenth of the popuklation of engand you can keep the other 90%. We're not the idiots that keep finding new wars to fight with the RAF squadrons that were about to be disbanded. As cameron goes on to privatise the NHS and cause even more debt and hardship I can see the sentioment for independence growing.

Basically the Westminster government are shitting themselves because they are beginning to realise how much they need the scots - or rather the wealth we have. They would probably be quite happy for us to be independent it's just we have most of the oil. The nuclear bases at Faslane will have to go and no doubt cameron will throw the dummy out the pram and shut all the air bases as well. Tony Blair already disbanded the scottish regiments. My (english) retired ex-military neighbour suggested atnthe time it was being done to destroy the distinctive character of the scottish regiments so they wouldn't be taken over by an indpendent scotland, must admit I find that a bit far fetched but it's just another one of the reasons labour lost support in scotland -they are perceived as caring more for the party and getting in in westminster than caring for scotland.

I don't trust salmond but he's the best of a really lousy choice

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon May 23, 2011 10:56 am

Independence as a Constitutional Monarchy it is then. Sounds like you are going to be rich and safe now you don't have to subsidise us and have all this oil. Everyone's a winner, babe, and that's the truth. (in the words of some song or other)

As to the share of the national debt - that is just someone trying to stir up anti-scottish feeling, it rather implies we are the main cause of it does it not?

Why? It's an issue that has to be addressed. If you withdraw from the UK you take your share of the liabilities as well as this oil you seem to imply will make you rich. By percentage of population sounds fair to me.

Scottish independence could mean perpetual Tory government in England, but I don't think so. Tactical voting is a real phenomenon and after a few terms in power they will get the heave ho. Worth remembering we vote as much against governments as for them.

No, I just worry that Scots in general think that independence will somehow separate the countries. You should have left 50 years ago if you wanted much joy out of the oil. These days it looks like nuclear is the short term solution and renewables the longer term one. And if you said raising the issue of Scotland's share of the National debt was an attempt to cause ill feeling, I would suggest that gloating at the prospect of the English suffering under the tories is no different.

The process of independence will cause much bad blood, I fear, with both sides feeling they've been stiffed and a total lack of trust.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon May 23, 2011 1:24 pm

I think the main problem I have is that the prospect of having a fully independent Scotland north of the border actually scares me. The prospect of another actual State in this island, breaching the very security of being an island, is disturbing. Given that anyone who seriously wants to do us all in will simply nuke the whole island to radioactive glass as the Russians planned to if it ever came to it I probably shouldn't worry, but even so...

It probably shouldn't, I know. We are modern people not, I hope, shackled by the past but able to learn from it. Perhaps a Union of the Crowns will be enough. But I fear Scottish regionalism. I worry that the real bigots (or bogits) will have proportionately more power in a smaller country. I know you say Scotland is a net contributor to the Exchequer; I hope you are right. It certainly isn't common knowledge down here where it is widely believed we pay you a subsidy every year. And if you are wrong and Scotland struggles economically it's going to be just awful.

Do you really think there's enough oil there to see you right? I thought Aberdeen was already starting to run down.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue May 24, 2011 12:14 am

Clodhopper;1360110 wrote: Independence as a Constitutional Monarchy it is then. Sounds like you are going to be rich and safe now you don't have to subsidise us and have all this oil. Everyone's a winner, babe, and that's the truth. (in the words of some song or other)

Why? It's an issue that has to be addressed. If you withdraw from the UK you take your share of the liabilities as well as this oil you seem to imply will make you rich. By percentage of population sounds fair to me.

Scottish independence could mean perpetual Tory government in England, but I don't think so. Tactical voting is a real phenomenon and after a few terms in power they will get the heave ho. Worth remembering we vote as much against governments as for them.

No, I just worry that Scots in general think that independence will somehow separate the countries. You should have left 50 years ago if you wanted much joy out of the oil. These days it looks like nuclear is the short term solution and renewables the longer term one. And if you said raising the issue of Scotland's share of the National debt was an attempt to cause ill feeling, I would suggest that gloating at the prospect of the English suffering under the tories is no different.

