BS: Scotland does not exist

Subject: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Jim McLean
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 06:37 AM

The UK government published a paper last week in their campaign against the YES vote in the referendum in 2014 for an independent Scotland which said in part:

State 'extinguished' by 1707 treaty
Tuesday 12 February 2013
SCOTLAND was "extinguished" as a state by the Treaty of Union in 1707, according to the academics who provided the UK Government's legal advice on the constitutional implications of independence.

Professors James Crawford and Alan Boyle reject the notion that Scottish independence would undo the Treaty of Union, which created the UK, allowing Scotland and England to revert to their pre-1707 status.

They do not reach a view on whether 1707 marked the creation of a new state in international law or the expansion of England under a new name.

But they add: "It is not necessary to decide between these two views of the union of 1707. Whether or not England was also extinguished by the union, Scotland certainly was extinguished as a matter of international law, by merger into either an enlarged and renamed England or into an entirely new state."

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 06:52 AM

I feel sorry for those who were around in1707 and we must ensure their concerns are addressed but for the other 100% of people affected the issues are whether it is in their 21st century interest or not.

If English people are affected then the European courts have already indicated a poll must include them or The EU is not able to recognise any changes from the outcome.

Me? I look forward to stopping funding a parasitic pretend government but feel sorry for the sheep being told to be excited by the appearance of the knackers yard lorry..

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: mayomick
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 07:27 AM

Musket .I think the point is that "whether it is in their 21st century interest or not" the question of Scottish independence from the British state cannot be decided by this poll if the advice of the constitutional experts consulted by the UK government is correct .

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 07:28 AM

Failing means yer playin!

Lang may yer lum reek!

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Jim McLean
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 08:16 AM

My posting was to show that the Westminster government's "experts" suggest that while Scotland was ' extinguished' by the Union of 1707, England was not and the UK was just another name for an enlarged England.
Article 1 of the Union states ... " THAT the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom, by the name od GREAT-BRITAIN.

The title United Kingdom is used later on in Article lll, so where do these legal experts get the notion they suggested?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 09:26 AM

Scotland does exist, I live there

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: goatfell
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 09:27 AM

Scotland does exist, I live there

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Newport Boy
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 09:34 AM

Agreed, Jim. Their argument fails on logical grounds - if Scotland was 'merged into an entirely new state' (Great Britain), then so was England. I can only assume they could find no logical reason for asserting that Scotland was merged into an enlarged and renamed England and decided to sneak out of the argument.

Phil

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Allan Conn
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 09:49 AM

"Agreed, Jim. Their argument fails on logical grounds" They are trying to play the card that suggests that GB was just a continuation of England hence Scotland dissolving the union would not be dissolving GB. Rather than there being two successor states to the UK they are saying that the rump UK (ie a greater England) is the successor state and that Scotland is a completely new thing. Hence the UK would still be a member of the EU whilst Scottish people would be stripped of their EU citizenship and would need to reapply. The Nats argue that there would be two successor states which would both already be members of the EU. Both sides roll out the experts to back up their points! The ludicrous thing is that many of the people who would prefer to pull the entire UK out of Europe are among the ones who suggest independence would be bad for Scotland because we wouldn't automatically be in the EU!

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 09:53 AM

William Wallace, where are ye when we need ye, laddie?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 10:06 AM

Whatever might be the appropriate state for the remainder of what has been called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland if Scotland withdraws, there can be no question but that Great Britain would not be acceptable. Great Britain is an island,and Scotland is the northern half of it.

I suppose it would be possible to rebrand the successor state as the United Kingdom of Southern Britain and Northern Ireland. At least for the time being until the Welsh and Irish pull out.

Or maybe Little Britain?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Allan Conn
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 10:17 AM

Re-read my post and just want to add that when I say 'they are trying to play the card' I don't necesarily mean experts who have a view on the matter. I mean the unionist politicians who spin the said views!

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Musket
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 10:43 AM

Aye but views are spin in any context, as they reflect a subjective position.

My point above, flippant as it was, still stands. Great Britain does include Scotland, as it denotes the continuous mass, (The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.)

But regardless of constitutional issues, lets not get too excited. A Parliament made the 1707 rules legal and a Parliament can make the next lot too.

SO, we are back to my point; Unless there are new pockets of money somewhere that nobody is taking into account, the only way Scotland can benefit from independence would be at the expense of the rest of The UK. Hence a referendum of those affected cannot be held unless those affected are part of the referendum, and European courts have hinted that already in rulings where Scottish and English law have clashed.

