BS: Scotland does not exist

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Allan Conn
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 05:36 AM

"So if Scotland becomes independent do we in England get our money back? With interest of course."

You've put a very anglicised slant on history. By the end of the 17thC the Scots had come to the conclusion that the semi-union brought about by the Union of the Crowns simply worked against them. They had by association with England lost much of their trade and were still being denied full access to the emerging English empire. They realised that either a fuller union or a seperation was needed to thrive and the Scottish Parliament initially looked to the latter option. Act of Security was passed by the Scottish Parliament in 1704 and set out that on the death of Queen Anne Scotland would choose a different monarch to England. The following year the English parliament passed the Alien Act. Basically if the Scots did not accept the Hanovarian succession then there would be virtually a complete trade embargo imposed on Scotland and the property of Scots in England could be confiscated. The Scottish aristos were blackmailed and bullied into eventually accepting the succession and union. Any payments were seen as much as compensation (for the losses at Darien) as they were bribes. Neither the Scottish or English populace at large were enthusiastic about union. What happens in the here and now is about the here and now and not about some imaginery debt from 300 years ago. Be it a positive or negative Scotland more than played its part in the creation and running of the British Empire and in the turning of GB plc into the world economic power house it became in the 19thC. Likewise Scots know that they contributed much more than economically. Visit the National Memorial in Edinburgh Castle and you'll see the names of the Scots who fell in both wars. 100,000 in WWI and 50,000 in WWII. By % of population it is way in excess of what it should be. What price would you put on that sacrifice?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Jim McLean
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 06:14 AM

Another scare story, this time by Alastair Darling leader of the NO campaign. He said it would take Scotland 9 years to join the EU whereas his colleague Professor James Crawford admitted on a BBC radio broadcast that Scotland could do it from within the EU in 16 months. The NO campaigners are telling so many lies that they can't keep up with themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 06:40 AM

the demise of the Stuart line

That isn't exactly an accurate description of the circumstances. In fact the difficulty was more that the Stuart line was very much undemised.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: MartinRyan
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 06:42 AM

"undemised" - nice one!

Regards

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,gutcher
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 07:32 AM

Correction---the proposal is to leave the threshold where the tax kicks in at the current level, levied in the whole of the UK with the proceeds being used to fund a service in one part only when Scotland already funds its own care from its allocated funds thus some here will be paying at least twice if not thrice for this service.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Allan Conn
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 08:15 AM

I must admit that I find all the financial ins and outs complicated at best. If identifiable spending was increased in England (ie on care costs etc) then under the present Barnett set up wouldn't money allocated to the rest of the UK automatically increase with the Scottish govt itself deciding how best to allocate the new funds they have? I know that doesn't work for all spending but would it be the case here? I thought it would be though of course as I say it is complicated so I could have that completely wrong!

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Jim McLean
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 09:14 AM

It's called consequencials and would be paid under the Barnet formula to the Scottish government. Unfortunately it's still a tax on the Scotish individuals who do not benefit from the freezing of the inheritance tax as they don't receive any direct recompense from the Scottish government. The main beneficiaries are the English old people and that at least should be welcome.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,gutcher
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 10:26 AM

Like yourself Alan I tend to find the financies a tad complicated but my financial guru on these matters, he"s English bye the bye, assures me that our "better together" friends have worked out various methods whereby the Barnet consequencials can be circumvented and that is why we can end up paying two or three times for the one service.
You or I doing as they do would be taken up by the long arm of the law and incarcerated for fraud.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 12:51 PM

no matter the intricacies of any financial or constitutional detail - next year the decision will largely be one made on gut instinct. i certainly hope the scots have the guts to give it a go. the argument that scotland would fail financially once seperate from westminster is ridiculous and surely made by people with no knowledge of the current state of the uk for a sizable minority of the population.
(like much of northern england) the scots have nothing to gain from being saddled with a government that have no interest in the opinion or well being of any of the population, outside a tight circle of their own wealthy friends and families.
conservatives have long been an irrelevance in elections in scotland, and liberals are doomed by their association with the current evil government. scots never fell for all that thatcherite nonsense, mistrusted blair and new labour and will never agree to the idea ordinary folk should be held responsible for the crimes of the bankers.
fortunately for those of us who look forward to a progressive and optimistic scotland,every time cameron and the rest of them open their mouths they emphasise that they are just southern toffs with no right to have any influence over the border. scotland aspires to be a fairer, more outgoing and inclusive nation - good luck to them.

