England [and Scotland are] a kingdom, Wales is a principality and Northern Ireland's a province.
The uppityness of the Scots is causing Her Majesty to reconsider this distribution.
I understand she is about to demote Scotland, as a Crown Dependency, to the status of Bailiwick, with the offices of Duke, Lieutenant Governor and Chief Minister up for grabs.
Prince Edward (as Duke of Edinburgh in waiting) is earmarked for the Duchy, Sir Mark Thatcher for the vice gubernatorial role with the office of Chief Minister reserved for the elected Leader of the Council of Holyrood.
At the same time the loyalty of the Northern Irish is to be rewarded. A Palatinate Duchy is being considered with our very own Alanbrooke mooted for the role.
I think you'll find it will be Lord McGuinness of Foyle who will get the honours Mr P.
I've been quietly laughing as the Irish are doing their damnedest to replace the Scots as best neighbour. While the Scotnats have been genetically engineering more chips for their shoulders the Irish have been slowly filling the slots they are vacating.
Too stupid remains the killer.
But what happens when the Taig birthrate overtakes the Prod? And the children reach 18? IIRC it's likely that a vote for joining the Republic in about 2030 will give a (small admittedly) majority in the Six Counties in favour reunification.
I probably shan't care then, but can we ensure that Ian Paisley Jnr and his friends are told to stay there and not flee to England. I'm sure Scotland borders will be closed!
Does the Republic want them?
One thing I have never got about the SNP is its affection for the Scottish diaspora in far away lands, but its seeming reluctance to embrace the one closest to home!
Here's a wild idea. If the Scots vote Yes they should all resign. The useless lot of them. Dave, Ed and Calamity Clegg plus anyone connected with Better Together. And of course Alistair Carmichael. And all MPs in Scottish seats.
We can then pull together a national government for the next 18 months while we get our heads around how we have ended the UK as a state.
That's certainly possible, but would have other consequences.
Besides 'we' will not have ended the UK as a state if Yes win. The Scots will have decided their own fate, as they have every right to do.
I agree they have the right to do it.
But the UK will no longer exist.
Yes, it will.
rUK is the continuity state. We just call it rUK for convenience - technically it will still be the UK (and I suspect they will keep the name). How about Wales being raised from a Principality into a Kingdom?
Of course you will need something to keep up the charade that you are important.
Sheesh malc from the people who say they'll sit at top tables everywhere that's a keeper.
iScots are less important than Slovakia.
Alan, we do not need to be seen to be important by others, that is the difference. We will be happy with being ourselves.
Then why did we have 2 years of Nats baaaing top table on PB ?
I am tempted to do a Carlotta and demand you produce a link for your perfidious accusation that Eck would be so crass as to want to be at a top table.
Happy to oblige:
Alex Salmond: Independence can give us a seat at the top table
England [and Scotland are] a kingdom, Wales is a principality and Northern Ireland's a province.
The uppityness of the Scots is causing Her Majesty to reconsider this distribution.
I understand she is about to demote Scotland, as a Crown Dependency, to the status of Bailiwick, with the offices of Duke, Lieutenant Governor and Chief Minister up for grabs.
Prince Edward (as Duke of Edinburgh in waiting) is earmarked for the Duchy, Sir Mark Thatcher for the vice gubernatorial role with the office of Chief Minister reserved for the elected Leader of the Council of Holyrood.
At the same time the loyalty of the Northern Irish is to be rewarded. A Palatinate Duchy is being considered with our very own Alanbrooke mooted for the role.
I think you'll find it will be Lord McGuinness of Foyle who will get the honours Mr P.
I've been quietly laughing as the Irish are doing their damnedest to replace the Scots as best neighbour. While the Scotnats have been genetically engineering more chips for their shoulders the Irish have been slowly filling the slots they are vacating.
Too stupid remains the killer.
But what happens when the Taig birthrate overtakes the Prod? And the children reach 18? IIRC it's likely that a vote for joining the Republic in about 2030 will give a (small admittedly) majority in the Six Counties in favour of reunification.
I probably shan't care then, but can we ensure that Ian Paisley Jnr and his friends are told to stay there and not flee to England. I'm sure Scotland borders will be closed!
You've not exactly been following events closely. Currently the birth rates have swapped, but the two barriers to a UI remain, more catholics want to stay in the UK than leave; the South thinks the norths a basket case and doesn't want it. Can't see unity happening any time soon unless a black swan turns up.
Point taken about the South and it's view of the North. Secondly the birthrate has to achieve a point, but the number of 18 year olds has also to achieve that point. AFAIK, that hasn't been reached yet.
And, to be fair, very few thinking Nationalists would have wanted to join the RoI over the past few years, it's economic sitiation being what it was!
If YES wins, then the 2015GE should be postponed until 6 months after Scotland has become legally independent and all separation matters put in place. At least that prospect might motivate EdM to support NO or YES.
It's not going to happen, especially as it will take years to sort out the divorce. More likely is a cross-party agreement on the terms of separation so that negotiations can be conducted separate from the normal political process and holding legislation on the status of Scottish MPs in the run-up to independence.
What's a bit less unlikely is bringing the election forwards, especially if Cameron quits and the new leader wants to fight an election off the bounce instead of continuing the coalition.
Here's a wild idea. If the Scots vote Yes they should all resign. The useless lot of them. Dave, Ed and Calamity Clegg plus anyone connected with Better Together. And of course Alistair Carmichael. And all MPs in Scottish seats.
We can then pull together a national government for the next 18 months while we get our heads around how we have ended the UK as a state.
That's certainly possible, but would have other consequences.
Besides 'we' will not have ended the UK as a state if Yes win. The Scots will have decided their own fate, as they have every right to do.
I agree they have the right to do it.
But the UK will no longer exist.
Yes, it will.
rUK is the continuity state. We just call it rUK for convenience - technically it will still be the UK (and I suspect they will keep the name). How about Wales being raised from a Principality into a Kingdom?
Of course you will need something to keep up the charade that you are important.
Sheesh malc from the people who say they'll sit at top tables everywhere that's a keeper.
iScots are less important than Slovakia.
We will be happy with being ourselves.
By using someone else's currency.....letting someone else set your interest rates and determine fiscal policy......funny definition of 'being ourselves'.....
Typical unionist arrogance, it is OUR currency and no-one has agreed to have anyone else set interest rates or fiscal policy. That is just your deluded arrogant unionist thinking that all powerful Westminster will lay down the law and the Scots will cower at their feet and obey. Feel free to come back with your tail between your legs after the negotiations and your delusions have been shattered.
Increasing the price of alcohol is like the attempt to ban air rifles, In the case of airguns, poachers will still use them, but the general public will not. In the case of alchohol, you can make a passable "alcopop" in two weeks with ingredients that cost a few pence, legaly.
I agree but they do have to somehow solve the alchohol culture prevalent in UK
Regarding Cameron's position if there's a Scottish Yes vote, why should he resign any more than did Attlee (oops, not only lost India, the jewel in the crown, but also presided over its partition and descent into one of the most violent episodes in the history of the British empire), or Macmillan, who dismantled most of the rest of the empire, or Lloyd George, who mislaid Eire?
If the Scots want to leave the union, fair enough. It's up to them. And if there is any blame, it will accrue to the Better Together lot, i.e. Labour.
England [and Scotland are] a kingdom, Wales is a principality and Northern Ireland's a province.
The uppityness of the Scots is causing Her Majesty to reconsider this distribution.
I understand she is about to demote Scotland, as a Crown Dependency, to the status of Bailiwick, with the offices of Duke, Lieutenant Governor and Chief Minister up for grabs.
Prince Edward (as Duke of Edinburgh in waiting) is earmarked for the Duchy, Sir Mark Thatcher for the vice gubernatorial role with the office of Chief Minister reserved for the elected Leader of the Council of Holyrood.
At the same time the loyalty of the Northern Irish is to be rewarded. A Palatinate Duchy is being considered with our very own Alanbrooke mooted for the role.
I think you'll find it will be Lord McGuinness of Foyle who will get the honours Mr P.
I've been quietly laughing as the Irish are doing their damnedest to replace the Scots as best neighbour. While the Scotnats have been genetically engineering more chips for their shoulders the Irish have been slowly filling the slots they are vacating.
Too stupid remains the killer.
But what happens when the Taig birthrate overtakes the Prod? And the children reach 18? IIRC it's likely that a vote for joining the Republic in about 2030 will give a (small admittedly) majority in the Six Counties in favour of reunification.
I probably shan't care then, but can we ensure that Ian Paisley Jnr and his friends are told to stay there and not flee to England. I'm sure Scotland borders will be closed!
You've not exactly been following events closely. Currently the birth rates have swapped, but the two barriers to a UI remain, more catholics want to stay in the UK than leave; the South thinks the norths a basket case and doesn't want it. Can't see unity happening any time soon unless a black swan turns up.
Point taken about the South and it's view of the North. Secondly the birthrate has to achieve a pint, but the number of 18 year olds has also to achieve that point. AFAIK, that hasn't been reached yet.
And, to be fair, very few thinking Nationalists would have wanted to join the RoI over the past few years, it's economic sitiation being what it was!
There's an annual survey on attitudes in NI. last time those favouring Unity was about 20-25%. You sort of got the impression it was reality by the strength of denials from SF.
Here's a wild idea. If the Scots vote Yes they should all resign. The useless lot of them. Dave, Ed and Calamity Clegg plus anyone connected with Better Together. And of course Alistair Carmichael. And all MPs in Scottish seats.