The process of independence will cause much bad blood, I fear, with both sides feeling they've been stiffed and a total lack of trust.

Fifty years ago there was no real sentiment in favour of independence but a lot has changed over the last thirty years ago. It really started with maggie thatcher and amongst other things her foisting the poll tax on scotland - you may remember what happened in england over the matter. The tories ceased to exist as a political party in scotland. Blair and Brown were just thatcher light, generally speaking scots are a lot more left leaning than it seems they are in england. When you protest you vote for the BNP and UKIP. we vote further left, neither ukip or bnp get anywhere in scotland. If the scottish socialist party hadn't destroyed itself infighting you might have seen them making inroads in to labour instead. As it is SNP is a viable alternative to either of the main parties. If cameron tries to prevent a referendum or we get all the nonsense about how we can't do it ourselves or anything about how the oil revenues belong to the nation as a whole then you will see massive support for it. From our opersopective and it should be from yours, the opportunity the revenues represented to invest in the economy was wasted on tax cuts we didn't need and thatcher's battle with the unions and selling off state industries for the beneefit of a few and for purely idealogical reasons. There are some things too important to be in private hands, both germany and france subsidise railways heavily, whose trains are better? we now pay more in subsidy than before privatisation but to prop up private companies. How do you fell about french companies making massive profits selling us North sea gas? We now import coal - can you believe that? Her insane idea that you don't need industry bit can have a purely service economy has a lot to answer for our present situation. Not everybody can work in the city of london if you live in tyhe north of england and don't have a job think about why not.

It probably shouldn't, I know. We are modern people not, I hope, shackled by the past but able to learn from it. Perhaps a Union of the Crowns will be enough. But I fear Scottish regionalism. I worry that the real bigots (or bogits) will have proportionately more power in a smaller country. I know you say Scotland is a net contributor to the Exchequer; I hope you are right. It certainly isn't common knowledge down here where it is widely believed we pay you a subsidy every year. And if you are wrong and Scotland struggles economically it's going to be just awful.

An odd way of looking at things, it's mainly english based parties that want to pull out of europe and exenophobic that carries all the stories that twist the facts to imply being in europe is a bad idea. We're a trading nation and our main trade is with europe. Most scots understand that you need european trade.

Check the facts fo yourself, we are net contributors, even Ken livingstone conceded that point. Most of the wealth in england gets sucked in to london and the south east arguably to the detrement of the country.

I'm sorry the AV referendum was a no vote, the yo yo politics are going to carry on and you will h=be stuck with successive tory governments. On tye othet hand it has been farcical that labour could only get policies throegh in angland with the votes of scottish MP's voting on things that have no effect in scotland.

I don't trust salmond but labour are a bunch of useless tossers and i detest the tories. I used to vot libdem. No more for the first time I voted snp. Nick Clegg may have had a notion of doing the decent thing But I didn't vote to have Tory policies put in place. It's like watching one public schoolboy abusing his fag.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 4:28 am

We can certainly agree that Thatcher was a disaster, selling off anything she could for tax bribes (and a disaster, I might add, I never voted for) and there I certainly share your perspective. She has probably blown apart the UK - the referendum is just the current part of the explosion. I expect the Scots to vote for independence largely because I think that's the worst thing that could happen to either of our countries. And I'm a pessimist when it comes to mutual benefit winning out over malice and bigotry. On both sides.

I voted yes for the AV vote. Didn't happen of course. I agree that watching Nick Clegg being abused is painful at present. As a Lib Dem, doubly so. It's cold comfort knowing that Lib Dem participatuion neutralises the right of the Tory party on Europe, but you rarely get credit for something that isn't happening. So at the moment it feels that we get the blame for everything this government does and nobody notices the Tories, except Cameron on a photo opportunity. I should add that I am generally in favour of the cuts because we can't afford to pay for the services. Doesn't mean I like it.

