BS: Scotless

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 12:22 PM

A pibroch isn't a musical instrument, it's a piece of music composed for the pipes as a lament for the dead.
I haven't personally made puerile jibes, but the Scots certainly are anti-English. And I understand why and sympathise with their viewpoint.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 10:42 AM

Still more insulting talk. What's the matter with you supporters of the Union? You say the Scots are anti English but you can do is make puerile jibes.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 09:56 AM

I say I am FROM Canada. I was born a Newfoundlander. Newfoundland bankrupted its self twice supporting England in war and pushed into a union with Canada because Britain would not be able to bleed us dry again if we entered into an economic partnership with the USA.

I cheer for Canada in the winter Olympics but that is largely out of habit. I cheer for Brazil in the world cup of soccer but that doesn't mean you are going to catch me on Copacabana anytime soon wearing a string thong up the crack of my butt.

Akenton, Musket makes a good point. If "yes" wins, get out your blue face paint and your claymores and play the pibrochs whatever they are, loud and clear because you will be in for a battle where England holds more of the cards than when Bonnie Charlie took his stand.

I hope for your sake your national pride win sustain you and replace in your hearts the comfort and relative prosperity you feel today.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Musket
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 08:10 AM

I like The SNP as a party in power under the devolution criteria. I am so glad they won because despite his silly notions over a vote he didn't want yet, (lest we forget) Salmond is the type of socialist liberal you can admire. Whether it be gay rights or stamping out persecution of travellers, there are many reasons to admire him.

Isn't that right worm?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 07:21 AM

Ah Mr T....I remember your Predictions of Doom, before the election of the SNP to lead the Scottish Government"

Guess who won....by a landslide?

I have a better record on seeing into the political future, and I see Freedom!

Will you have a vote Mr T?.....just out of interest, no malice intended :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 06:21 AM

Basically the percentages related to the YES (32%) and the NO (57%) camps has remained unchanged.

When those who declared themselves as "undecided" were polled in an Ipsos MORI survey for STV 34% of the undecideds" said they would now vote NO, 16% of them said they would vote YES and 44% said their stance remained unchanged (What the remaining 6% of the "undecideds" said was probably unintelligible).

Come the 19th September the result will be announced as a clear and massive NO.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Musket
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 06:18 AM

Yeah, and then they want their own country!

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 06:12 AM

More negativity and insults.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Musket
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 05:09 AM

Come on Jack. I bet you say you are Canadian, rather than American? (Every Canadian I know makes the distinction, yet you have as much right as anyone else On the continent to call yourself American. I know I have said it before, but I saw a wonderful T-shirt in Vancouver a few years ago. Canadian {noun} Unarmed American with healthcare.

There seems to debate as to whether the term United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is still a valid term of reference if we repair the breeches in Hadrian's Wall?

Well, nobody worries about a country called The United States of America!

It isn't every day I applaud an approach by the government but I do feel it somewhat positive that regardless of whether I like their politics, ministers are pointing out what they are paid to point out. They are entrusted to act in the interest of The United kingdom, so it would be wrong for them not to state an opinion on something that could be to our detriment, and "our" includes the people of Scotland if you hadn't noticed. The stance on monetary union is valid because it could affect the people of The UK.

Storm in a teacup, but amusing debate, with the Wallace wannabes coming out of their closet. We'll have forgot about it by October. Sadly, I have to give a talk in Edinburgh this weekend, (been cancelled twice..) and cannot avoid speaking of professional accreditation recognition. A bit of an issue for many. After all. Even my own responsible adult is a fellow of The Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, as are many more. The Ireland college needed an inter government agreement after the forming of The Free State.

Give 'em a bloody Parliament, they want a sodding country. (OK, a sodden country.)

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Mr Happy
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 05:06 AM

[Great= Large] Britain is a geographical term describing the large island containing Wales, England and Scotland & differentiating it from 'Small Britain' aka Brittany

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 04:47 AM

I see that in the current Ukraine issue, the West is arguing that people from outside, I.e. Russia should keep out of the argument as it is for the people of Ukraine to decide their fate. So much for the people outside Scotland wanting a vote on the future Referendum. And the EU is screaming for them to join while Ukraine is almost bankrupt and Barroso says it could be impossible for Scotland to join. What a load of two faced, hypocritical "people".