and please can we move the border south?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 04:06 PM

Dont tell me my mother was a POMMY

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: ollaimh
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 05:23 PM

it doesn't matter all that much, even if scotland becomes independant, how do we get the lowlanders to leave?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 05:53 PM

New Scotland still exists in Nova Scotia.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: gnu
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 07:11 PM

Sure as hell does!

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 10:29 PM

Well Nova Scotia appears pretty firmly attached to Canada - but I believe there's still a feeling among some Newfoundlanders that they should be an independent country once more. Perhaps a Scottish breakaway might encourage them... ( "Rebel Ship" from Tarahan)

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 02:07 AM

"even if scotland becomes independant, how do we get the lowlanders to leave?"

One suspects than only a non-Scot would come up with that!

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Jim McLean
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 03:58 AM

I came across this yesterday and so it would appear that the anti independent campaigners and the ONLY Westminster Tory MP in Scotland officially think Scotland does not exist ..... although he is a minister in the Scottish office!




Conservative MP David Mundell has caused outrage after suggesting that Scotland did not exist according to international law, and that the nation had been extinguished by the 1707 Act of Union.

Mr Mundell, who is a junior minister in the Scotland Office, made the astonishing claim in an interview on STV's Scotland Tonight.

Asked by interviewer John MacKay if he was comfortable with a UK Government report that said Scotland had been "extinguished" by the 1707 Act of Union, the Tory MP replied "yes".

He said: "Yes, I think that the Act of Union isn't relevant to this, nor is the break-up of Czechoslovakia"

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,gutcher
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 06:20 AM

Mundell was being investigated for election expenses fraud.
Was the case ever resolved or was it quietly dropped?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: TheSnail
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 07:05 AM

how do we get the lowlanders to leave?

Leave what, ollaimh? The Kindom of Northumberland, which extended up the east coast as far as the Forth or the Kingdom of Strathclyde (British not Gaelic) which extended up the west coast to the Clyde? Maybe it's time to kick the Scots (an Irish tribe who invaded in the fifth century) out of Lowland "Scotland".

It's never that simple.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,gutcher
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 10:01 AM

One seems to recollect history lessons which stated that pre 1000 Scotland extended as far South as the Humber, which might explain why we understand what they are saying in those parts when they use their local dialect.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Allan Conn
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 03:58 PM

The base for the Scots language was the Northumbrian dialect of Anglo-Saxon which was spoekn all over northern England as well as southern Scotland hence hundreds of years ago when that language was being spoken it was pretty much the same whether north or south of the border. In Scotland it gradually took over as the language of the Royal Court etc and was influenced by Latin and French etc but I imagine ordinary folk in the Borders and Northumberland sounded similar still. I myself have had my own Borders dialect mistaken on several occassions for Geordie - by Glaswegians! No-one in the Southern Uplands would mistake me for a Geordie though. Depends on what you are used to hearing! I've had other Glaswegians mistake me for being from the islands. Some of our dialects are simply not heard that often in the media hence people not well travelled throughout the country don't always instantly recognise them.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Allan Conn
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 04:12 PM

Scotland never really stretched to the Humber. The Kingdom of Northumbria at one time stretched from the Humber to the Forth. The southern part of Northumbria (Deira) became part of the Danelaw whilst the northern part (Bernicia) remained outside as a client state. Much weakened the northern half of Bernicia (from Forth to Tweed) was taken over by the emerging Scottish kingdom. In the east of the country apart from Berwick itself the border was pretty much aettled by the Battle of Carham in 1018. The Scots lay claim to the rest of Northumbria and the early wars resulted mostly from Scottish aggression and English retaliation but it was never officially part of the kingdom. The Scottish Kings did officially control Cumbria in the west for a briefish period. At a slightly later date the Scottish monarchs held large swathes of land in what is now England but that land wasn't part of the Scottish kingdom. For that land they swore fealty to the King of England.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Stanron
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 04:39 PM

Wasn't it Melvyn Bragg who observed that some, if not all, north eastern dialects are close to modern Norwegian?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 05:01 PM

On an online forum about the Danish TV serial Borgen the same kind of observation has been made about North East language and Scots in relation to Danish.
...............