If you are net contributers - fine. You'll be rich and free and everything will be wonderful. Enjoy. I'm not even going to try and check the facts. I wouldn't understand them in sufficient detail and suspect we'd just end up arguing about what should and should not be included - the National Debt being a case in point.

The first party in this country that puts before the electorate a genuine vision about where we are going that takes account of environmental issues, sees power, water, food as strategic priorities for the next century, and prepares us adequately for the high tech economy will get sabotaged by the Murdoch Press. This will begin a process whereby eventually peaceful and prosperous Scotland will find that society in England has collapsed, the BNP is in power and you will find starving millions of English refugees in the Borders. Heaven awaits. Vote for it.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:59 pm

The more we get told we can't manage on our own and the motre cameron hintd he migght not recognise the results of a referendum the more certain a yes vote will be. At the time of the fererendum on devolution one of the scittish papers had a front page with the headline - If you've forgotten why you should vote yes Here she is - and underneath a picture of Maggie Thatcher.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue Jun 28, 2011 4:07 pm

Do you know - I care. As far as I can tell, no one else does. No paper is reporting it as an issue.

Sometimes I can't help feeling everyone is so effin stupid we deserve what I fear we are going to get.

Hey ho. I deliberately leave it some time before I respond to you on this. I don't want my first horrified responses to infect my replies too much.

I'm very perturbed at your idea that Scotland does not take her share of the National Debt if she secedes. You were horrified (it seemed to me) at the idea she should.

Have I understood you correctly? Do you feel that Scotland, if seceding from the UK, should not take on her share of the UK's National Debt?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:12 am

I can spell, I can type,but lookng at what I've posted I clearly have difficulty doing both together late at night.

The national debt issue is one that is being brought up even before it has been decided that we will go for independence purely as a means to stir up sentiment against the notion. I'm not horrified at the idea perse it's just that those coming up with such things do so because they can't actually think of any better arguments and are just stirring up sentiment. The westminster establishment is shitting themselves because they know the claims about scotland's oil are actually true and they can't afford to refuse the revenue. At this point it is hardly a major issue is it.

Most scots aren't anti-english - except at football matches - the tabloids that like to give the impression they are, funnily enough are owned by a certain tabloid newspaper proprietor who is not british.

The notion that you wll have a perpetual tory government in england is based on current voting patterns, they have a majority of the votes and often the seats in england, without the 65 scots MP's labour will have difficulty forming a government. I'm not gloating - it might even be a good thing as it will so **** off the electorate they might consider who they vote for more carefully. It would be a good thing for england as well IMO. Politicians have got used to the notion they are in a career and worry more about the political establishment than they di those who vote for them. A bit of fear would be a good thing.

Can Scotland pay its own way? | Politics | The Guardian

"Some of what the Nationalists say about ill-treatment by the London government is bollocks, but it makes sense to people who've seen what's happened to industry and jobs in Scotland," he told me. The intriguing thing is, it might well apply further south too, from Newcastle down to the Midlands.

Remember eddie george the former bank of england giverner who allegedly said

that unemployment in the North East was an acceptable price to pay for curbing inflation in the South.

We are all victims of a form of capitalism and monetarist economics that has been incredibly destructive throughout the world. Maybe now people are staring to get angry about it all.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sun Jul 03, 2011 6:12 pm

We are all victims of a form of capitalism and monetarist economics that has been incredibly destructive throughout the world. Maybe now people are staring to get angry about it all.

Ah well. We have what we have. I don't see that balkanising these islands helps, but there you go. I DO see independent Scotland and England getting into a Corporation Tax War and the ordinary person suffering thereby. If independent Scotland ends up getting lots of reservoirs as a result of UK policy and smiles knowingly south it'll get nasty fast. Just looking ahead.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Jul 10, 2011 6:55 am

Clodhopper;1362292 wrote: Ah well. We have what we have. I don't see that balkanising these islands helps, but there you go. I DO see independent Scotland and England getting into a Corporation Tax War and the ordinary person suffering thereby. If independent Scotland ends up getting lots of reservoirs as a result of UK policy and smiles knowingly south it'll get nasty fast. Just looking ahead.