My concern overall is that Scotland is not viable on its own so although English tax payers may see a short term benefit, the long term would have people wondering who the hell Salmond was and why did so many get dewy eyed and listen to him?

Nationalism causes more problems than it solves. If nobody noticed, it doesn't matter what you think about your particular arbitrary boundary, you are affected by world economics and events regardless, so what precisely is the point?

Saying that decisions of the government of the day don't work out, such as disability assessments, tuition fees and more private contractors to The NHS aren't the preferred policies of Scotland sounds alright at first glance but I doubt they are the policies of the majority of people in the rest of The UK. If you think a tartan government with full budgetary responsibility will have the luxury of popular policies for all, then you should really look again.

This idea of Scotland not existing is interesting in the academic sense, but the view that all effected must be consulted is the story that should cause most concern...

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 11:23 AM

Actually it took two Parliaments to make the 1707 fit-up legal. Neither of them democratic bodies.

Regardless of whether Scotland opts to withdraw from the Union or not, it remains part of Great Britain, obviously, since that is the name of the island it shares with England and Wales.

But even today Great Britain is not the name of any country, even if the term is inaccurately used to suggest that it is. That practice at least will have to end, if Scotland chooses to leave.

The notion that constitutional changes in some parts of the Unted Kingdom ought to have to be ratified by referendums in other parts is interesting. If people in England had a chance to vote in respect of Northern Ireland I am pretty certain there would be a large majority for ending that union....

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Jim McLean
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 11:48 AM

Musket, Daid Cameron and Michael Moore have both said that Scotland could run itself economically so the argument now is political, hence my posting regarding incorrect information put forward by the Unionists.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: greg stephens
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 12:47 PM

I hope that Scotland, England, Wales and northern Ireland all decide to leave the UK, and that henceforth the UK will consist solely of Cornwall.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Allan Conn
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 01:02 PM

"Hence a referendum of those affected cannot be held unless those affected are part of the referendum,"

Only if you don't believe in the principle of self determination! The same argument you put could be put re the UK and the EU. The UK is a net contributor to the EU so any referendum on whether we should withdraw, or amend our membership criteria etc should include not just the people of the UK but the people of Germany and Poland etc too. The fact of the matter is though that despite what you say in the real world there is going to be a referendum in Scotland.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Allan Conn
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 01:10 PM

"t remains part of Great Britain"

The SNP have said that themselves. The Scots would still be British in the geogrpahic and cultural sense though of course we wouldn't be part of GB in the political sense in that GB is a constituent part of the UKofGB&NI. The unionist politicians and commentators scoffed at the SNP suggestions that we would still be British though it is as you say obviously true. In fact one Nat politician has even claimed that independence would strengthen the sense of Britishness. For some people it may be so. Some who support independence will swear blind that they aren't British. Of course what they are saying is they don't want to be British politically. If that were out of the equation they may well concede they are British in the other senses. Most Scots have no trouble being Scottish and British and European.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 01:24 PM

No Brit treaty can abrogate the existence of a nation/culture that has existed prior to
that treaty's conception.

What you can say is what Ms. Jones at the College of Saint Ann's in Cape Breton told me.
"The Scots are the biggest mutts in the world."

This probably could be said for any nation/culture that claims to be autonomous.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 01:30 PM

That would be Doctor Jones.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Jim McLean
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 01:31 PM

The case of independence is not based on nationality as anyone living in Scotland, on the electoral role, can vote. It's simply a request for Scotland's purse strings and the way the money is spent to be controlled by the people who live there.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 01:43 PM

David Cameron says Scotland could run itself economically.

Not, if I may be so bold, the strongest rationale on which to base an opinion in a referendum. .

Yes Scotland will be the only ones in the referendum. Two points there. First, a majority of Scottish people would most likely have more sense. Turkeys don't vote for Xmas. Secondly Westminster will decide whether North Sea oil licences become the domain of Holyrood or not. The Treasury has made it clear that five year forecasts include revenue from the dwindling stock. Nobody has set any forecast on the basis of losing that revenue as either way, Westminster will spend it.

Can't see what all the fuss is about. Apart from selling tartan to gullible Americans the only jobs are public sector and that alone will encourage sensible voting.   I had lunch at Kitchins at Leith s few months ago. The place was stuffed with the only people who can afford £120 per head at lunch time in the week. Those from the white elephant across the way. Politicians and their goons. Oh and the quiet English couple in the corner. But tax payers don't pay for my gluttony. I do.