We can then pull together a national government for the next 18 months while we get our heads around how we have ended the UK as a state.
That's certainly possible, but would have other consequences.
Besides 'we' will not have ended the UK as a state if Yes win. The Scots will have decided their own fate, as they have every right to do.
I agree they have the right to do it.
But the UK will no longer exist.
Yes, it will.
rUK is the continuity state. We just call it rUK for convenience - technically it will still be the UK (and I suspect they will keep the name). How about Wales being raised from a Principality into a Kingdom?
Of course you will need something to keep up the charade that you are important.
Sheesh malc from the people who say they'll sit at top tables everywhere that's a keeper.
iScots are less important than Slovakia.
We will be happy with being ourselves.
By using someone else's currency.....letting someone else set your interest rates and determine fiscal policy......funny definition of 'being ourselves'.....
Typical unionist arrogance, it is OUR currency and no-one has agreed to have anyone else set interest rates or fiscal policy.
You really don't have the first clue about how a currency union would work, do you? I wonder why the SNP has not enlightened you? Especially when you get 8 votes and the other guy gets 92......
It's clearly getting close, but both polls still show No ahead, so we shouldn't treat it as a done deal for Yes. Is there a case for another joint initiative by the UK parties, this time not negative (if you leave you can't keep the currency) but positive - reasons we hope you'll stay, the extent of devolution we agree on, etc.?
Here's a wild idea. If the Scots vote Yes they should all resign. The useless lot of them. Dave, Ed and Calamity Clegg plus anyone connected with Better Together. And of course Alistair Carmichael. And all MPs in Scottish seats.
We can then pull together a national government for the next 18 months while we get our heads around how we have ended the UK as a state.
That's certainly possible, but would have other consequences.
Besides 'we' will not have ended the UK as a state if Yes win. The Scots will have decided their own fate, as they have every right to do.
I agree they have the right to do it.
But the UK will no longer exist.
Yes, it will.
rUK is the continuity state. We just call it rUK for convenience - technically it will still be the UK (and I suspect they will keep the name). How about Wales being raised from a Principality into a Kingdom?
Of course you will need something to keep up the charade that you are important.
Sheesh malc from the people who say they'll sit at top tables everywhere that's a keeper.
iScots are less important than Slovakia.
Alan, we do not need to be seen to be important by others, that is the difference. We will be happy with being ourselves.
Then why did we have 2 years of Nats baaaing top table on PB ?
I am tempted to do a Carlotta and demand you produce a link for your perfidious accusation that Eck would be so crass as to want to be at a top table.
Happy to oblige:
Alex Salmond: Independence can give us a seat at the top table
Alchohol dependency needs tackling at the root, It's the same with education. All the money and fancy new ideas will never solve it until the underlying causes are sorted. It does however need a radical new way of thinking that our moribund system can never contemplate.
If YES wins, then the 2015GE should be postponed until 6 months after Scotland has become legally independent and all separation matters put in place. At least that prospect might motivate EdM to support NO or YES.
It's not going to happen, especially as it will take years to sort out the divorce. More likely is a cross-party agreement on the terms of separation so that negotiations can be conducted separate from the normal political process and holding legislation on the status of Scottish MPs in the run-up to independence.
What's a bit less unlikely is bringing the election forwards, especially if Cameron quits and the new leader wants to fight an election off the bounce instead of continuing the coalition.
Agreed - though in that situation I'd expect Cameron to resign as PM, not as leader of the Conservatives. If the Tories go into a GE under another leader they will reduce their chances of success.
It's clearly getting close, but both polls still show No ahead, so we shouldn't treat it as a done deal for Yes. Is there a case for another joint initiative by the UK parties, this time not negative (if you leave you can't keep the currency) but positive - reasons we hope you'll stay, the extent of devolution we agree on, etc.?
England [and Scotland are] a kingdom, Wales is a principality and Northern Ireland's a province.
The uppityness of the Scots is causing Her Majesty to reconsider this distribution.
I understand she is about to demote Scotland, as a Crown Dependency, to the status of Bailiwick, with the offices of Duke, Lieutenant Governor and Chief Minister up for grabs.
Prince Edward (as Duke of Edinburgh in waiting) is earmarked for the Duchy, Sir Mark Thatcher for the vice gubernatorial role with the office of Chief Minister reserved for the elected Leader of the Council of Holyrood.
At the same time the loyalty of the Northern Irish is to be rewarded. A Palatinate Duchy is being considered with our very own Alanbrooke mooted for the role.
I think you'll find it will be Lord McGuinness of Foyle who will get the honours Mr P.
I've been quietly laughing as the Irish are doing their damnedest to replace the Scots as best neighbour. While the Scotnats have been genetically engineering more chips for their shoulders the Irish have been slowly filling the slots they are vacating.
Too stupid remains the killer.
But what happens when the Taig birthrate overtakes the Prod? And the children reach 18? IIRC it's likely that a vote for joining the Republic in about 2030 will give a (small admittedly) majority in the Six Counties in favour of reunification.
I probably shan't care then, but can we ensure that Ian Paisley Jnr and his friends are told to stay there and not flee to England. I'm sure Scotland borders will be closed!
I work with lots of French and have discussed Scottish independence with them and they are really looking forward to it. I also discussed possibility of Breton independence and they said it could never happen because French government would simply not allow it, but they are a little more worried about Catalan situation because of knock on effects
Why are french people looking forward to Scottish independence?
Because it would drive a wedge into Perfidious Albion. Don't let this fake EU brotherly love go to PBers heads. The French will continue to hate the English and hope that their ancient ally, Scotland, will come into their orbit.
Regarding Cameron's position if there's a Scottish Yes vote, why should he resign any more than did Attlee (oops, not only lost India, the jewel in the crown, but also presided over its partition and descent into one of the most violent episodes in the history of the British empire), or Macmillan, who dismantled most of the rest of the empire, or Lloyd George, who mislaid Eire?
If the Scots want to leave the union, fair enough. It's up to them. And if there is any blame, it will accrue to the Better Together lot, i.e. Labour.
Do Tories really equate the status of Scotland with former colonies of the British Empire? No wonder the Scots have so roundly rejected the Conservative Party.
It's clearly getting close, but both polls still show No ahead, so we shouldn't treat it as a done deal for Yes. Is there a case for another joint initiative by the UK parties, this time not negative (if you leave you can't keep the currency) but positive - reasons we hope you'll stay, the extent of devolution we agree on, etc.?
Regarding Cameron's position if there's a Scottish Yes vote, why should he resign any more than did Attlee (oops, not only lost India, the jewel in the crown, but also presided over its partition and descent into one of the most violent episodes in the history of the British empire), or Macmillan, who dismantled most of the rest of the empire, or Lloyd George, who mislaid Eire?
If the Scots want to leave the union, fair enough. It's up to them. And if there is any blame, it will accrue to the Better Together lot, i.e. Labour.
Do Tories really equate the status of Scotland with former colonies of the British Empire? No wonder the Scots have so roundly rejected the Conservative Party.
France wants Britain divided - and Scotland independent - because France will instantly become the dominant military power in Europe, lording it over rUK, and politically much more important than rUK in the EU, etc etc. Scottish independence also makes English departure from the EU much more likely, another key French strategic goal over recent decades.
In which way will the French be "lauding" over we English? We may pay over-the-price for our kit but it is actually the best there is....
:keep-to-chine-porn:
* LeClerc tanks are reputed to "glow-in-the-dark" when under attack. ** France wants them but are too skint to buy them: They want us to purchase VBCI to cover the cost....
Yes that did us a lot of good when a few natives whupped us in afghanistan, Iranians duffed up our navy and stole a boatload underneath our great defenders, assume they were having afternoon tea at the time. We could not beat a carpet, having some fancy named toys does not make you tough.
Regarding Cameron's position if there's a Scottish Yes vote, why should he resign any more than did Attlee (oops, not only lost India, the jewel in the crown, but also presided over its partition and descent into one of the most violent episodes in the history of the British empire), or Macmillan, who dismantled most of the rest of the empire, or Lloyd George, who mislaid Eire?
If the Scots want to leave the union, fair enough. It's up to them. And if there is any blame, it will accrue to the Better Together lot, i.e. Labour.
Do Tories really equate the status of Scotland with former colonies of the British Empire?
Happy Easter to all. Just quickly dropping in, before getting back to the turkey.
Calm down dears; it's only an opinion poll. Has there been a single reputable poll that has shown YES with a lead in the last year, let alone a commanding one?
No? Thought not.
There is bound to be tightening and loosening of the polls as the big day approaches. This fervour will only increase as the campaign develops over the summer, before settling down in the last 2 weeks to a clearer final position.
I suspect what we are seeing now is the combined effect of early splurging of the Weirs lottery donations and the single-minded Salmond/SNP leadership of YES, compared to the smaller spending levels of NO and its multi-headed leadership. Once the campaign restrictions come into play - equal spending limits and TV broadcast rights - these advantages will wither away.
As I've said before, NO do need to sort their game out with a more positive long-term vision for Scotland in the UK - and Murphy, Darling and Brown should probably be much bolder and more prominent, soapboxing across Scotland right at the forefront of the NO campaign - but I see precious little evidence that YES will win. What people do in the ballot box tends to be less emotional and more rational than how they respond to opinion polls and talk down the pub.