Balkanising? The union was between two independent countries not the result of conquest by an outside empire. Have you been reading papers from the news international group again? Logical argiments against it are what sway the scottish population if all those agin it have are pejorative labels to bandy about then it's not much of an argument. If england is so worried about the scots becomng independent again what is the real objection? What will we take that they don't think we should have? Perhaps that's because the reality is that far from sudsidising us as some pundits suggest england would struggle to succeed on it's own. Without the cushion of oil revenues the UK would be completely bankrupt. I think it would be good for england as it might make them think over where they want their country to be in the future. Unleke your good self i have every confidence england will survive without the scots. Let's face it Gordon Brown was a disaster.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:48 am

Chuckle. And what we have got now? A Cameron!

To some extent, size matters. The 8 million or so of you North of the border make the UK more resilient economically and politically than Scotland or E/W/NI would be on their own.

Resources. Climate and geography mean you have more empty spaces and a wetter climate; we have the main links to the continent and a major world financial hub. Neither of us would benefit by having these in different and probably resentful states.

If you really believe that independent Scotland will be a richer and better place than Scotland within a Union where she is so integral that no-one in England seriously complains about the Scottishness of our recent Prime Ministers then nothing I say will make you think the Union worth it.

I think the break up of the union is a dreadful idea. I think both our countries will suffer as a result. But if you want to go, go.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:47 pm

Clodhopper;1362559 wrote: Chuckle. And what we have got now? A Cameron!

To some extent, size matters. The 8 million or so of you North of the border make the UK more resilient economically and politically than Scotland or E/W/NI would be on their own.

Resources. Climate and geography mean you have more empty spaces and a wetter climate; we have the main links to the continent and a major world financial hub. Neither of us would benefit by having these in different and probably resentful states.

If you really believe that independent Scotland will be a richer and better place than Scotland within a Union where she is so integral that no-one in England seriously complains about the Scottishness of our recent Prime Ministers then nothing I say will make you think the Union worth it.

I think the break up of the union is a dreadful idea. I think both our countries will suffer as a result. But if you want to go, go.

I haven't made up my mind as to how I will vote. If I thought we would be run by the labour mafia I would probably vote against it. (labour up here are a bunch of corrupt self interested tossers, at least they have now had a hell of a fright and perhaps realise that no we won't just vote for them regardless). Seeing the coalition set about privatising the NHS and turn the clock back to victorian times when only the rich could afford further education has an awful lot to do with the current levels of support for independence. I'm just waiting for someone to suggest the workhouse as a good idea cure for indigent. The more cameron tells us we can't run ourselves the more likely a yes vote in the referendum will be. Really our politicians have served us badly for the last four decades.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:40 pm

I think one of the reasons it's hard to come up with positive reasons for Scotland to stay in the Union is that the Union IS the best solution to the issue of having so many different peoples (nb: peoples, not people) in these Islands. English, Welsh, Scots, Irish, Northern Irish, Manxmen, Channel Islanders, even before we get to the issue of whether Devonians and Yorkshiremen are the same "race", or Glaswegians and Aberdonians (the Cornish are definitely different).

It's much the same argument I make in favout of the EEC: It may not be brilliant in every respect; but its main purpose is the avoidance of war in general, and between Germany and France in particular. At that, it has been spectacularly successful, giving us the longest period of peace in Western Europe since History began. Similarly with the Union.

After independence, how long will it take for Scotland to demand that Berwick-upon-Tweed should be a Scottish town, for example?

And it might be oil in Scottish waters, but it was developed using UK money, so what proportion of Scottish oil should go to the English, Welsh and Norn Irish after Scottish independence?

I don't want to be stroppy about this, but can't you see areas of conflict between England and Scotland that exist when we are separate States, but don't when we aren't?