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 03:08 AM

Always a master of gentle irony, is Mr McGrath!    :0)

Hope you are well Sir?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 11:12 PM

"I would certainly like to see something like the Scandinavian model adopted after the referendum, we have all the resources we need here to make a success of our economy and our society."

If I was English or Welsh, I'd have some reservations about Scotland taking the offshore oil and enough of the Navy to defend it. Scots might find their troubles have just have just begun after a "yes" vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 07:55 PM

With any luck David Cameron might throw his energies into campaigning for a No vote. That could decide it.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,DTM
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 07:24 PM

Just read through the above posts.
There's some real twaddle in that lot.

"The Scots hate the English"? Nonsense. There are some bampots in that mode I grant you but they are well in the minority.
You'll also find the majority of that 'hate' is mainly directed at the south east - i.e. the hub of the Universe. FWIW, Liverpool and Newcastle have more in common with Glasgow and Edinburgh than London.

If it's a YES win and Scotland screw everything up then the people who live in Scotland will have screwed up. Better that than leaving it to a mini-mafia of ex-public schoolboys do it.

With mixed feelings, I fear more for the future of Scotland and its residents if it votes no.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 04:14 PM

Nor I you, Topsie. I was just wondering where devolution stops.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 03:14 PM

I am amused by the opinions voiced here by folks from all over.

This is a question solely for the people residing in Scotland, we must decide which is the best road forward. I favour independence and have watched the gap between the Yes and NO camps narrow considerably over the past few months. I think we will vote for independence in September, but three month ago I would have guessed the reverse.
There is certainly a change in political opinion in Scotland, in the face of almost complete media opposition.
I would certainly like to see something like the Scandinavian model adopted after the referendum, we have all the resources we need here to make a success of our economy and our society.

The media opposition has forced Alex Salmond to "play politics" a bit, he has said that he wants Scotland to be an EU member, but I think should he win, within three years we will be a real sovereign nation without legal ties to the Brussles lawmakers.

But first things first......EH no'?   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 02:31 PM

If that was the alternative it would ensure a massive vote for independence.

Counties might be the best level for most things.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 01:50 PM

Are you suggesting devolution for every area? if so, how far do you take it?

England has a population over 5 times greater than that of Scotland, Wales and Northern Island put together. The latter three countries have their parliament and assemblies but, on purely English matters, England must put up with the interference of MPs with no interest in its affairs.

The population of 4 of the 9 English regions approximate to that of Scotland and 3 others are around half as big again. Only one English region has a population smaller than Wales and none are smaller than Northern Ireland. Why shouldn't the English regions have the same devolved powers as the non-English parts of the UK have.

I am not sure if regional devolution would provide any tangible benefits but I am certain that it would come at a massive cost. If Scotland votes to stay in the UK, I think it would be better to abandon devolution and have one country with one set of laws from Lands End to John O'Groats, from Lowestoft to the Irish border.


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 01:09 PM

How far? The guiding rule should be the principle of "subsidiarity" - "Subsidiarity is an organising principle of decentralisation, stating that a matter ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest, or least centralised authority capable of addressing that matter effectively. "

The Westminster government as it stands is close to the opposite pole. Mind, so would be an independant Scottish government in Edinburgh. It's a long way to the Shetlands or the Western Isles, geographically and in all kinds of other ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 12:57 PM

The idea that the territories of the UK are separate countries is amusing as is the idea that some Quebeccers call themselves "a nation."

It just shows how out of touch they are.

"Dreamers in skirts?"

Is that necessary?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST, topsie
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 12:50 PM

Dave, I was adding to what you said, offering another dimension for comparison - I wasn't contradicting you.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 12:19 PM

You were discussing the size of the population in relation to the number of MPs, were you not?

Yes, the population of countries. Scotland is a country. Enland is a country. As far as I know the north of England, the south, the Isle of Wight and Dorset are not. Wales is but they have their own assembly anyway.