Which set me thinking about how the Scandinavians have dealt so much better with issues of nationality. No problem in reconciling being Danish or Norwegian or Swedish and beng Scandinavian. Even the Finns, since there is also the term Norse to leave out them but include the Icelanders. Unfortunately the word British has to stand in for both. A pity there isn't another word that can cover inhabitants of Ireland and the Isle of Man, that is as undivisive as Scandinavian.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 05:03 PM

""Well Nova Scotia appears pretty firmly attached to Canada""

I was seeing it the other way around, since New Scotland officially exists in Canada, there may be another wave of settlers to Nova Scotia from the 'formerly known as" motherlode area - gaelic is still spoken by some.Gaelic in N.S.-(Cape Breton)



""I believe there's still a feeling among some Newfoundlanders that they should be an independent country once more. Perhaps a Scottish breakaway might encourage them...""

Nah, its just a bit of non-serious nostalgia among a very few, that Newfoundlanders wish to separate from Canada, not a significant movement at all. But, it's a good song:)

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 05:37 PM

Though they used to say that about Scottish Nationalism... Just sentimental stuff about kilts.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 05:46 PM

Scotland won't exist if it breaks away from Britain. Silly Scots.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 05:51 PM

Can't very well break away from "Britain", barring a literally earthshattering geological upheaval.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Allan Conn
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 05:52 PM

"Scotland won't exist if it breaks away from Britain. Silly Scots"

I don't follow what you're saying in your first sentence. As to the second point. Some Scots wish to remain in the union whilst some don't. Neither position is silly.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 06:01 PM

If Scotland decides to go it on it's own, they will rue the day. The SNP having been trying to do this since I lived up there 37 years ago. Britain needs to be as one.
It is silly if they think they can survive on their own. They are getting lots of freebies, that people in England aren;t getting. Enjoy whilst you can. If you split from Britain, you are on your own.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Stanron
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 06:02 PM

I would like to see Scotland remain a part of the United Kingdom. I think we are both stronger for the Union. I would also like to see all of Ireland as part of the UK. We'd all be stronger for it, but I know that will not happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 06:08 PM

I agree with you Stanron.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Allan Conn
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 06:13 PM

"We'd all be stronger for it," I just don't follow that argument. What is meant by stronger. Westminster would control a larger area but why would be stronger if another 3 million or so reluctant Irish people were brought into the union. Surely we are stronger, or at least no less strong by just working together as neighbours? Would the UK have any stronger a voice in the EU or in the UN if Ireland was part of it? I think not. Instead of having two voices in the UN these islands would have only one. Arguably we'd be weaker.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 06:30 PM

Would Scandinavia be better as a single country?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 07:06 PM

Likewise in the EU voting by country is slanted towards smaller countries. The UK with just under 60 million people has 29 votes in the Council of Europe whilst Ireland with only 4 million has 7 votes. If Ireland joined the UK we wouldn't get any more votes but Ireland would lose their votes. How would that be stronger? Likewise should Scotland gain independence then we would obtain 7 votes because of our 5 million plus population. The UK I think would possibly lose 1 vote. Again probably a net gain of 6 votes. How would that be weaker? "We would all be stronger" often looks suspiciously like "Why doesn't everyone just do what Westminster says?"

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 07:40 PM

The UK I think would possibly lose 1 vote.

Pedantically it wouldn't be "the UK", meaning the United Kingdom of Great Britain etc, because that would no longer exist. The new country which had come into existence, the "New UK" or whatever would have one vote fewer than the UK has.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 07:40 PM

The UK I think would possibly lose 1 vote.