Where has Cameron been saying the Scots can't run themselves? Not seen this. Are you sure a certain foreign person's Press hasn't been influencing you? I've been convinced for years that the break-up of the Union is on his wish list.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 2:37 am

Clodhopper;1362825 wrote: I think one of the reasons it's hard to come up with positive reasons for Scotland to stay in the Union is that the Union IS the best solution to the issue of having so many different peoples (nb: peoples, not people) in these Islands. English, Welsh, Scots, Irish, Northern Irish, Manxmen, Channel Islanders, even before we get to the issue of whether Devonians and Yorkshiremen are the same "race", or Glaswegians and Aberdonians (the Cornish are definitely different).

It's much the same argument I make in favout of the EEC: It may not be brilliant in every respect; but its main purpose is the avoidance of war in general, and between Germany and France in particular. At that, it has been spectacularly successful, giving us the longest period of peace in Western Europe since History began. Similarly with the Union.

After independence, how long will it take for Scotland to demand that Berwick-upon-Tweed should be a Scottish town, for example?

And it might be oil in Scottish waters, but it was developed using UK money, so what proportion of Scottish oil should go to the English, Welsh and Norn Irish after Scottish independence?

I don't want to be stroppy about this, but can't you see areas of conflict between England and Scotland that exist when we are separate States, but don't when we aren't?

Where has Cameron been saying the Scots can't run themselves? Not seen this. Are you sure a certain foreign person's Press hasn't been influencing you? I've been convinced for years that the break-up of the Union is on his wish list.

Developed with UK money? where did you get that one from? The development of wales and scotland's economy owes very little to uk money from westminster. Both benefited tremendously from the EEC regional development fund. The inward investment maggie claimed the credit for owed very little to her economic policies.

Why would there be those kind of conflicts with independence? I don't follow your reasoning at all. We won't be petty why would the english be? Even before the act of union in 1707 scots and english had stopped trying to kill each other

David Cameron: Scotland will never get independence and Alex Salmond is 'living in perpetual episode of Braveheart' - The Daily Record

TORY leader David Cameron today accused First Minister Alex Salmond of living in "a perpetual episode of Braveheart" and claimed the SNP was "taking people for fools".

Mr Cameron, due to address his party's Scottish conference this week, hit out at the SNP leader in a series of newspaper interviews.

He also stressed his commitment to the union and said Mr Salmond's "dreams of an independent Scotland will remain dreams".

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 994720.ece

He repeated his assertion from last year that “the ugly stain of separatism” was seeping through the Union flag and said that the Union was under attack as never before.

He said: “It's up to serious politicians to put their cards on the table. I don't want to be Prime Minister of England. I want to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom — all of it, including Scotland. I will do everything and anything to keep our two countries as one.”

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 5:05 am

So where is Cameron saying the Scots are incapable of running themselves?

I agree with him on Salmond - you have known my opinion of him for years. The Daily Record? Wiped my arse on it for years... our student flat took a copy and chopped it up for recycling after reading. Quite enjoyed the reading, as I recall, but colour printing was new and smudgy....:wah:

But the Daily Record is anti-Tory (fair enough) and will spin Cameron's words to suit: Taken as quoted, the Cameron comment is made to sound like a threat! If you decide you want to go what are we going to do? Invade? That's what the comment sounds like. And we all know how how anyone would react to that: Up yours sunshine, we're sodding off. Good separatist work from the Daily Record.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 10:05 am

Clodhopper;1362839 wrote: So where is Cameron saying the Scots are incapable of running themselves?

I agree with him on Salmond - you have known my opinion of him for years. The Daily Record? Wiped my arse on it for years... our student flat took a copy and chopped it up for recycling after reading. Quite enjoyed the reading, as I recall, but colour printing was new and smudgy....:wah:

But the Daily Record is anti-Tory (fair enough) and will spin Cameron's words to suit: Taken as quoted, the Cameron comment is made to sound like a threat! If you decide you want to go what are we going to do? Invade? That's what the comment sounds like. And we all know how how anyone would react to that: Up yours sunshine, we're sodding off. Good separatist work from the Daily Record.