Are you suggesting devolution for every area? if so, how far do you take it?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST, topsie
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 09:21 AM

"Whole countries should not be over or under represented in a so called equal union between them."

Nor, ideally, should parts of countries be over or under represented, whether comparing the north of England with the south, or the Isle of Wight with Dorset, or Wales with Scotland (Scotland hasn't left yet, remember). You were discussing the size of the population in relation to the number of MPs, were you not?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Stu
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 08:50 AM

"Anyway, which party in the UK supports "working people"
UK Labour are a joke."

Careful what you wish for . . . Salmond is right up the arse of Murdoch and supported that most foul of capitalist aristocracy Donal Trump when he trashed a scientifically important dune system and used dirty tricks and smears against the local Scots who protested.

All the political parties are for business, not people. Yes or No, the jingoistic and divisive spiel coming from campaigners simply shows how far we're regressing on these islands as a society.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Seaham cemetry
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 07:49 AM

Cue history lecture on "the rotten boroughs."

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 07:32 AM

I would be surprised if there are not similar differences in representation between areas in the rest of the UK, and between different constituencies.

We are not talking of differences in constituencies here, Topsie. Whole countries should not be over or under represented in a so called equal union between them.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 06:58 AM

The Queen is also Queen if various other countries, such as Canada and Australia. We don't generally refer to all these as part of the United Kingdom. THe position in regard to Scotland would be essentially the same.

"Great Britain" is a geographical term for the island, and this will of course continue to be the case. However to be strictly accurate, the country "Great Britain" only existed between 1707 and 1801.

So far as the presence of the Union Flag on the flags of various other nations, I would think that, if they didn't decide on a redesign dropping the flag, they might be likely to hang on to the historic design rather than switch to one involving a new version. After all, joining the USA didn't cause Hawaii to drop the flag from it's own state ensign, seeing it as having a historical significance rather than any political meaning.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST, topsie
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 06:18 AM

Although I don't have all the figures in front of me, I would be surprised if there are not similar differences in representation between areas in the rest of the UK, and between different constituencies. It would be very difficult to make them exactly equal.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 06:10 AM

Thanks Nigel. Saved me pointing it out :-)

It is an even higher representation at the moment but I was allowing for the reduction to 52 that is due.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Seaham Cemetry
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 06:06 AM

The United Kingdom Of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Still holds if the petulant dreamers in skirts bugger off.

Just because not all of Great Britan would be in The United Kingdom, there would still be a kingdom within it, and about as united as it has ever been...

In any case, until the citizens of The UK are asked, yoh can't actually break it up. Bits can leave it, as there is an outside chance of happening for Scotland, but The UK exists and shall continue to exist regardless.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 06:02 AM

Guest:
Population of Scotland 5.295 million
Population of UK 63.23 million.
Scottish population as a percentage = 63.23/5.295 =11.941%

Scottish MPs 59
Westmister MPs 650
Scottish MPs as a percentage of Westminster MPs = 650/59 = 11.01%

??????? Scottish population as a percentage should be (5.295/63.25)*100 = 8.37% You've canlculated it as a fraction of the population. One eleventh is approximately 8%. One eleventh is not 11%

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 04:21 AM

Population of Scotland 5.295 million
Population of UK 63.23 million.
Scottish population as a percentage = 63.23/5.295 =11.941%

Scottish MPs 59
Westmister MPs 650
Scottish MPs as a percentage of Westminster MPs = 650/59 = 11.01%

???????

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 05:57 PM

Scotland's representation will by 2015 have decreased to 52, substantially reducing any future possibility of affecting a change.


Which, out of interest, is still too high a representation in parliament. I could present the figures but you would not believe me. Go and work it out yourselves.

Hint - Get the number of people in Scotland as a percentage of the number of people in the UK. Then get the number of Scottish MPs as a percentage of the number of MPs in parliament.

It may surprise you.

DtG

(I get it as 8% Scottish MPs and less than 7% of the population. See how you do.)