Pedantically it wouldn't be "the UK", meaning the United Kingdom of Great Britain etc, because that would no longer exist. The new country which had come into existence, the "New UK" or whatever would have one vote fewer than the UK has.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 02:06 AM

Quite so I am not sure what the hypothetical new country would be called or if it has even been considered as yet. The most logical would be the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Though I suppose they may still use the word Britain. After all the USA uses the word America and only consists of part of that land mass. In truth it is still looking most likely that it won't be an issue. The YES campaign have closed the gap in the latest MORI poll but they are still showing at only 34% whilst the NO is showing 55%. They have a lot of work to do and maybe the only thing that would swing those who have gone back into the NO group over the past wee while is if the more keen NO campaigners put their foot it in. Prominent Tories announcing that Scotland doesn't really exists as such isn't going to win many friends and is pretty pointless tactics.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,gutcher
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 04:20 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,gutcher
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 05:11 AM

Anent an article in todays Herald claiming that the Universities in Scotland are being swamped by staff from outwith the country, a spokesperson, whose name would suggest they are one of the incomers, states we must not be parrochial and inward looking but must accept what in their view is good for us.
The spokespersons statement reminds me of an overheard conversation in McTears salesroom one Friday morning just before the present economic slump took place:---two ladies with very loud english accents met and exchanged greetings [they always are loud and seem to think that what they have to say is so important that the whole world must hear it,interestingly, Elizabeth Grant in her early 19th C. diary comments on this trait]
1st lady--tell me Mrs Brown how does your sister like New Zealand?
2nd lady--oh they just hate it, they have been there 10 months and have not been able to get onto any commitee and no one but no one will take any notice of what they say must happen in the community.
1st lady--I am sorry to hear that Mrs Brown but I am sure their superior knowlege and breeding will soon prevail and they will be accepted.
2nd lady--they would return home tommorow but will never be able to come back as they have lost their place on the housing ladder [loud comment from one of the 100plus audience---they could not have had much of a grip on it before they left.]
This comment silenced the pair.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Musket
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 05:32 AM

Thinking about it, instead of the interesting but ultimately futile debates on legal aspects, the best outcome is the the referendum and nationalism to get the bloody nose it deserves in the poll.

The rest of the world is globalising. Obama has asked Europe to consider standardising for a world market. Pooling risk rather than leaving yourself vulnerable is becoming popular for good reason, given recent economic events. Rob Roy jingoism is somewhere between silly and dangerous.

Just out of interest, why would Scotland wish to be in The EU? Why wish to influence Europe when you wish to duck out of influencing Westminster?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 06:29 AM

"is the the referendum and nationalism to get the bloody nose it deserves in the poll."

It is not based on Rob Roy jingoism. It is simply based on what is the best way to run the country. Again people who say boo to nationalism are often quite happy with the idea of British nationalism in that they want to see the UK intact and not become part of a united Europe. Some Scots simply want their own voice in the world the same as many other nations have! One can accuse the SNP of many things but insularity and jingoism doesn't tend to be their thing. They are more pro-Europe than most parties; are more in favour of immigration than most parties; and they count anyone legally living in Scotland as Scots taking no heed of race, place of birth, or religion. Trying to portray them and their supporters as bigots just shows how out of touch you are with the debate in Scotland.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 06:35 AM

"why would Scotland wish to be in The EU? Why wish to influence Europe when you wish to duck out of influencing Westminster?"

The Nats wish to work with their fellow Europeans but they want Scotland to have a place at the actual table rather than have the UK govt speak for them. How representative of the people of Scotland is the current UK govt?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Musket
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 06:48 AM

Or Yorkshire, or Surrey, or Northumberland, or Lincolnshire....

Sorry Allan, you are the one generalising here. We are all European and that means collective decision making. Not for arbitrary reasons, but for good sound sense. I still fail to see how a small player at the table is any better than a large player at the table.

So the needs of Sutherland and the needs of inner city Glasgow are the same but the needs of Glasgow and the needs of Manchester are somewhat different?