Anti-Tory? perhaps but it is most definitely anti SNP

RECORD VIEW: It's not too late - YOUR vote can stop another five years of SNP broken promises and failure - The Daily Record

What David Cameron seems to be saying is is that the United Kingdom cannot survive without Scotland's oil. Do you really think there would be such opposition to the idea of independence if it was not for that? What annoys most scots is the dividend from north sea oil being squandered on tax cuts and pointless wars while at the same time our economy was left to wrack and ruin instead of being invested in. Thatcher destroyed whole communities and puit nothing in their place, if the north east of emgland or Nottinghamshire had the same sense of identuity as the scots and welsh they would be going for independence from the south east of england and the Westminster mafia that run the place. All that is left is the politics of despair.

It was a united kingdom before the union of parliaments and there is no reason why it could not function with the scots having control of their own affairs rather than having to suffer governance from a Westminster government disinterested in anything that happens up north and that only takes notice when the natives create trouble. He has changed his tune somewhat since the last Scottish election. Maybe it has dawned on him just how alienated from the tories most scots are and how serious the matter is becoming.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 10:16 am

As you know, in my mind you are already gone. I think it will be bad for both of us, and from the experience of my life watching events in this country (I can still just about say that) that means it is virtually certain to happen.:-1

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 10:35 am

Oil or no oil, makes no difference. Before the Union England and Scotland fought like ferrets in a sack. After the Union we had one rebellion (Highlander - the Lowlanders sided with England) and 300 years of peace. Can you think of any period since the creation of England and Scotland up until the Union when we had 300 years of peace?

We're not talking about a few years and an election or two, we are talking about a decision that will affect our countries for hundreds of years to come. I think Scottish Independence will lead to steadily worsening relations between our countries because of resentment at what is perceived as anti-English rejection here; and I don't believe that Salmond will be able to stop having a go at England.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 12:59 pm

Clodhopper;1362853 wrote: Oil or no oil, makes no difference. Before the Union England and Scotland fought like ferrets in a sack. After the Union we had one rebellion (Highlander - the Lowlanders sided with England) and 300 years of peace. Can you think of any period since the creation of England and Scotland up until the Union when we had 300 years of peace?

We're not talking about a few years and an election or two, we are talking about a decision that will affect our countries for hundreds of years to come. I think Scottish Independence will lead to steadily worsening relations between our countries because of resentment at what is perceived as anti-English rejection here; and I don't believe that Salmond will be able to stop having a go at England.

Actually there were two rebellions both a small part in a larger european conflict with the french trying to distract the english by stirring up trouble at home. Also part of a larger struggle against the divine right of kings. The glorious 12th isn't about the start of the grouse shooting to an orangeman.

I don't agree with the point you are making. England and scotland going to war against each other is a bit unlikely nowadays, rather than anti-scots sentiment I think you will see right wing parties like the BNP get more and more votes, especially in the cities where the immigrant population starts to overtake the locals and change the character of the nation more than scots independence ever will. Without oil revenues the real weakness of the UK economy will become more and more apparent and people will cast around for people to blame. If we do well after independence rather than envy i think the english will start to question more and be less accepting of the political shenanigans we have seen over the last thirty years. Take out 65 scots MP's voting on english issues and labour have had it as a political force. Personally I don't think scots MP's should be voting on purely english issues. It used to annoy us when economic policies were pursued that had a catastrophic effect on us (and the north of england) but suited the south east of england). I think it might do england some good by shaking up the political doldrums they seem to be in where discontent is all around but there is no focal point to go for.

Like it or not scotland is part of the union if we vote to end that union, and Cameron fails to acknowledge that fact, or as some suggest we have a UK wide referendum on the matter that will harden attitudes. The union has never been one of equals anyway, arguably our own peadrers sold us down the river - no change there then- but we do have a separate legal and education system and it was a voluntary union not a conquest like for the welsh or irish. If we choose to end it who are the English to gainsay it?