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 05:25 PM

Well Tammas, I lived in Scotland for 10 years, and in those days found a great deal of anti-English feeling. One Scots boyfriend took me to tea at his parents' house and they were absolutely rigid with disgust because I was 'English'; racist isn't the word. Only after I told them my surname (a town in Caithness) were they slightly mollified. But I sympathised with them, and I too found the Scots a great people. After all, I'm half Scots and half Irish; it's only being born in England that makes me English. My sister has lived among them for 40 years and she too is extremely fond of the place and the people. I used to find a warm affinity between Scotland and France, as of course they had been ancient allies. My sister doesn't agree, but I feel Scotland is so different culturally and historically that it may do well to 'go it alone'. And they really do dislike the English still.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 04:19 PM

Is this what the independence movement is about?

That and BraveHeart? and Rob Roy?

And kilts and highland games and curling?

All good and noble stuff no doubt.

But then there is the spectre of the PIIGS. Would you end up more like Ireland or Norway?

Best of luck Scottish friends. Keeping in mind that it will not be easy to strike off on your own, in many ways a "yes" vote will be the start of your troubles rather than the end of them. Let you hearts and your heads guide you and IMHO you are sure to make the right choice for yourselves and your children.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Tammas
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 01:30 PM

Eliza, the Highland clearances were carried in some places by Scots albeit at an Englishman's command. Culloden was a fight between Scots and Scots although again there was an Englishman and a Dutchman at the helm and an Italien Prince masquerading as a Scot. And in most posts the comments are all anti Scots and again, as an Englishman living in Scotland for over 30 years, the majority of Scots are great. I don't hear the equivalent insults of deep fried mars bars or men in skirts or all the usual jibes made against the Scots.
Forget the insults, fellow Englishmen/women. If you don't like the idea of Scotland being independent, forget it and wish them well. My relatives in England think it's a good thing and are not concerned about their grandchildren becoming foreigners .. they already have other grandchildren in Australia and Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 12:12 PM

I imagine "Oh Flower Of Scotland" would be their anthem. It expresses much of their hatred of the exploitative English and a yearning to see Scotland's people rise again. I can sympathise with them, and the song is rather beautiful; it always brings tears to my eyes. They really do hate the English. I have to use my Scots accent when up there, and it changes their attitude towards me a lot. Not very edifying of them, but we have a great deal to answer for in history. I recently found that play I was rambling on about in a previous post, the Cheviot the Stag and the Black Black Oil. It's on Youtube, and although written in the seventies, it expresses remarkably well what the Scots went through and why they detest the English. We haven't a leg to stand on; we did all that and they can't forgive.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 12:02 PM

Not in Scotland they won't!
Anyway, which party in the UK supports "working people"
UK Labour are a joke.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Stu
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 11:31 AM

Reading the comments sections on many sites I'm shocked at how much many Scots hate the English and even the Gruaniad comments section (where you'd hope to get a tad more nuanced debate) is a festering pit of bile and hate. I always knew we weren't loved that much but as an English person whose opinion runs contrary to that of the YES campaign then you're going to get a right gobful.

You'll be:

thick
nasty
a tory
stupid
a warmonger
unable to reason
an oppressor
a condem
not in possession of all the facts
Longshanks
uncivilised
thick
Cameron
Osbourne
rich (!)
Thatcher
dense
etc etc

All I see here is the working people of this island finally being split by petty nationalism and having their voice effectively silenced forever. The tories and toffs will win.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 07:20 PM

If Scotland does go, the whole issue of the voting system would be liable to come into play. The referendum on the Alternative Vote has been taken as meaning that it's been decided for this generation, but that referendum would be irrelevant, because the country in which it was carried out would have ceased to exist.

I would think it highly likely that with the departure of the sizeable bloc of Scottish Labour MPs making it very vulnerable, support for some move towards a more proportional voting system would be greatly increased in the English Labour Party. And in the electorate as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Tammas
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 08:36 AM

Roger the Skiffler, Since 1945 only one ONE occasion (1964) Scottish MPs have turned what would have been a Conservative government into a Labour one. The Tory majority without Scottish votes would have been just one MP (280 vs 279), and as such useless in practice. The Labour government, with an almost equally feeble majority of 4, lasted just 18 months and a Tory one would probably have collapsed even faster.