(And, yes, that applies to Scots as well. They are a passionate people but just as sensible as the rest of us)
Regarding Cameron's position if there's a Scottish Yes vote, why should he resign any more than did Attlee (oops, not only lost India, the jewel in the crown, but also presided over its partition and descent into one of the most violent episodes in the history of the British empire), or Macmillan, who dismantled most of the rest of the empire, or Lloyd George, who mislaid Eire?
If the Scots want to leave the union, fair enough. It's up to them. And if there is any blame, it will accrue to the Better Together lot, i.e. Labour.
It's not a sure thing that he'd resign but if you were writing a set of performance metrics for someone with the job title Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, one key deliverable would be that there was still a United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Typical unionist arrogance, it is OUR currency and no-one has agreed to have anyone else set interest rates or fiscal policy. That is just your deluded arrogant unionist thinking that all powerful Westminster will lay down the law and the Scots will cower at their feet and obey. Feel free to come back with your tail between your legs after the negotiations and your delusions have been shattered.
So 8.4% of the population demands that the 85% should bow-down to the "ethnic" elite? Are you a BoT troll Unckie...?
Here's a wild idea. If the Scots vote Yes they should all resign. The useless lot of them. Dave, Ed and Calamity Clegg plus anyone connected with Better Together. And of course Alistair Carmichael. And all MPs in Scottish seats.
We can then pull together a national government for the next 18 months while we get our heads around how we have ended the UK as a state.
That's certainly possible, but would have other consequences.
Besides 'we' will not have ended the UK as a state if Yes win. The Scots will have decided their own fate, as they have every right to do.
I agree they have the right to do it.
But the UK will no longer exist.
Yes, it will.
rUK is the continuity state. We just call it rUK for convenience - technically it will still be the UK (and I suspect they will keep the name). How about Wales being raised from a Principality into a Kingdom?
Of course you will need something to keep up the charade that you are important.
Sheesh malc from the people who say they'll sit at top tables everywhere that's a keeper.
iScots are less important than Slovakia.
We will be happy with being ourselves.
By using someone else's currency.....letting someone else set your interest rates and determine fiscal policy......funny definition of 'being ourselves'.....
Typical unionist arrogance, it is OUR currency and no-one has agreed to have anyone else set interest rates or fiscal policy.
You really don't have the first clue about how a currency union would work, do you? I wonder why the SNP has not enlightened you? Especially when you get 8 votes and the other guy gets 92......
I have as much clue as your deluded nonsense. Any deal will have limits set on both parties by the central bank. That is reality not your delusion. It will not be plain sailing for rump that is for sure as they renege on their no CU promise.
Do Tories really equate the status of Scotland with former colonies of the British Empire? No wonder the Scots have so roundly rejected the Conservative Party.
An uncharacteristically nasty remark from you, Southam.
Certainly in the early and middle twentieth century, British people were fantastically proud of the Empire - all those atlases with most of the habitable world coloured red. The loss of empire was a massive psychological blow, especially coming just after a horrendous war which they'd actually won. I can't see the departure of Scotland, if it happens (which I strongly doubt) being anything like as traumatic. A collective shrug of the shoulders will be the main reaction for most people, although certainly traditional Tories will be dischuffed for sentimental reasons.
Regarding Cameron's position if there's a Scottish Yes vote, why should he resign any more than did Attlee (oops, not only lost India, the jewel in the crown, but also presided over its partition and descent into one of the most violent episodes in the history of the British empire), or Macmillan, who dismantled most of the rest of the empire, or Lloyd George, who mislaid Eire?
If the Scots want to leave the union, fair enough. It's up to them. And if there is any blame, it will accrue to the Better Together lot, i.e. Labour.
Stupid. Just stupid. He will resign, as Eden did after Suez.
Oooh! Is there a modern equivalent of the Protocol of Sèvres?
Plans to invade Scotland, and Cameron will have to resign when they come out?
You are a thriller writer.....with a vivid imagination......
Regarding Cameron's position if there's a Scottish Yes vote, why should he resign any more than did Attlee (oops, not only lost India, the jewel in the crown, but also presided over its partition and descent into one of the most violent episodes in the history of the British empire), or Macmillan, who dismantled most of the rest of the empire, or Lloyd George, who mislaid Eire?
If the Scots want to leave the union, fair enough. It's up to them. And if there is any blame, it will accrue to the Better Together lot, i.e. Labour.
Do Tories really equate the status of Scotland with former colonies of the British Empire?
No, but the Nats do........
They do indeed. And saying Scotland's break-up of the Union is the same as India and other British colonies getting their independence (freedom) would tend to stoke such views I'd have thought.
Regarding Cameron's position if there's a Scottish Yes vote, why should he resign any more than did Attlee (oops, not only lost India, the jewel in the crown, but also presided over its partition and descent into one of the most violent episodes in the history of the British empire), or Macmillan, who dismantled most of the rest of the empire, or Lloyd George, who mislaid Eire?
If the Scots want to leave the union, fair enough. It's up to them. And if there is any blame, it will accrue to the Better Together lot, i.e. Labour.
Very silly post Richard. Scotland is part of our country. They are our brethren. They are equal to any other UK citizen and just as valued. This is about dismembering ourselves - severing one of our own limbs - not waving off a quarrelsome ungrateful (and heavily patronised) child into the sunset.
That said, I do not agree that Cameron will resign. For different reasons.
Re: SNP GE Seats: Those nice people at Ladbrokes are offering odds of 4/6 (1.67= decimal) on the SNP winning more than the 6 out of 59 Scottish seats at the next UK General Election. Bearing in mind their substantial lead in the opinion polls coupled with the prospect of an excellent "Yes" showing in the forthcoming independence referendum, it seems a "gimme" to me that they will fare better than the half dozen seats they managed to win at the 2010 GE, but as always do your own research. Ladbrokes' odds for opposing this bet, i.e. for the SNP to win 6 or fewer seats, are 6/5.
Alchohol dependency needs tackling at the root, It's the same with education. All the money and fancy new ideas will never solve it until the underlying causes are sorted. It does however need a radical new way of thinking that our moribund system can never contemplate.
Other countries manage so there must be a way, agree that this country does not seem to care about solving it.
If that encapsulates yes's best arguments, then they don't deserve to run a kindergarten, yet alone a country.
Edit: and you call it awesome. Lol, ROFL et al.
Give us a laugh then , another of your hilarious pylon stories. You have no sense of humour whatsoever. A pompous anally retentive prick.
I've got a glorious sense of humour, thanks. It's why I find your posts - and your name calling - so hilarious.
When you get into such extreme name-calling, you've lost the argument. And, perhaps, the plot ...
JJ, if you think they are anything other than banter then you have not lived. You do portray yourself exactly as described so it is not even name calling. Lighten up, if you cannot laugh at yourself then you should not be laughing at others.
I think I pointed out in a previous thread that governments tend to create problems rather than actually solving them. This is usually because they are wedded to an ideology rather than working out what is "best".
One thing I have never got about the SNP is its affection for the Scottish diaspora in far away lands, but its seeming reluctance to embrace the one closest to home!
I think you're unnecessarily limiting yourself on things you don't get about the SNP.
One thing I don't get is all these Unionists suddenly becoming entirely relaxed about discarding NI & Wales if a profitable arm of the franchise decides to de-merge from UK PLC. I thought we were 'family'.
Very silly post Richard. Scotland is part of our country. They are our brethren. They are equal to any other UK citizen and just as valued. This is about dismembering ourselves - severing one of our own limbs - not waving off a quarrelsome ungrateful (and heavily patronised) child into the sunset.
That said, I do not agree that Cameron will resign. For different reasons.
Ireland was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, as Northern Ireland is now - losing the majority of that didn't cause a Prime Ministerial resignation.
If that encapsulates yes's best arguments, then they don't deserve to run a kindergarten, yet alone a country.
Edit: and you call it awesome. Lol, ROFL et al.
Give us a laugh then , another of your hilarious pylon stories. You have no sense of humour whatsoever. A pompous anally retentive prick.
I've got a glorious sense of humour, thanks. It's why I find your posts - and your name calling - so hilarious.
When you get into such extreme name-calling, you've lost the argument. And, perhaps, the plot ...
JJ, if you think they are anything other than banter then you have not lived. You do portray yourself exactly as described so it is not even name calling. Lighten up, if you cannot laugh at yourself then you should not be laughing at others.
Politeness prevents me from explaining exactly how you portray yourself on here.
I'm very light-hearted at the moment. Mrs J's cooking a Sunday roast, I've had some good news recently, and I'm still ROFLMAO at the news about the end of the grand prix.
If YES wins, then the 2015GE should be postponed until 6 months after Scotland has become legally independent and all separation matters put in place. At least that prospect might motivate EdM to support NO or YES.
It's not going to happen, especially as it will take years to sort out the divorce. More likely is a cross-party agreement on the terms of separation so that negotiations can be conducted separate from the normal political process and holding legislation on the status of Scottish MPs in the run-up to independence.
What's a bit less unlikely is bringing the election forwards, especially if Cameron quits and the new leader wants to fight an election off the bounce instead of continuing the coalition.
It would make sense to elect a body to conduct negotiations. Now while I agree that Scottish MPs generally have a right to sit in Parliament up to the point of independence*... surely they should have no right to vote on anything to do wrth independence, as it would be a conflict of interest?
* at which point, if there was a small Labour majority, we could get an immediate Vote of Confidence and/or change of government in the rUK. Which would be an incentive for a Labour government to drag things out indefinitely
Do Tories really equate the status of Scotland with former colonies of the British Empire? No wonder the Scots have so roundly rejected the Conservative Party.
An uncharacteristically nasty remark from you, Southam.