I must say, i am ambivalent about the matter but the more you post the more I find myself getting annoyed and ready to vote yes for independence. If england is worried about surviving without the scots to help them you should have the courage to say so and ask us not to go.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 2:35 pm

Ah well.

I just don't get this thing where we can't survive without you. We did before and will again. I have no idea how an independent Scotland will do, and some of the possible futures there are not so good and contemplation of those futures certainly scares me. Maybe all will be sweetness and light. I really hope so. I just have no confidence it will be so.

I am sure England will be worse off without you. How much I don't know, but I'm thinking 10% or so as a very vague indicator. If it can be put in numbers.

England and Scotland go to war? Not in the next 50 years, for almost certain. In 250 years? How can you be so sure? THAT'S why I am in favour of the Union. Because it HAS kept the peace between us. And saying, "Oh poo, we don't need that any more!" which is what it seems to me you are saying seems to me a massive lack of appreciation of what peace in these islands means and complacency as to its cause.

I am unlikely to be typical in these opinions. I rarely am. So there would be a certain irony if irritation with me caused you to vote for independence.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 2:25 am

I'm not likely to base my decision on the last conversation I had with you nor in a huufy fit with david cameron. I really think your worries about warfare are a bit extreme. 300 years ago we still had people ready to fight for a catholic monarchy and the divine right of kings to rule. We still have people wanting to start that religious conflict up all over again. If we have war in the UK religion will be the cause of it. Scotland's misfortunes are largely down to our own leadership not the english, most scots are actually bright enough and educated enough to realise that mostly it's goos natured rivalry. Mt nephew married a girl from lancashire - his father in law winds him up that he can play cricket for Lancashire and rugby for scotland. I'm also married to an Englishwoman who actually voted snp at the last election - more than I did. Try not to see it as simply them and us there's a bit more to it than that. If you look at the rise of the SNP it has far more to do with the economic policies rthat also destroyed the north of England. Those industries may have had their day - I could put a case either way - but the transition did not need to be so harsh with so many communities shattered

What happened to all the protest songs?

‪Mark Knopfler - Why aye man [Lyon -05] Great sound!‬‏ - YouTube

I left school/university in the seventies and spent two years being unemployed listening to the tories blaming the feckless and lazy for not being able to get work. I despise labour but absolutely hated maggie thatcher. Support for the SNP shot up once it became clear what the coalition govt intended to do. Labour are a waste of space. Like most people I am fed up being told we are hard up and we need to cut back and pay more taxes while those who caused it get away with it and we can still afford to go to war in afghanistan and libya while giving aid to countries like Pakistan and india that are wealthier than we are. We have an alternative protest party to vote for that might just get it's way. I just wish the english would start getting fed up as well and grab our MP's by the balls. It's not irresponsible borrowing that caused the financial crisis it was irresponsible financial institutions and outright criminal fraud.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 3:00 am

I hope my worries about war are a bit extreme. I'm just aware of how blind and stupid people can be. And let's say you are right about the rise of the BNP - well, they ARE the sort of idiots who would try to reimpose the Union by force. They aren't called the ENP. The Union is as much about the locking down of England as anything else.

I totally agree about the destruction of British industry in general. I don't just blame Thatcher, though. I also blame the Unions. The more one finds out about the effect they had on British industry the more pathetic they seem. From this distance in time Union leaders seem more and more like Orwell's pigs in Animal Farm in the way they became as corrupt and power mad as those they opposed.

I think the worst thing about Thatcher is her social legacy: there are a generation brought up with the idea that there is no such thing as society, and a chunk of them have taken that idea to its logical conclusion and have become totally amoral. I don't know for sure, but Rebekah Brookes looks like a good example.

Still, there is some hope. Some friends of mine are setting up a Garden Centre where power devolves down to the lowest level possible. It's a great idea and a model of how people should be employed and I'm really crossing my fingers for them at the mo.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 6:37 am

Clodhopper;1362886 wrote: I hope my worries about war are a bit extreme. I'm just aware of how blind and stupid people can be. And let's say you are right about the rise of the BNP - well, they ARE the sort of idiots who would try to reimpose the Union by force. They aren't called the ENP. The Union is as much about the locking down of England as anything else.