- on ONE occasion (the second of the two 1974 elections) Scottish MPs gave Labour a wafer-thin majority (319 vs 316) they wouldn't have had from the rest of the UK alone, although they'd still have been the largest party and able to command a majority in a pact with the Liberals, as they eventually did in reality.

- and on ONE occasion (2010) the presence of Scottish MPs has deprived the Conservatives of an outright majority, although the Conservatives ended up in control of the government anyway in coalition with the Lib Dems when Labour refused to co-operate with other parties in a "rainbow alliance".

- which means that for 65 of the last 67 years, Scottish MPs as an entity have had no practical influence over the composition of the UK government. From a high of 72 MPs in 1983, Scotland's representation will by 2015 have decreased to 52, substantially reducing any future possibility of affecting a change.

The simple reality of the matter, established indisputably and unambiguously by these stats, is that England and the rest of the UK are and always have been perfectly capable of electing a Labour government if they want one, whatever Scotland does.

The truth is that Labour doesn't need Scottish MPs, and an independent Scotland would NOT give the Tories a permanent majority in the remnant UK. Those are the facts, and voters should be deeply mistrustful of anyone who tells them anything else.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 08:25 AM

If the Scots choose to go I don't see how the rest of us can prevent it. The idea that the rest of the UK should have a vote is unworkable for that reason. It would also raise the possibility of a real constitutional crisis if Scotland voted to remain and the rest of the UK voted from them to go. So it really has to be up to them. I think we are stronger together, but I can understand their reasons for wanting independence. If that's what they choose, good luck to them.

What I find totally unconvincing is Alex Salmond's insistence that if Scotland chooses to walk away he can dictate the terms on which it does so. He's promising things which aren't in his gift, and continues to do so even when he's been told otherwise. Of course there's a lot of posturing on both sides, but it seems very unclear what an Scotland's future might be in the real world outside Salmond's fantasies and whether it will actually have sufficient financial and political clout to be truly independent. I think there's a real possibility that Scotland could end up with nominal independence but less autonomy than it already has.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Triplane
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 08:20 AM

nobody has mentioned a national anthem
http://www.rampantscotland.com/songs/blsongs_ally.htm



Deja vu?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 05:34 AM

The serious thing for me is that deprived of Scottish voters the labour Party might never regain a majority in the UK/English parliament and we would be condemned to permanent Tory rule. As Pte Frazer would say:
"We're doomed".
Rts

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 03:32 AM

One of the good things for us, is that we will have a government which represents the Scottish people.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 10:17 PM

I'd think the United Kingdom of Southern Britain and Northern Ireland might be the most logical, though strictly speaking, since Northern Ireland is not a kingdom, but a section if a province, it wouldn't be correct.

At any rate the term Great Britain could no longer be used as if it was the name of a country rather than just of an island.

And I can't see how the term British could still be used as a label for the citizens of the new country, though I suppose it could still be used for the inhabitants of the island.

I suppose they could try to hold on to it and use it the same way the citizens of the USA call themselves Americans because there's no word specifically that differentiates them from all the other people in the American continent.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 09:30 PM

As I've said before, go and good luck. I'm all for English autonomy.

The benefits for us will be 1). Not having MPs with Scottish constituencies voting on purely English matters, and 2). Regaining an English identity.

Wales and Northern Ireland both have their own parliaments, and at last we will be one step nearer to having OUR own.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,guest
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 08:14 AM

Increased revenue fro air lines ....... not good.
More money from oil and gas ....... a burden and it won't last more than 40 years.
Getting rid of Trident and saving a fortune ..... bad idea, we need a nuclear deterrent to protect us from street terrorists.
Why do potential NO voters see only doom and gloom. Pathetic, sad fearties who have no future except staying as we are, a gloomy outlook but suits their gloomy disposition.
"Always look on the bright side of life".

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 07:51 AM

Stop wriggling Mr T, GUEST said "more important than any INSURANCE COMPANY"

The airlines are indeed very important to our tourist industry, which could be further expanded under Independence, to make a huge contribution to our economy.