Certainly in the early and middle twentieth century, British people were fantastically proud of the Empire - all those atlases with most of the habitable world coloured red. The loss of empire was a massive psychological blow, especially coming just after a horrendous war which they'd actually won. I can't see the departure of Scotland, if it happens (which I strongly doubt) being anything like as traumatic. A collective shrug of the shoulders will be the main reaction for most people, although certainly traditional Tories will be dischuffed for sentimental reasons.
I did not mean to be nasty Richard - apologies if you took it that way. I was observing that if Tories such as yourself do see Scottish independence as being equivalent to giving colonies their independence then it does reveal a very particular way of viewing Scotland that I can imagine many Scots would find hugely antagonising.
We do not have long to see whether it will be shrugs all round. I doubt it will be, though I hope you are right.
2. NO still has one big - but very big - ace to play (if they are clever, which is, uh, far from assured). The three unionist parties can still get together and formally offer Devomax: give Salmond everything he wants (including currency union), only within a Federal UK.
A Federal UK has been the obvious answer for years, but Westminster politicians won't address it. DevoMax for all four countries of the Union, with only strategic/national issues agreed by the centre.
Happy Easter to all. Just quickly dropping in, before getting back to the turkey.
Calm down dears; it's only an opinion poll. Has there been a single reputable poll that has shown YES with a lead in the last year, let alone a commanding one?
No? Thought not.
There is bound to be tightening and loosening of the polls as the big day approaches. This fervour will only increase as the campaign develops over the summer, before settling down in the last 2 weeks to a clearer final position.
I suspect what we are seeing now is the combined effect of early splurging of the Weirs lottery donations and the single-minded Salmond/SNP leadership of YES, compared to the smaller spending levels of NO and its multi-headed leadership. Once the campaign restrictions come into play - equal spending limits and TV broadcast rights - these advantages will wither away.
As I've said before, NO do need to sort their game out with a more positive long-term vision for Scotland in the UK - and Murphy, Darling and Brown should probably be much bolder and more prominent, soapboxing across Scotland right at the forefront of the NO campaign - but I see precious little evidence that YES will win. What people do in the ballot box tends to be less emotional and more rational than how they respond to opinion polls and talk down the pub.
(And, yes, that applies to Scots as well. They are a passionate people but just as sensible as the rest of us)
LOL, NO have spent an absolute fortune with the whole of the UK government backing them. The trend for months is towards YES and is unlikely to change. NO has nothing to offer and will continue to nosedive as the failed nonentities keep driving voters to YES. Brown being dug up for next week , along with numpties like Robertson, Hammond etc can only drive people to YES in droves. Darling is hiding because he knows he has been given a shit sandwich and wants to eat as little as he has to. NO has NO feet on the ground they are invisible apart from the doommongers and MSM. YES on the other hand have thousands upon thousands out on the streets every day , each night their are packed meetings. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you live in M25 land and therefore are just daydreaming that putting up those numpties would help. They know what is happening , hence the reason they are almost invisible , they want to be associated with the drubbing as little as they can. Guaranteed Brown's meeting next week will have handpicked audience , mostly pensioners and he will once again refuse to take questions from TV afterwards.
BBC R4 did a box-pop on SINdy ref outcome in England in two areas - the Borders, and Suffolk. In the Borders a 'Yes' vote would be like an earthquake, with uncertainty and concern. In Suffolk (where?, as one of the Scottish side of the Borders interviewees asked) the reaction was very much 'well, its up to them, if they want to go it won't make any difference to me'. When told that the PM was campaigning for Scotland to stay, one replied 'not in my name...'
One thing I have never got about the SNP is its affection for the Scottish diaspora in far away lands, but its seeming reluctance to embrace the one closest to home!
I think you're unnecessarily limiting yourself on things you don't get about the SNP.
One thing I don't get is all these Unionists suddenly becoming entirely relaxed about discarding NI & Wales if a profitable arm of the franchise decides to de-merge from UK PLC. I thought we were 'family'.
I don't think there are many British nationalists in England. I am certainly not relaxed about discarding anyone. I instinctively dislike creating new boundaries to separate people. But I do think that come a Yes vote we will see a lot more specifically English nationalism in England and that when we do that will have significant implications for Northern Ireland and Wales.
I'm oft'-t'-pub'; before I go may I make a polite request? Can people review their posts before publishing: Punctuation on this site would make it more readable.... :{
Typical unionist arrogance, it is OUR currency and no-one has agreed to have anyone else set interest rates or fiscal policy. That is just your deluded arrogant unionist thinking that all powerful Westminster will lay down the law and the Scots will cower at their feet and obey. Feel free to come back with your tail between your legs after the negotiations and your delusions have been shattered.
So 8.4% of the population demands that the 85% should bow-down to the "ethnic" elite? Are you a BoT troll Unckie...?
Fluffy as ever you are confused , what I said was it is our currency now and will be after we are independent. Only unionist smucks would think I meant bow-down when I in fact said "we would continue to use our existing currency". What is for sure is that RUMP will want a deal and it will not be just for them to demand their terms, of that I am sure. We shall see reality after the negotiations.
A Federal UK has been the obvious answer for years, but Westminster politicians won't address it. DevoMax for all four countries of the Union, with only strategic/national issues agreed by the centre.
Curious how a federal UK would deal with issues such as having nuclear weapons? Veto? Or subject to whatever England decides as by far the largest part in such a federation?
You still also have issues with the pound - if say Scotland and Wales want to go on a borrowing binge that depresses the standing of the pound for a more fiscally responsible England, how does that work?
Regarding Cameron's position if there's a Scottish Yes vote, why should he resign any more than did Attlee (oops, not only lost India, the jewel in the crown, but also presided over its partition and descent into one of the most violent episodes in the history of the British empire), or Macmillan, who dismantled most of the rest of the empire, or Lloyd George, who mislaid Eire?
If the Scots want to leave the union, fair enough. It's up to them. And if there is any blame, it will accrue to the Better Together lot, i.e. Labour.
Very silly post Richard. Scotland is part of our country. They are our brethren. They are equal to any other UK citizen and just as valued. This is about dismembering ourselves - severing one of our own limbs - not waving off a quarrelsome ungrateful (and heavily patronised) child into the sunset.
That said, I do not agree that Cameron will resign. For different reasons.
I like the stupid Tory position that better Together is just the Labour party.
Very silly post Richard. Scotland is part of our country. They are our brethren. They are equal to any other UK citizen and just as valued. This is about dismembering ourselves - severing one of our own limbs - not waving off a quarrelsome ungrateful (and heavily patronised) child into the sunset..
No, I think you are viewing early/middle twentieth-century history through 21st century eyes. The attachment to Empire was at least as strong, emotionally, as the union with Scotland. An Englishman, or Scotsman, could and did view the entire Empire as home, as somewhere to go and live, as something to be incredibly proud of, and the population (or at least the white population) as brethren:
As o’er each continent and island The dawn leads on another day, The voice of prayer is never silent, Nor dies the strain of praise away.
The sun that bids us rest is waking Our brethren ’neath the western sky, And hour by hour fresh lips are making Thy wondrous doings heard on high.
If that encapsulates yes's best arguments, then they don't deserve to run a kindergarten, yet alone a country.
Edit: and you call it awesome. Lol, ROFL et al.
Give us a laugh then , another of your hilarious pylon stories. You have no sense of humour whatsoever. A pompous anally retentive prick.
I've got a glorious sense of humour, thanks. It's why I find your posts - and your name calling - so hilarious.
When you get into such extreme name-calling, you've lost the argument. And, perhaps, the plot ...
JJ, if you think they are anything other than banter then you have not lived. You do portray yourself exactly as described so it is not even name calling. Lighten up, if you cannot laugh at yourself then you should not be laughing at others.
Politeness prevents me from explaining exactly how you portray yourself on here.
I'm very light-hearted at the moment. Mrs J's cooking a Sunday roast, I've had some good news recently, and I'm still ROFLMAO at the news about the end of the grand prix.
But as I said, you've lost the argument.
Politeness or just cowardice. How you equate me saying a cartoon was funny to losing an argument is baffling. enjoy your roast.
If YES wins, then the 2015GE should be postponed until 6 months after Scotland has become legally independent and all separation matters put in place. At least that prospect might motivate EdM to support NO or YES.
It's not going to happen, especially as it will take years to sort out the divorce. More likely is a cross-party agreement on the terms of separation so that negotiations can be conducted separate from the normal political process and holding legislation on the status of Scottish MPs in the run-up to independence.
What's a bit less unlikely is bringing the election forwards, especially if Cameron quits and the new leader wants to fight an election off the bounce instead of continuing the coalition.
It would make sense to elect a body to conduct negotiations. Now while I agree that Scottish MPs generally have a right to sit in Parliament up to the point of independence*... surely they should have no right to vote on anything to do wrth independence, as it would be a conflict of interest?
* at which point, if there was a small Labour majority, we could get an immediate Vote of Confidence and/or change of government in the rUK. Which would be an incentive for a Labour government to drag things out indefinitely
I think there would be two things going on. First, you get a negotiation between Scottish and rUK representatives, probably not drawn purely from the Commons. It's possible some Scottish MPs would be part of the Scottish delegation. Then, you need the existing UK parliament to vote to dissolve the existing UK. Scottish MPs would be included in this because it's a UK decision, not an rUK one, and it would be the jobs of the MPs to consider the needs of the whole UK in how they voted, albeit while giving extra weight to their respective constituencies.
