Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 6
Discussion
fluffnik said:
Troubleatmill said:
Scotland is a region of the United Kingdom.
Factually incorrect.It's one of the founding partners of the UK which is a supra-national state rather than a country.
"The United Kingdom is an island nation in Western Europe on the island of Great Britain, part of the island of Ireland and several other small islands. The UK has a total area of 94,058 square miles (243,610 sq km) and a coastline of 7,723 miles (12,429 m). The population of the UK is 62,698,362 people (July 2011 estimate) and the capital. The UK is made up of four different regions that are not independent nations. These regions are England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. "
"Scotland is the second largest of the four regions making up the UK."
There are plenty of others one can quote.
fluffnik said:
HenryJM said:
There are plenty of others one can quote.
Yup, but the Acts and Treaties of Union are the only ones that matter. 
fluffnik said:
Yup, but the Acts and Treaties of Union are the only ones that matter.
Of course, but what people like you want to refer to things as - how you want to try and break things down with terminology - is just pointless.The reality remains that Scotland is a part of the UK. Go round the world and you will find there are variations on how each 'country' operates. USA, Canada, Australia, France - pretty much anywhere - is much the same they just have variation on what level of local control fits where and whether they call it a state or a region or whatever they want.
The UK is no different, it is the country that Scotland is part of, you are just blathering about what it's called but it doesn't change the reality of what it is.
AstonZagato said:
If you go back far enough, every village regarded itself as a sovereign state and would fight those who denied it. Scotland has been a region of the UK since the Act of Union. Just has England.
:nod:A failed country, is Scotland. So failed that out came the begging bowl and treaties were signed. Failed ever since as a region, apart from a minor short term abberation whilst oil is extracted.
There are parts of England that are just as sparsely populated, they deal with it without crying for more...
Sway said:
:nod:
A failed country, is Scotland. So failed that out came the begging bowl and treaties were signed. Failed ever since as a region, apart from a minor short term abberation whilst oil is extracted.
There are parts of England that are just as sparsely populated, they deal with it without crying for more...
Oh, its not failed, it's just that 300 years or so ago it became a part of a larger country, a process that's happened to places all over the world. The concept that Scotland retained some special meaning something different to England or bits of other places around the world is the fantasy. Sure, it's not all the same everywhere, but the fundamentals are, the rest is just romanticism and dreamwork.A failed country, is Scotland. So failed that out came the begging bowl and treaties were signed. Failed ever since as a region, apart from a minor short term abberation whilst oil is extracted.
There are parts of England that are just as sparsely populated, they deal with it without crying for more...
I disagree.
Fluffy goes on about England's abhorrent colonial past, yet ignores the fact that Scotland wanted in - first by trying to set up it's own, which failed miserably, then by wanting to join up with us to gain access to our colonies.
Since then, it's punched below it's weight economically. A kind of Northern Greece, without the weather, that would have lurched from default to default whilst being outcompeted by it's closest neighbour if it hadn't signed the Act of Union.
Fluffy goes on about England's abhorrent colonial past, yet ignores the fact that Scotland wanted in - first by trying to set up it's own, which failed miserably, then by wanting to join up with us to gain access to our colonies.
Since then, it's punched below it's weight economically. A kind of Northern Greece, without the weather, that would have lurched from default to default whilst being outcompeted by it's closest neighbour if it hadn't signed the Act of Union.
Sway said:
I disagree.
Fluffy goes on about England's abhorrent colonial past, yet ignores the fact that Scotland wanted in - first by trying to set up it's own, which failed miserably, then by wanting to join up with us to gain access to our colonies.
Since then, it's punched below it's weight economically. A kind of Northern Greece, without the weather, that would have lurched from default to default whilst being outcompeted by it's closest neighbour if it hadn't signed the Act of Union.
Sure but that's all fluffy fantasy and history. We are where we are today, and have been for hundreds of years. A country called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island. It's a long name, but that's who we are, a sovereign state.Fluffy goes on about England's abhorrent colonial past, yet ignores the fact that Scotland wanted in - first by trying to set up it's own, which failed miserably, then by wanting to join up with us to gain access to our colonies.
Since then, it's punched below it's weight economically. A kind of Northern Greece, without the weather, that would have lurched from default to default whilst being outcompeted by it's closest neighbour if it hadn't signed the Act of Union.
How anyone wants to split a country beneath that level is internal and pretty irrelevant to the rest of the world. Reasons why, for example, Australia have some States and some Territories is all internal to them. So is the different way they do detail at the tax level, setting of different time zones, blah blah. The USA is the same, lots of internal stuff between different states and so on. But the international treatment - the way in which a country interfaces with the world, that is at the UK level and remains likely to remain there.
After all, as the whole independence thing showed, those are the things they can't handle anyway. Follow that by the massive change in oil price and Scotland's potential income from it and you have a situation where Scots should be looking at how they benefit from what they have - a status as a region (call it what you want) that is part of a larger country with a more diverse and more prosperous economy.
One of the quite odd things is that much of the Scots' self perception of Scottish culture was a romantic fiction from the Victorians like Walter Scott. Prior to that, the highlands was seen more as a backward, barbaric breeding ground for bandits and discontent.
One of the ironies was that it was Queen Victoria herself who led the reshaping and rehabilitation of Scottish self identity and the perception of it in the rest of Britain.
So that must be a bitter pill for the largely republican Nats to swallow - that the positive perception of Scots and their "traditions" (some of which were romantic inventions) were promoted by the Germanic monarchy.
One of the ironies was that it was Queen Victoria herself who led the reshaping and rehabilitation of Scottish self identity and the perception of it in the rest of Britain.
So that must be a bitter pill for the largely republican Nats to swallow - that the positive perception of Scots and their "traditions" (some of which were romantic inventions) were promoted by the Germanic monarchy.
Edited by AstonZagato on Sunday 8th March 11:10
The fact that many countries, the USA and Spain being just 2 examples, have clearly stated it would take many years to recognise an independent Scotland, think Obama mentioned 5,makes it a none started,
Both these countries feel it would set presidents and I think they would do everything they could to make sure iScotland was isolated and fails
Both these countries feel it would set presidents and I think they would do everything they could to make sure iScotland was isolated and fails
HD Adam said:
HD Adam said:
HD Adam said:
HD Adam said:
xjsdriver said:
Not only have the 45 stuck together - we've attracted some that voted No too. It's not surprising how toxic the thought of voting Labour has become.
According to the lies, damn lies & statistics, if the SNP wins as many votes as you say, Labour will not be able to form a Government as they won't have a majority.Wee Jimmy Krankie has said that she will not enter a coalition with the Tories but would with Labour to form a majority in Westminster.
So, voting Labour is toxic, therefore vote SNP and get a Labour Govt
How does that work then?
xjsdriver said:
I've answered many, many questions many times over - sometimes having to repeat myself, like I'm having to explain to children with learning difficulties, who throw a strop if they don't like what they hear.
Could you answer this one then please?
simoid said:
I don't think xjs has posted in this thread since some of his insulting posts were deleted. This leads me to believe that particular account has been unable to contribute for moderation reasons.
Contribute?Well he gives us a laugh and makes it longer
But his post about saying i'm a kiddy fiddler is still there
Its the moral high ground he hangs out on
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff