| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dutchiris
Joined: 02 Feb 2011
Posts: 5
Location: Around 'n about
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 10:39 pm Post subject: Disunited Kingdom |
 |
|
Hi Scot 47,
To change the subject, I'll be spending extended time on Iona soon and would like to meet up. We've never met but have worked in the some of the same countries. I also lived in Scotland for many years and spent a week on Bute back in the 1970s. I have a passion for single malt - especially la Frog - which I'd like to share with an ex KSA-er. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ancient_dweller
Joined: 12 Aug 2010
Posts: 415
Location: Woodland Bench
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
what about 'housing association' buildings?
These are part state, part private - so rents are low. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DMcK
Joined: 12 Jun 2008
Posts: 111
Location: Madrid
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sheikh radlinrol wrote: |
Approximately ten per cent of the British Army are foreign nationals. An increasing number are from the Republic of Ireland. The idea that young Scots are forced to go to foreign lands to defend English interests is ludicrous, although it may seem attractive to Scottish nationalists. What are the arguments for Scottish independece, if they exist?
I�m Scottish but if I were an Englishman I�d be campaigning for independence from our friends north of the border. |
I just read this..
I'd like to say that this is by no means a personal attack:
You, sir, are, I'm afraid, an idiot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DMcK
Joined: 12 Jun 2008
Posts: 111
Location: Madrid
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 11:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| scot47 wrote: |
| And it is the English who will pay the price of Empire as they sink in the Multicultural Sea . If you want to know what I mean go and have a look at any English City. |
What the f do you mean by that?
I am as strongly in favour of independence for Scotland as anyone but I'd like to point out that an independent Scotland will proudly be as multicultural* as its migrants make it.
edited to add: that is ANYONE, including English people
Last edited by DMcK on Fri Aug 26, 2011 3:02 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DMcK
Joined: 12 Jun 2008
Posts: 111
Location: Madrid
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 2:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatius Reilly wrote: |
...very few.
For Scotland that is. The north of England, which has observed the massive subsidies paid to Scotland for decades under the Barnet formula, would probably be delighted to see her cut herself adrift.
As for the 'Imperial yoke' and all that, this really is the Kilmarnock Polytechnic School of History talking, isn't it? Scotland volunteered into the Union in 1707 shortly after her own attempt at imperial adventure went belly up in Panama in the late 17th century. In short, she was an economic and cultural backwater with a massively successful neighbour to her south. Under the new United Kingdom she flourished to such an extent that Edinburgh became the home of the Scottish Enlightenment and Glasgow the second city of the Empire. The Scottish contribution to Empire was disproportionately high in terms of its doctors, engineers, farmers and military. The Scottish contribution to the world was by anyone's standards impressive. Under the modern UK it remains so. It seems a shame that this is now denigrated in favour of an interpretation of history which suggests that Scotland was a miserable English colony and her people were acting under some form of English duress and held under some kind of Anglo-Saxon domination. It's not an argument I would have liked to pursue with the Scottish armed forces of the last three hundred years. In truth, Scotland massively benefited from Union and still does.
Under SNP plans for independence Queen Elizabeth II would retain her throne in Scotland and be recrowned Queen Elizabeth I of Scotland. |
Firstly, the ignorance in this thread is utterly preposterous and I really wish I hadn't got sucked into this whole world of pain...
The Barnet formula does not take into account what monies are generated in any particular area of the UK and therefore the monies that are generated in Scotland do not reflect what its annual budget is. The only thing disproportionate about Scotland's budget is that it's much smaller than it should be. Scotland has been pumping (predominantly) oil money into the treasury with nothing in return for years now.
As for the north of England, I think anyone complaining about lack of public spending in any place outside London should be focussing their frustrations on the capital and its draining of funds creating inequality across the entire country.
I highlighted the part of your post the following words reply to.
So, you think that Scotland quite happily signed up to this ridiculous and now outdated union of 1707? You think we benefitted by joining our parliament with Westminster?
You seem to think this created some kind of utopian land of milk and honey.
When the crowns were unified, Scottish trade policy was compromised in that our political affinities abroad were now the same as the those of the English. That meant our trade parters abroad, for example France, now became our enemy and opportunities to trade became very few and far between as our new markets were already sewn up by the English.
Moreover, Scotland was poverty stricken further by virtue of the economic sanctions imposed by Westminster for disagreeing with English policy and quite literally forced into signing away its sovereign power. As we know, the Scottish parliament ceased to exist after this with our parliamentarians taking up residency down south. In the lead up to the signing, there were riots on the streets of Scotland: we did not want to unify our parliament with its London counterpart. Any prosperity Scotland subsequently enjoyed was gained despite the union.
And on to the flourishing times post 1707..
One of the many things that (culturally/historically/religiously speaking, in general terms) separate the Scots from the English is the way we think and make decisions: our thought processes are largely based on what Jung defines as "intuition" and "thinking". That is, the great thinkers of Scotland often jumped to great conclusions before working backwards to both prove them and make them practical. The Scottish Enlightenment was not a function of the Act of Union; it was the product of our education system, which thankfully managed to keep anglicisation to a minimum.
So don't try to somehow cup the balls of England in admiration of Scottish achievements. I don't know who you are or if you are Scottish but you certainly need to check your facts before proclaiming such vexatious lies as you have above.
Now, as I'm prepared to argue why Scotland will benefit from dissolving the union, could you explain exactly what you think the benefits are of keeping this *beep* albatross hanging around our necks? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sashadroogie
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Posts: 11061
Location: Moskva, The Workers' Paradise
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 3:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ah, Scotland! To be the second Celtic republic in the world? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatius Reilly
Joined: 30 Jun 2011
Posts: 29
Location: East of Suez
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Therein lies the true Scot, I suppose. Can't take a compliment!  The broad thrust of my argument, however, remains the correct one. Scotland has been manifestly better off since 1707 for Union. So much so that many of the 'intuitive' thinkers of the Scottish Enlightenment gave us their theories and justified some of them by dating back to the Glorious Dutch Revolution in England.
I'm not remotely altruistic about union. England went for it, having rejected it out of hand time and again in the seventeenth century, because it was to her advantage politically, economically and militarily. The Scotish establishment, with great (but insufficient opposition) it is true, did so for pretty well the same reasons albeit for lack of a suitable alternative i.e remaining independent.
As for now, who can say? Facts on both sides will be ludirously distorted or exaggerated in the future debate, if it should happen. I merely have the view that it is better to hang together than be hanged separately. I may, of course, be completely wrong but I suspect the majority ofScots will agree with my prognosis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DMcK
Joined: 12 Jun 2008
Posts: 111
Location: Madrid
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I know I still haven't said what the benefits would be of dissolving the union but I'm still waiting to hear exactly what the benefits have been of being unified.
I'll get round to it at some point.
As for the true Scot, well you just demonstrated the true Scottish "black or white" mentality. I don't for a second believe your argument is "the correct one" and you'll find that yes, the older the individual is, the more likely they are to agree that we are better with London. You'll also find, however, the opposite is true the younger the individual is.
The new thinkers of Scotland, dare I say it, more anglicised, but certainly less emotionally tied to "tartanry", are very much swinging in favour of the logical solution of cutting ties with London. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatius Reilly
Joined: 30 Jun 2011
Posts: 29
Location: East of Suez
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I look forward to your arguments for independence. I'm sure they'll be cogent and well put. As for myself, I really can't make a strong argument either way other than perhaps an emotional one (which CAN be made either way) but is not worthy of being written here.
I agree with you about younger Scots being more outward looking and less tied to 'tartanry'. It is good that this is so. A country can be proud without waving its flag all the time. I would, in fact, argue the opposite: the more self confident a country is, the less it needs to do so. Whether that neo-independence Scottishness translates itself into sufficient votes to prompt an immediate secession from the union remains to be seen. It should, even if unsuccessful, promote a debate that is better informed than one based upon misty-eyed romanticism and visceral anti-Englishness. They'll still play a part but one hopes much less so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Perilla
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Posts: 792
Location: Hong Kong
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Countries are a retrograde invention. We'd be better off without any. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scot47
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 15343
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
You go first. When Uncle Sam abolishes the State maybe others will follow.
Last edited by scot47 on Wed Oct 05, 2011 10:18 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hod
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Posts: 1613
Location: Home
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I was just thinking today that the UK's extended licensing hours were a good idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scot47
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 15343
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
They were responsible for the current epidemic of binge drinking. Though now pubs are closing evrywhere in the Disunited Kingom as Yoof and Uvvers take to buying their booze from supermarkets and drinking in car parks.
When I am the Great Leader I shall take steps to enforce PROHIBITION !
Last edited by scot47 on Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:16 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sashadroogie
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Posts: 11061
Location: Moskva, The Workers' Paradise
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 11:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'll drink to that! Hic! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