2. NO still has one big - but very big - ace to play (if they are clever, which is, uh, far from assured). The three unionist parties can still get together and formally offer Devomax: give Salmond everything he wants (including currency union), only within a Federal UK.
A Federal UK has been the obvious answer for years, but Westminster politicians won't address it. DevoMax for all four countries of the Union, with only strategic/national issues agreed by the centre.
John, the union is only between Scotland and England.
Do Tories really equate the status of Scotland with former colonies of the British Empire? No wonder the Scots have so roundly rejected the Conservative Party.
An uncharacteristically nasty remark from you, Southam.
Certainly in the early and middle twentieth century, British people were fantastically proud of the Empire - all those atlases with most of the habitable world coloured red. The loss of empire was a massive psychological blow, especially coming just after a horrendous war which they'd actually won. I can't see the departure of Scotland, if it happens (which I strongly doubt) being anything like as traumatic. A collective shrug of the shoulders will be the main reaction for most people, although certainly traditional Tories will be dischuffed for sentimental reasons.
I did not mean to be nasty Richard - apologies if you took it that way. I was observing that if Tories such as yourself do see Scottish independence as being equivalent to giving colonies their independence then it does reveal a very particular way of viewing Scotland that I can imagine many Scots would find hugely antagonising.
We do not have long to see whether it will be shrugs all round. I doubt it will be, though I hope you are right.
I've heard quite a few folk now saying that Bettertogether have to change tenor and start emphasising the positive. Ignoring the possibility that after such a long dirge of flat-footed negativity it may be too late (or ineffective), would a positive Unionist care to put together a strategy based on this? Bear in mind there are less than 5 months left, so it needs to happen, like, now.
A Federal UK has been the obvious answer for years, but Westminster politicians won't address it. DevoMax for all four countries of the Union, with only strategic/national issues agreed by the centre.
Curious how a federal UK would deal with issues such as having nuclear weapons? Veto? Or subject to whatever England decides as by far the largest part in such a federation?
You still also have issues with the pound - if say Scotland and Wales want to go on a borrowing binge that depresses the standing of the pound for a more fiscally responsible England, how does that work?
Well I guess anything decided by the central government will have a big English bias as England is ? 85% of the population and the UK Parliament would be heavily English. The countries of the Union would also have to be constrained by rules which limit the amount of deficit spending they can do. Maybe it's too late and for Scottish nationalists the inconsistencies would be too much, however if we had started going down that route ?20 years ago we might have a solution that most people are comfortable with.
A Federal UK has been the obvious answer for years, but Westminster politicians won't address it. DevoMax for all four countries of the Union, with only strategic/national issues agreed by the centre.
Curious how a federal UK would deal with issues such as having nuclear weapons? Veto? Or subject to whatever England decides as by far the largest part in such a federation?
You still also have issues with the pound - if say Scotland and Wales want to go on a borrowing binge that depresses the standing of the pound for a more fiscally responsible England, how does that work?
Nice bias there with those dastardly Wesh and Scottish going on borrowing binge when reality is that it is England that is constantly on a borrowing binge. You have just shown how the elite will never allow real power sharing, it would cramp their borrowing.
Very silly post Richard. Scotland is part of our country. They are our brethren. They are equal to any other UK citizen and just as valued. This is about dismembering ourselves - severing one of our own limbs - not waving off a quarrelsome ungrateful (and heavily patronised) child into the sunset..
No, I think you are viewing early/middle twentieth-century history through 21st century eyes. The attachment to Empire was at least as strong, emotionally, as the union with Scotland. An Englishman, or Scotsman, could and did view the entire Empire as home, as somewhere to go and live, as something to be incredibly proud of, and the population (or at least the white population) as brethren:
As o’er each continent and island The dawn leads on another day, The voice of prayer is never silent, Nor dies the strain of praise away.
The sun that bids us rest is waking Our brethren ’neath the western sky, And hour by hour fresh lips are making Thy wondrous doings heard on high.
Richard: please re-read your post again. Its tone just doesn't read right. It comes across as an Englishman being very patronising and condescending to Scots. I find such posts very frustrating because they are entirely counterproductive to the unionist cause.
Even if you won't admit it on here, I trust you're an intelligent and honest enough man to admit that to yourself privately, offline.
I've heard quite a few folk now saying that Bettertogether have to change tenor and start emphasising the positive. Ignoring the possibility that after such a long dirge of flat-footed negativity it may be too late (or ineffective), would a positive Unionist care to put together a strategy based on this? Bear in mind there are less than 5 months left, so it needs to happen, like, now.
TUD , unfortunately for them they have been using their most positive Unionist case. We were supposed to be doffing our caps by now and thanking them for our scraps.
A Federal UK has been the obvious answer for years, but Westminster politicians won't address it. DevoMax for all four countries of the Union, with only strategic/national issues agreed by the centre.
Curious how a federal UK would deal with issues such as having nuclear weapons? Veto? Or subject to whatever England decides as by far the largest part in such a federation?
You still also have issues with the pound - if say Scotland and Wales want to go on a borrowing binge that depresses the standing of the pound for a more fiscally responsible England, how does that work?
Well I guess anything decided by the central government will have a big English bias as England is ? 85% of the population and the UK Parliament would be heavily English. The countries of the Union would also have to be constrained by rules which limit the amount of deficit spending they can do. Maybe it's too late and for Scottish nationalists the inconsistencies would be too much, however if we had started going down that route ?20 years ago we might have a solution that most people are comfortable with.
Nice description of the current issue John and one that they would want to carry on into any federal solution. The union is bust , you can only shaft and ignore people for so long.
I see the pb ally mcleods are prematurely celebrating yet again. Forget bannockburn remember Argentina '78
Nobody here celebrating , just nice to see the reality we have been pointing out for many months now is sinking in. Care to give us your 1966 speech and enthuse us to vote NO.
Morris Dancer - I hope to be able to attend the PB.com get together in Ilkley in early July, exact location and time still to be agreed I believe. Are you expecting to be there?
2. NO still has one big - but very big - ace to play (if they are clever, which is, uh, far from assured). The three unionist parties can still get together and formally offer Devomax: give Salmond everything he wants (including currency union), only within a Federal UK.
A Federal UK has been the obvious answer for years, but Westminster politicians won't address it. DevoMax for all four countries of the Union, with only strategic/national issues agreed by the centre.
John, the union is only between Scotland and England.
I think you'll find that since the Act of Union 1800 there is also one with Ireland. And England, Wales, Scotland and NI are routinely referred to as "countries" of the UK, of similar status (if actually their degree of autonomy differs, from none in England, which is effectively a directly administered territory unlike the other 3).
England had an earlier union with Wales (which technically had no separate identity) but I am not sure this still holds true following devolution legislation.
But... following your argument...
If Scotland votes Yes, if England (& Wales) declares UDI first, that leaves you with your Ulster plantations. WOO HOO [does back flip]
We are assuming the rUK response to a Yes vote would be to retain the UK, without Scotland. That is surely not the only response. We could instead repeal the Acts of Union 1707 and 1800. England (with Wales) would be a separate Kingdon, but I am sure would still be regarded in international terms as the successor state to the UK (just as Russia took over the international roles & obligations of the USSR).
If that encapsulates yes's best arguments, then they don't deserve to run a kindergarten, yet alone a country.
Edit: and you call it awesome. Lol, ROFL et al.
Give us a laugh then , another of your hilarious pylon stories. You have no sense of humour whatsoever. A pompous anally retentive prick.
I've got a glorious sense of humour, thanks. It's why I find your posts - and your name calling - so hilarious.
When you get into such extreme name-calling, you've lost the argument. And, perhaps, the plot ...
JJ, if you think they are anything other than banter then you have not lived. You do portray yourself exactly as described so it is not even name calling. Lighten up, if you cannot laugh at yourself then you should not be laughing at others.
Politeness prevents me from explaining exactly how you portray yourself on here.
I'm very light-hearted at the moment. Mrs J's cooking a Sunday roast, I've had some good news recently, and I'm still ROFLMAO at the news about the end of the grand prix.
But as I said, you've lost the argument.
Politeness or just cowardice. How you equate me saying a cartoon was funny to losing an argument is baffling. enjoy your roast.
Heh. So I'm a coward now as well, am I?
I also suggest you re-read what I wrote below in response to the cartoon - you've evidently misread it.
Half-time in Norwich/Liverpool game.My correct scores are down the tubes already and avoiding a massacre will be some thing of an achievement for Canaries fans. It seems the coalition government and Norwich City have something in common in that they are both involved in the race to the bottom.
Nice bias there with those dastardly Wesh and Scottish going on borrowing binge when reality is that it is England that is constantly on a borrowing binge. You have just shown how the elite will never allow real power sharing, it would cramp their borrowing.
Source?
Before making yourself a bigger fool please demonstrate some evidence. As is currently accepted - even by Penddu - the Celtic-fringe is a cost to England of ~£20billion p.a. (largely Wales and the Ulster-Scots).
I think Scotland floats - like oil and other detritus things - but it is not funding nor benefiting from England. Most recent evidence is that a) Scotland has a larger deficit than "rUK", and b) her growth-rates are pretty dire. This is all happening under Slobo's Eck's watch.
England is moving to surplus within the next few years (including Welsh and Oirish liabilities): Scotland is still spending beyond her means. Unckie; please do not let national prejudices blinker your hopes for Scots' independence! I really do not wish to fund your pension over mine...!
England [and Scotland are] a kingdom, Wales is a principality and Northern Ireland's a province.