I totally agree about the destruction of British industry in general. I don't just blame Thatcher, though. I also blame the Unions. The more one finds out about the effect they had on British industry the more pathetic they seem. From this distance in time Union leaders seem more and more like Orwell's pigs in Animal Farm in the way they became as corrupt and power mad as those they opposed.

I think the worst thing about Thatcher is her social legacy: there are a generation brought up with the idea that there is no such thing as society, and a chunk of them have taken that idea to its logical conclusion and have become totally amoral. I don't know for sure, but Rebekah Brookes looks like a good example.

Still, there is some hope. Some friends of mine are setting up a Garden Centre where power devolves down to the lowest level possible. It's a great idea and a model of how people should be employed and I'm really crossing my fingers for them at the mo.

I'd agree with you about the unions. One of the problems we have had is the labour mafia that has run Scotland for the last fifty years or so and took scottish support for granted. Best thing about the last scottish election is it has scared the scottish labour party. They haven't a clue what to do and telling their fellow scots we don't need a referendum and they can decide for us hasn't helped their case, (imo anyway) nor did gordon grown and tony blair. As a fellow fifer I am ashamed of the constituency that keeps him as am MP.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 10:49 am

gmc;1362882 wrote:

What happened to all the protest songs?

‪Mark Knopfler - Why aye man [Lyon -05] Great sound!‬‏ - YouTube

Try :-

‪No Gods and Precious Few Heroes - Dick Gaughan‬‏ - YouTube

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 2:52 pm

Bryn Mawr;1362906 wrote: Try :-

‪No Gods and Precious Few Heroes - Dick Gaughan‬‏ - YouTube

:yh_rotfl Brilliant, thanks for that. Wonder what he thinks of alec salmond?

‪The Corries - Parcel O'Rogues‬‏ - YouTube

One of the original protest songs. Like a lot of burns songs the sentiments seem to translate to many cultures.

‪Beltaine - Parcel of Rogues‬‏ - YouTube

My favourite is a man's a man for a that - a socialist anthem if ever there was one.

The modern little kilt (as opposed to the belted plaid) was designed by an englishman and the so called clan tartans are what a bunch of edinburgh lawyers and other worthies thought they should be, on other words the very sorts of people who set out to destroy highland society now claim it as their national dress and profess to be experts on what tartan to wear. It's the same kind of bastards that want to run the place now, all with as much integrity as a dead budgie in a **** factory. Most scots are a bit ambivalent about independence IMO because we know they are all a bunch of crooks. Not than I'm cynical you understand but taking everything in to consideration if you saw one of out current crop of political leaders on fire would you **** on them to put it out or let them burn?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 3:11 pm

gmc;1362911 wrote: :yh_rotfl Brilliant, thanks for that. Wonder what he thinks of alec salmond?

‪The Corries - Parcel O'Rogues‬‏ - YouTube

One of the original protest songs. Like a lot of burns songs the sentiments seem to translate to many cultures.

‪Beltaine - Parcel of Rogues‬‏ - YouTube

My favourite is a man's a man for a that - a socialist anthem if ever there was one.

The modern little kilt (as opposed to the belted plaid) was designed by an englishman and the so called clan tartans are what a bunch of edinburgh lawyers and other worthies thought they should be, on other words the very sorts of people who set out to destroy highland society now claim it as their national dress and profess to be experts on what tartan to wear. It's the same kind of bastards that want to run the place now, all with as much integrity as a dead budgie in a **** factory. Most scots are a bit ambivalent about independence IMO because we know they are all a bunch of crooks. Not than I'm cynical you understand but taking everything in to consideration if you saw one of out current crop of political leaders on fire would you **** on them to put it out or let them burn?

Oh, I'm not cruel, I'd pi$$ on the lot of them knowing that they'll all burn later