Glad to see how wonderful every Scottish person is regarding not taking heed of race, place of birth or religion. I must visit Scotland some time. Tell me, where is this Scotland? Can I get to it via sectarian Glasgow?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 07:03 AM

"Glad to see how wonderful every Scottish person is regarding not taking heed of race, place of birth or religion. I must visit Scotland some time. Tell me, where is this Scotland? Can I get to it via sectarian Glasgow?"

Again there is no point in comparing Scotland to Surrey. There are not comparable as the Scottish people in general see themselves as a nation whereas as far as I know the people of Surrey do not. They see themselves as a part of England! If you can't grasp that difference then any debate is heading for difficulty. As to your point above where did I say that every Scottish person is wonderful and non-bigoted etc. Please don't put words in my mouth and then ask me to defend them. What I was talking about was the SNP as a party. They are more pro-European than other parties and they are more pro-immigration than other parties. Their policy is that on independence everyone legally living in Scotland will be offered citizenship regardless of religion, race or place of birth - and if they decline that citizenship it would not affect their right to live in Scotland. They are mainstream, Scotland's govt, and simply can't be compared to more shady insular nationalist parties like the BNP.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Dazbo at work
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 07:59 AM

Have the oil fields which Scotland would "own" been settled? As far as I know (from my old geography lectures) the boundary between nation's territorial waters carries on in the direction of the land border. A quick look on an online map would suggest that England's territorial waters extend roughly north east from Berwick and not due east. Not being Au fait with where the oil fields are would this line cut across the oil fields?

Also, something I've never been able to understand is if Scotland isn't being subsidised by England how do they afford free care for the elderly and no prescription charges etc.? What do the English pay for that means we can't afford free prescriptions and care that the Scots (Welsh and Northern Irish too I believe) can afford to give away for nothing? If everything is equal at the moment why do I have to fork out £120 a year for prescription drugs that I'd get for free if I lived a few hours' drive further north?


PS I thought it very funny that Allan Conn rebutted an Anglocentric history with his own highly Scottish-centric history :- )

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Allan Conn
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 12:15 PM

"PS I thought it very funny that Allan Conn rebutted an Anglocentric history with his own highly Scottish-centric history"

The said Acts passed by both parliaments which I referred too happened though. That is fact. Can't put all that much of a spin on it. The Scots decided they would end the semi-union and go it completely alone which resulted in the English Parliament threatening trade emargoes and confiscation of all Scottish property in England.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Allan Conn
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 12:23 PM

http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/legislativescrutiny/act-of-union-1707/overview/westminster-

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Allan Conn
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 12:33 PM

sorry blue clicky didn't work but just search for Alien act 1705. The UK parliament's own link says

"When the Lords resumed their deliberations on Scotland on 6 December, two bills were proposed by Lord Somers, one of the Junto leaders, with Godolphin's support.

One offered fresh negotiations for a full incorporating union, with a single parliament and unified free trade area.

The other, an aliens bill, threatened that unless Scotland agreed to negotiate terms for union and accepted the Hanoverian succession by 25 December 1705, there would be a ban on the import of all Scottish staple products into England.

Scots would also lose the privileges of Englishmen under English law - thus endangering rights to any property they held in England.

Both bills became law early in 1705."

Hardly from a Scottish centric site and the ban wouldn't have just been into England it was England and all her colonies. Scotland was already in the economic doldrums and the English parliament threatened to put a block on about 50% of all Scottih trade unless the Scots played ball and accepted the union. The idea that the union came about because the English decided to help the Scots out financially is fairy tale stuff and that is what I replied to.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 04:37 PM

"How representative of the people of Scotland is the current UK govt? "

Well Allan, you seem to have enough Scot's in the government in Westminster and pretty crap job they have done so far. Gordon Brown being a typical example. If that is what you want p*** off and do it. You scots seem to have all the benefits that us English do not. My daughter is in big debt becuase she has to pay for university fees, whilst your kids get it for now't. Disgusting.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 04:40 PM

100