The uppityness of the Scots is causing Her Majesty to reconsider this distribution.
At the same time the loyalty of the Northern Irish is to be rewarded. A Palatinate Duchy is being considered with our very own Alanbrooke mooted for the role.
I think you'll find it will be Lord McGuinness of Foyle who will get the honours Mr P.
I've been quietly laughing as the Irish are doing their damnedest to replace the Scots as best neighbour. While the Scotnats have been genetically engineering more chips for their shoulders the Irish have been slowly filling the slots they are vacating.
Too stupid remains the killer.
But what happens when the Taig birthrate overtakes the Prod? And the children reach 18? IIRC it's likely that a vote for joining the Republic in about 2030 will give a (small admittedly) majority in the Six Counties in favour of reunification.
I probably shan't care then, but can we ensure that Ian Paisley Jnr and his friends are told to stay there and not flee to England. I'm sure Scotland borders will be closed!
You've not exactly been following events closely. Currently the birth rates have swapped, but the two barriers to a UI remain, more catholics want to stay in the UK than leave; the South thinks the norths a basket case and doesn't want it. Can't see unity happening any time soon unless a black swan turns up.
Point taken about the South and it's view of the North. Secondly the birthrate has to achieve a pint, but the number of 18 year olds has also to achieve that point. AFAIK, that hasn't been reached yet.
And, to be fair, very few thinking Nationalists would have wanted to join the RoI over the past few years, it's economic sitiation being what it was!
There's an annual survey on attitudes in NI. last time those favouring Unity was about 20-25%. You sort of got the impression it was reality by the strength of denials from SF.
Makes my point really. Why would you want to join a basket case economy? Given that the economic situation in the RoI is slowly improving, wonder what the next survey or two will show.
I, personally, am not bothered too much either way, so long as mainland UK, with or without Scotland, doesn't have to support NI
If YES wins, then the 2015GE should be postponed until 6 months after Scotland has become legally independent and all separation matters put in place. At least that prospect might motivate EdM to support NO or YES.
It's not going to happen, especially as it will take years to sort out the divorce. More likely is a cross-party agreement on the terms of separation so that negotiations can be conducted separate from the normal political process and holding legislation on the status of Scottish MPs in the run-up to independence.
What's a bit less unlikely is bringing the election forwards, especially if Cameron quits and the new leader wants to fight an election off the bounce instead of continuing the coalition.
It would make sense to elect a body to conduct negotiations. Now while I agree that Scottish MPs generally have a right to sit in Parliament up to the point of independence*... surely they should have no right to vote on anything to do wrth independence, as it would be a conflict of interest?
* at which point, if there was a small Labour majority, we could get an immediate Vote of Confidence and/or change of government in the rUK. Which would be an incentive for a Labour government to drag things out indefinitely
Then, you need the existing UK parliament to vote to dissolve the existing UK. Scottish MPs would be included in this because it's a UK decision, not an rUK one, and it would be the jobs of the MPs to consider the needs of the whole UK in how they voted, albeit while giving extra weight to their respective constituencies.
It doesn't have to be a dissolution. It could be a formal expulsion. Or the recognition of a Scottish government and the cession of land to it.
Very silly post Richard. Scotland is part of our country. They are our brethren. They are equal to any other UK citizen and just as valued. This is about dismembering ourselves - severing one of our own limbs - not waving off a quarrelsome ungrateful (and heavily patronised) child into the sunset..
No, I think you are viewing early/middle twentieth-century history through 21st century eyes. The attachment to Empire was at least as strong, emotionally, as the union with Scotland. An Englishman, or Scotsman, could and did view the entire Empire as home, as somewhere to go and live, as something to be incredibly proud of, and the population (or at least the white population) as brethren:
As o’er each continent and island The dawn leads on another day, The voice of prayer is never silent, Nor dies the strain of praise away.
The sun that bids us rest is waking Our brethren ’neath the western sky, And hour by hour fresh lips are making Thy wondrous doings heard on high.
Richard: please re-read your post again. Its tone just doesn't read right. It comes across as an Englishman being very patronising and condescending to Scots. I find such posts very frustrating because they are entirely counterproductive to the unionist cause.
Even if you won't admit it on here, I trust you're an intelligent and honest enough man to admit that to yourself privately, offline.
This is a site for trying to work out what's going on not for swaying floating voters, so unless they're personally running for office there's no need for people posting here to worry about what cause their comments may or may not be counter-productive to.
I've heard quite a few folk now saying that Bettertogether have to change tenor and start emphasising the positive. Ignoring the possibility that after such a long dirge of flat-footed negativity it may be too late (or ineffective), would a positive Unionist care to put together a strategy based on this? Bear in mind there are less than 5 months left, so it needs to happen, like, now.
Mr. Divvie, I strongly suspect that no positive case for maintaining the Union has been made because nobody can think of one. Any such case should, I think, be made solely by the Scots who want to stay in the Union and no politician, or anyone else fro that matter, from EWNI should have anything to do with it. The decision and hence the debate is one for Scots alone.
The only time an English politician should speak on the matter is to give the English view on some of the over-enthusiastic statements made by either side (e.g. currency union or future RN contracts).
That said, for the sake of discussion on this board, I have yet to hear any of those that want to maintain the Union put up any sort of positive case for it. SeanT says Scotland is a vital part of the UK, but doesn't say why he thinks that. I strongly suspect that most Englishmen couldn't give a stuff either way, which makes the idea of Cameron having to resign in the event of a yes vote rather silly.
If YES wins, then the 2015GE should be postponed until 6 months after Scotland has become legally independent and all separation matters put in place. At least that prospect might motivate EdM to support NO or YES.
It's not going to happen, especially as it will take years to sort out the divorce. More likely is a cross-party agreement on the terms of separation so that negotiations can be conducted separate from the normal political process and holding legislation on the status of Scottish MPs in the run-up to independence.
What's a bit less unlikely is bringing the election forwards, especially if Cameron quits and the new leader wants to fight an election off the bounce instead of continuing the coalition.
It would make sense to elect a body to conduct negotiations. Now while I agree that Scottish MPs generally have a right to sit in Parliament up to the point of independence*... surely they should have no right to vote on anything to do wrth independence, as it would be a conflict of interest?
* at which point, if there was a small Labour majority, we could get an immediate Vote of Confidence and/or change of government in the rUK. Which would be an incentive for a Labour government to drag things out indefinitely
Then, you need the existing UK parliament to vote to dissolve the existing UK. Scottish MPs would be included in this because it's a UK decision, not an rUK one, and it would be the jobs of the MPs to consider the needs of the whole UK in how they voted, albeit while giving extra weight to their respective constituencies.
It doesn't have to be a dissolution. It could be a formal expulsion. Or the recognition of a Scottish government and the cession of land to it.
An explusion would also be a full UK issue, not an rUK issue. You don't lose the right to vote just because it's about your constituency. If you did the Scottish MPs could jump in first and vote to expel England from the UK.
Nice bias there with those dastardly Wesh and Scottish going on borrowing binge when reality is that it is England that is constantly on a borrowing binge. You have just shown how the elite will never allow real power sharing, it would cramp their borrowing.
Source?
Before making yourself a bigger fool please demonstrate some evidence. As is currently accepted - even by Penddu - the Celtic-fringe is a cost to England of ~£20billion p.a. (largely Wales and the Ulster-Scots).
I think Scotland floats - like oil and other detritus things - but it is not funding nor benefiting from England. Most recent evidence is that a) Scotland has a larger deficit than "rUK", and b) her growth-rates are pretty dire. This is all happening under Slobo's Eck's watch.
England is moving to surplus within the next few years (including Welsh and Oirish liabilities): Scotland is still spending beyond her means. Unckie; please do not let national prejudices blinker your hopes for Scots' independence! I really do not wish to fund your pension over mine...!
Fluffy, I believe if you bother to go and check the data , Scotland has contributed more to UK than it received back on almost all occasions over the last 30 years and that is before you count all the jobs we are funding in the south. 46% of military cuts alone have been in Scotland , pretty fair given we are 8% of population. Now F**k off to the pub and do something useful rather than pathetic Little Englander whinging on here.
An explusion would also be a full UK issue, not an rUK issue. You don't lose the right to vote just because it's about your constituency. If you did the Scottish MPs could jump in first and vote to expel England from the UK.
Well, that's not likely due to the disparity in size. Yes I agree Scottish UK MPs have the right to vote on any Act of Parliament that is being passed to make Scottish independence happen, my point was that it would be a bit odd if they were to act as a part of the UK Parliament negotiating independence with themselves.
I used to be a bit more blase about Scottish independence but from following arguments on here, I think there are important ramifications for the rUK. We need to be discussing the negotiating strategy for spawning an independent Scotland in a way that supports our interests. Why not just repeal the Act of Union, and then negotiate as independent countries? What would happen to NI if we repealed the Act of Union 1707 and not the 1800 one? I think English (or maybe English & Welsh) UDI should be considered and of course the English have a big majority in Parliament.
If that encapsulates yes's best arguments, then they don't deserve to run a kindergarten, yet alone a country.
Edit: and you call it awesome. Lol, ROFL et al.
Give us a laugh then , another of your hilarious pylon stories. You have no sense of humour whatsoever. A pompous anally retentive prick.
I've got a glorious sense of humour, thanks. It's why I find your posts - and your name calling - so hilarious.
When you get into such extreme name-calling, you've lost the argument. And, perhaps, the plot ...
JJ, if you think they are anything other than banter then you have not lived. You do portray yourself exactly as described so it is not even name calling. Lighten up, if you cannot laugh at yourself then you should not be laughing at others.
Politeness prevents me from explaining exactly how you portray yourself on here.
I'm very light-hearted at the moment. Mrs J's cooking a Sunday roast, I've had some good news recently, and I'm still ROFLMAO at the news about the end of the grand prix.
But as I said, you've lost the argument.
Politeness or just cowardice. How you equate me saying a cartoon was funny to losing an argument is baffling. enjoy your roast.
Heh. So I'm a coward now as well, am I?
I also suggest you re-read what I wrote below in response to the cartoon - you've evidently misread it.
JJ, I just read that you thought the cartoons were crap. Regardless of positions it is obvious the guy is very talented and the cartoons poke fun at politicians and so are very funny.
I've heard quite a few folk now saying that Bettertogether have to change tenor and start emphasising the positive. Ignoring the possibility that after such a long dirge of flat-footed negativity it may be too late (or ineffective), would a positive Unionist care to put together a strategy based on this? Bear in mind there are less than 5 months left, so it needs to happen, like, now.
Mr. Divvie, I strongly suspect that no positive case for maintaining the Union has been made because nobody can think of one. Any such case should, I think, be made solely by the Scots who want to stay in the Union and no politician, or anyone else fro that matter, from EWNI should have anything to do with it. The decision and hence the debate is one for Scots alone.
The only time an English politician should speak on the matter is to give the English view on some of the over-enthusiastic statements made by either side (e.g. currency union or future RN contracts).
That said, for the sake of discussion on this board, I have yet to hear any of those that want to maintain the Union put up any sort of positive case for it. SeanT says Scotland is a vital part of the UK, but doesn't say why he thinks that. I strongly suspect that most Englishmen couldn't give a stuff either way, which makes the idea of Cameron having to resign in the event of a yes vote rather silly.
I'd have a crack at giving one:
We have a great deal in common; the differences are less important than the myriad of things we have in common. We have a shared history and a shared future. We are more than friends; we are family.
What is more, we will both be more prosperous together than divided. It is not a zero-sum game: being together benefits both sides more than if we were divided. As a united Kingdom, we are larger than the sum of our parts. We can offer each other security and friendship.
Being together does not mean anyone has to lose their identity: your identity, my identity, even SeanT's identity, are all welcome.
And to bring this to F1: you provide the drivers, and we'll provide the cars, ;-)
There is no problem with Scotland keeping the £ after independence, They can revert to the £Scots which in 1707 had an exchange rate of 12£Scots = 1£Sterling
I've heard quite a few folk now saying that Bettertogether have to change tenor and start emphasising the positive. Ignoring the possibility that after such a long dirge of flat-footed negativity it may be too late (or ineffective), would a positive Unionist care to put together a strategy based on this? Bear in mind there are less than 5 months left, so it needs to happen, like, now.
Mr. Divvie, I strongly suspect that no positive case for maintaining the Union has been made because nobody can think of one. Any such case should, I think, be made solely by the Scots who want to stay in the Union and no politician, or anyone else fro that matter, from EWNI should have anything to do with it. The decision and hence the debate is one for Scots alone.
The only time an English politician should speak on the matter is to give the English view on some of the over-enthusiastic statements made by either side (e.g. currency union or future RN contracts).
That said, for the sake of discussion on this board, I have yet to hear any of those that want to maintain the Union put up any sort of positive case for it. SeanT says Scotland is a vital part of the UK, but doesn't say why he thinks that. I strongly suspect that most Englishmen couldn't give a stuff either way, which makes the idea of Cameron having to resign in the event of a yes vote rather silly.
Yes, that's what's struck me. There seems to be a quite genuine & sincere desire for there to be a positive case for the Union, just an inability to identify & express it.
It does mean what you mean by a positive case. More prosperous and more influential together, while united by common bonds of history, culture and beliefs seems pretty positive to me.
It's clearly getting close, but both polls still show No ahead, so we shouldn't treat it as a done deal for Yes. Is there a case for another joint initiative by the UK parties, this time not negative (if you leave you can't keep the currency) but positive - reasons we hope you'll stay, the extent of devolution we agree on, etc.?
A month ago you were glibly and loftily dismissing fears of a YES vote ("I was talking to a Scottish friend the other day, the No campaign has not begun, there's nothing to worry about").
I told you this was ridiculously complacent; I was right and you were wrong.
I think you're confusing me with someone else - I don't recall calling Scottish friends' anecdotal views in. Understandable considering your great age, of course - like the small and beloved rodents who I've had as pets, you live life at a very high metabolic rate, so are about 112 in normal terms. I told you I wasn't much bothered. You told me I was a scoundrel. That was about it, as per usual.
The independence debate has fortunately passed most of we Anglos by. I doubt if a lot will change even if you vote 'Yes'. We'll still have open borders and Scots flooding South when they want to. You may find a lot more twee Scottishness if Salmond turns into a De Valera clone.
It does mean what you mean by a positive case. More prosperous and more influential together, while united by common bonds of history, culture and beliefs seems pretty positive to me.
I see the pb ally mcleods are prematurely celebrating yet again. Forget bannockburn remember Argentina '78
Nobody here celebrating , just nice to see the reality we have been pointing out for many months now is sinking in. Care to give us your 1966 speech and enthuse us to vote NO.
Wasn't born in '66 so it doesn't mean much to me. And I suspect England's performance in Brazil is unlikely to cause offence to those who seek offence to be caused. Polls are closer but (with the exception of this ICM) no fairly solid. Good campaign from the Nats so far - if its done one thing it has made real to everyone that Scotland could go it alone if it wanted to which was the first big hurdle so now its a pragmatic one of is it worth it and what are the risks.
If yes Scotland should contribute to the upkeep of Northern Ireland given its central role in creating and stoking the problems in the first place. English taxpayers would end up subsidising Scotland's two leading football clubs through benefit payments to their NI based supporters.
I've heard quite a few folk now saying that Bettertogether have to change tenor and start emphasising the positive. Ignoring the possibility that after such a long dirge of flat-footed negativity it may be too late (or ineffective), would a positive Unionist care to put together a strategy based on this? Bear in mind there are less than 5 months left, so it needs to happen, like, now.
Mr. Divvie, I strongly suspect that no positive case for maintaining the Union has been made because nobody can think of one. Any such case should, I think, be made solely by the Scots who want to stay in the Union and no politician, or anyone else fro that matter, from EWNI should have anything to do with it. The decision and hence the debate is one for Scots alone.
The only time an English politician should speak on the matter is to give the English view on some of the over-enthusiastic statements made by either side (e.g. currency union or future RN contracts).
That said, for the sake of discussion on this board, I have yet to hear any of those that want to maintain the Union put up any sort of positive case for it. SeanT says Scotland is a vital part of the UK, but doesn't say why he thinks that. I strongly suspect that most Englishmen couldn't give a stuff either way, which makes the idea of Cameron having to resign in the event of a yes vote rather silly.
I'd have a crack at giving one:
We have a great deal in common; the differences are less important than the myriad of things we have in common. We have a shared history and a shared future. We are more than friends; we are family.
What is more, we will both be more prosperous together than divided. It is not a zero-sum game: being together benefits both sides more than if we were divided. As a united Kingdom, we are larger than the sum of our parts. We can offer each other security and friendship.
Being together does not mean anyone has to lose their identity: your identity, my identity, even SeanT's identity, are all welcome.
And to bring this to F1: you provide the drivers, and we'll provide the cars, ;-)
(Waits to get flamed by the usual suspects)
Just wishy washy waffle, not one thing that is a fact that makes it better. Pure fanny speak when you have nothing factual to add. Let me show you a fact. Scotland when independent will get rid of Bedroom tax , will reduce or get rid of APD , both of these are detrimental to Scottish interests but are applied due to westminster. Try giving us a fact rather than wonk speak.
PS:the only decent thing you posted security and friendship do not disappear just because we are independent. Lots and lots of independent countries are friendly and work together on security.
England [and Scotland are] a kingdom, Wales is a principality and Northern Ireland's a province.
The uppityness of the Scots is causing Her Majesty to reconsider this distribution.
At the same time the loyalty of the Northern Irish is to be rewarded. A Palatinate Duchy is being considered with our very own Alanbrooke mooted for the role.
I think you'll find it will be Lord McGuinness of Foyle who will get the honours Mr P.
I've been quietly laughing as the Irish are doing their damnedest to replace the Scots as best neighbour. While the Scotnats have been genetically engineering more chips for their shoulders the Irish have been slowly filling the slots they are vacating.
Too stupid remains the killer.
But what happens when the Taig birthrate overtakes the Prod? And the children reach 18? IIRC it's likely that a vote for joining the Republic in about 2030 will give a (small admittedly) majority in the Six Counties in favour of reunification.
I probably shan't care then, but can we ensure that Ian Paisley Jnr and his friends are told to stay there and not flee to England. I'm sure Scotland borders will be closed!
You've not exactly been following events closely. Currently the birth rates have swapped, but the two barriers to a UI remain, more catholics want to stay in the UK than leave; the South thinks the norths a basket case and doesn't want it. Can't see unity happening any time soon unless a black swan turns up.
Point taken about the South and it's view of the North. Secondly the birthrate has to achieve a pint, but the number of 18 year olds has also to achieve that point. AFAIK, that hasn't been reached yet.
And, to be fair, very few thinking Nationalists would have wanted to join the RoI over the past few years, it's economic sitiation being what it was!
There's an annual survey on attitudes in NI. last time those favouring Unity was about 20-25%. You sort of got the impression it was reality by the strength of denials from SF.
Makes my point really. Why would you want to join a basket case economy? Given that the economic situation in the RoI is slowly improving, wonder what the next survey or two will show.
I, personally, am not bothered too much either way, so long as mainland UK, with or without Scotland, doesn't have to support NI
Do you realise just how much shit the RoI is in. The UK looks good by comparison and were Fked for the next 25 years. You've taken the Irish off the critical surgery list and said they can run a marathon.
Comments
I have heard they are looking into the possibility of selling their "grannies" as well.
"They know the price of everything, but not the value"
And, to be fair, very few thinking Nationalists would have wanted to join the RoI over the past few years, it's economic sitiation being what it was!
If the Scots want to leave the union, fair enough. It's up to them. And if there is any blame, it will accrue to the Better Together lot, i.e. Labour.
No, really. This is weird:
http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/9274835/chinese-gp-race-result-rewinded-after-chequered-flag-is-waved-prematurely
Alchohol dependency needs tackling at the root, It's the same with education.
All the money and fancy new ideas will never solve it until the underlying causes are sorted.
It does however need a radical new way of thinking that our moribund system can never contemplate.
Hopes high?
When you get into such extreme name-calling, you've lost the argument. And, perhaps, the plot ...
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/china-post-race-analysis.html
Calm down dears; it's only an opinion poll. Has there been a single reputable poll that has shown YES with a lead in the last year, let alone a commanding one?
No? Thought not.
There is bound to be tightening and loosening of the polls as the big day approaches. This fervour will only increase as the campaign develops over the summer, before settling down in the last 2 weeks to a clearer final position.
I suspect what we are seeing now is the combined effect of early splurging of the Weirs lottery donations and the single-minded Salmond/SNP leadership of YES, compared to the smaller spending levels of NO and its multi-headed leadership. Once the campaign restrictions come into play - equal spending limits and TV broadcast rights - these advantages will wither away.
As I've said before, NO do need to sort their game out with a more positive long-term vision for Scotland in the UK - and Murphy, Darling and Brown should probably be much bolder and more prominent, soapboxing across Scotland right at the forefront of the NO campaign - but I see precious little evidence that YES will win. What people do in the ballot box tends to be less emotional and more rational than how they respond to opinion polls and talk down the pub.
(And, yes, that applies to Scots as well. They are a passionate people but just as sensible as the rest of us)
Certainly in the early and middle twentieth century, British people were fantastically proud of the Empire - all those atlases with most of the habitable world coloured red. The loss of empire was a massive psychological blow, especially coming just after a horrendous war which they'd actually won. I can't see the departure of Scotland, if it happens (which I strongly doubt) being anything like as traumatic. A collective shrug of the shoulders will be the main reaction for most people, although certainly traditional Tories will be dischuffed for sentimental reasons.
Plans to invade Scotland, and Cameron will have to resign when they come out?
You are a thriller writer.....with a vivid imagination......
That said, I do not agree that Cameron will resign. For different reasons.
The marshals were a bit happy with the blue flags too.
Anyway, time to go forth and exercise.
Re: SNP GE Seats:
Those nice people at Ladbrokes are offering odds of 4/6 (1.67= decimal) on the SNP winning more than the 6 out of 59 Scottish seats at the next UK General Election.
Bearing in mind their substantial lead in the opinion polls coupled with the prospect of an excellent "Yes" showing in the forthcoming independence referendum, it seems a "gimme" to me that they will fare better than the half dozen seats they managed to win at the 2010 GE, but as always do your own research.
Ladbrokes' odds for opposing this bet, i.e. for the SNP to win 6 or fewer seats, are 6/5.
I think I pointed out in a previous thread that governments tend to create problems rather than actually solving them. This is usually because they are wedded to an ideology rather than working out what is "best".
One thing I don't get is all these Unionists suddenly becoming entirely relaxed about discarding NI & Wales if a profitable arm of the franchise decides to de-merge from UK PLC. I thought we were 'family'.
I'm very light-hearted at the moment. Mrs J's cooking a Sunday roast, I've had some good news recently, and I'm still ROFLMAO at the news about the end of the grand prix.
But as I said, you've lost the argument.
* at which point, if there was a small Labour majority, we could get an immediate Vote of Confidence and/or change of government in the rUK. Which would be an incentive for a Labour government to drag things out indefinitely
We do not have long to see whether it will be shrugs all round. I doubt it will be, though I hope you are right.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you live in M25 land and therefore are just daydreaming that putting up those numpties would help.
They know what is happening , hence the reason they are almost invisible , they want to be associated with the drubbing as little as they can.
Guaranteed Brown's meeting next week will have handpicked audience , mostly pensioners and he will once again refuse to take questions from TV afterwards.
What is for sure is that RUMP will want a deal and it will not be just for them to demand their terms, of that I am sure. We shall see reality after the negotiations.
You still also have issues with the pound - if say Scotland and Wales want to go on a borrowing binge that depresses the standing of the pound for a more fiscally responsible England, how does that work?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2608606/No-ID-no-checks-vouchers-sob-stories-The-truth-shock-food-bank-claims.html
As o’er each continent and island
The dawn leads on another day,
The voice of prayer is never silent,
Nor dies the strain of praise away.
The sun that bids us rest is waking
Our brethren ’neath the western sky,
And hour by hour fresh lips are making
Thy wondrous doings heard on high.
just shown how the elite will never allow real power sharing, it would cramp their borrowing.
Even if you won't admit it on here, I trust you're an intelligent and honest enough man to admit that to yourself privately, offline.
Care to give us your 1966 speech and enthuse us to vote NO.
England had an earlier union with Wales (which technically had no separate identity) but I am not sure this still holds true following devolution legislation.
But... following your argument...
If Scotland votes Yes, if England (& Wales) declares UDI first, that leaves you with your Ulster plantations. WOO HOO [does back flip]
We are assuming the rUK response to a Yes vote would be to retain the UK, without Scotland. That is surely not the only response. We could instead repeal the Acts of Union 1707 and 1800. England (with Wales) would be a separate Kingdon, but I am sure would still be regarded in international terms as the successor state to the UK (just as Russia took over the international roles & obligations of the USSR).
I also suggest you re-read what I wrote below in response to the cartoon - you've evidently misread it.
It seems the coalition government and Norwich City have something in common in that they are both involved in the race to the bottom.
Before making yourself a bigger fool please demonstrate some evidence. As is currently accepted - even by Penddu - the Celtic-fringe is a cost to England of ~£20billion p.a. (largely Wales and the Ulster-Scots).
I think Scotland floats - like oil and other detritus things - but it is not funding nor benefiting from England. Most recent evidence is that a) Scotland has a larger deficit than "rUK", and b) her growth-rates are pretty dire. This is all happening under Slobo's Eck's watch.
England is moving to surplus within the next few years (including Welsh and Oirish liabilities): Scotland is still spending beyond her means. Unckie; please do not let national prejudices blinker your hopes for Scots' independence! I really do not wish to fund your pension over mine...!
I, personally, am not bothered too much either way, so long as mainland UK, with or without Scotland, doesn't have to support NI
The only time an English politician should speak on the matter is to give the English view on some of the over-enthusiastic statements made by either side (e.g. currency union or future RN contracts).
That said, for the sake of discussion on this board, I have yet to hear any of those that want to maintain the Union put up any sort of positive case for it. SeanT says Scotland is a vital part of the UK, but doesn't say why he thinks that. I strongly suspect that most Englishmen couldn't give a stuff either way, which makes the idea of Cameron having to resign in the event of a yes vote rather silly.
Now F**k off to the pub and do something useful rather than pathetic Little Englander whinging on here.
I used to be a bit more blase about Scottish independence but from following arguments on here, I think there are important ramifications for the rUK. We need to be discussing the negotiating strategy for spawning an independent Scotland in a way that supports our interests. Why not just repeal the Act of Union, and then negotiate as independent countries? What would happen to NI if we repealed the Act of Union 1707 and not the 1800 one? I think English (or maybe English & Welsh) UDI should be considered and of course the English have a big majority in Parliament.
We have a great deal in common; the differences are less important than the myriad of things we have in common. We have a shared history and a shared future. We are more than friends; we are family.
What is more, we will both be more prosperous together than divided. It is not a zero-sum game: being together benefits both sides more than if we were divided. As a united Kingdom, we are larger than the sum of our parts. We can offer each other security and friendship.
Being together does not mean anyone has to lose their identity: your identity, my identity, even SeanT's identity, are all welcome.
And to bring this to F1: you provide the drivers, and we'll provide the cars, ;-)
(Waits to get flamed by the usual suspects)
The independence debate has fortunately passed most of we Anglos by. I doubt if a lot will change even if you vote 'Yes'. We'll still have open borders and Scots flooding South when they want to. You may find a lot more twee Scottishness if Salmond turns into a De Valera clone.
Not sure about the Pound, though.
If yes Scotland should contribute to the upkeep of Northern Ireland given its central role in creating and stoking the problems in the first place. English taxpayers would end up subsidising Scotland's two leading football clubs through benefit payments to their NI based supporters.
Scotland when independent will get rid of Bedroom tax , will reduce or get rid of APD , both of these are detrimental to Scottish interests but are applied due to westminster.
Try giving us a fact rather than wonk speak.
PS:the only decent thing you posted security and friendship do not disappear just because we are independent. Lots and lots of independent countries are friendly and work together on security.