Decent food mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Pilgrim
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 01:55 PM

Just a thought; what would happen if england decided to leave the United Kingdom before Scotland did?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 02:06 PM

""Just a thought; what would happen if england decided to leave the United Kingdom before Scotland did?""

Scotland and Northern Ireland would have to fight for control and decide which Parliament rules.

Apropos of the OP, I would hate to be the UK politician tasked with breaking the news that Scotland doesn't exist at a Glasgow political meeting.

Above and beyond the call of either bravery or sanity!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: kendall
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 02:14 PM

I'm glad I got to travel all over it before it disappeared.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Jim McLean
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 02:43 PM

Scotland has consistently been told it was too poor to rule itself and that it was being subsidised by England. That myth has now been destroyed and the reverse is true so sound economics ia a strong base for discussion re the referendum. I don't understand your argument, Musket, about Westminster and revenue from North Sea oil. If Scotland becomes independent then the revenue from its waters belong to Scotland. Musket, you are employing the same scare and unfounded tactics highlighted by this thread. Who are the polititions and their goons who stuff their face on tax payers' money? Real arguments are valid not negative scare sories .... stay as we are, "we're better together" under a Tory led government chosen by the majority of English voters. The argument put forward by some Labour supporters is that after independence, England would have a permanent Tory majority. We are still in the Union but have a Tory led government with one Tory MP in Scotland so that argument holds no water.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 02:46 PM

"Turkeys don't vote for Xmas" Based on the usual nonsense that Scots are subsidy junkies. Scots are almost certainly heading towards voting NO but that doesn't mean that they all don't want the financial arrangements to change. Many polls showed that devo-max was the favoured option for Scots. That is moving towards money being raised and spent in Scotland. The Nats were happy to have that option on the ballot. The unionists in the form of the UK govt refused but they have promised that there version of what is to be offered as far as further devolution goes will be unveiled after the No vote in the referendum is secured. Even the Lib Dems who favour a federal UK were against having it on the ballot which I still can't get my head around.

Further devolution would of course involve the agreement of the rest of the UK. Probably in the form of

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 02:51 PM

a Westminster vote rather than a referendum. Either way a NO vote in the forthcoming referendum isn't an end to the Scotland debate and should the wishes of the Scottish people for further devolution be thwarted either by a UK Tory govt or in a UK wide referendum then it would only be succour to the Nats.

(sorry the last post got sent by mistake prior to being finished}

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 03:01 PM

"Scotland and Northern Ireland would have to fight for control" If the English decided to leave the union then it would end the unionist cause in Scotland at one fell swoop. I don't beleive there would be any kind of popular support for the country to remain in full union with Wales and Northern Ireland only. The more difficult question would be what would happen in Northern Ireland?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: selby
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 03:03 PM

I come from the land where Danelaw was one of our early parliaments/treaties so I would like to vote to have that back or the Plantagenets now we have found Richard and his descendants. History has put us all where we are and it works tolerably well and all the positives for Scotland sound great. if there is a yes vote the unfortunate but is, what happens if it does not work for Scotland financially, do we, that they left, have to bail them out or will we have band aid style concerts to support them.
Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Jim McLean
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 03:13 PM

Keith, more negativity. "What happens if it doesn't work out for Scotland" ..
What happens if it does work out for Scotland? A nation of 5 million people with oil and gas reserves, wind power, whisky worth more than 4 billion GBP, fishing, beef production .. I could go on. Think positively, look at other countries, look at the Nordic council ... Scotland does exist in spite of the Westminster spin doctors ... smile, don't whinge.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: selby
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 03:24 PM

It is a negative, I wish you well in your vote and you believe the numbers add up I am asking am I and my compatriots expected to pick up the bill for failure what is Scotlands plan if it does not work, nobody has yet mentioned that a good general also looks at a exit strategy
Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 03:26 PM

Modern Scotland is inhabited by people (be they unionist or nationalist)who still regard themselves as a national people in the here and now. England itself is a comparison to this but a medieval region of England isn't. Scotland had its own various Dark Age kingdoms and different identites - but it is completely irrelevant to this debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: selby
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 03:41 PM

Allan that is a fair point Yorkshire and other areas keeps there pride its own dialects and proud traditions. The point is we have all lived and worked together for 300 years some of it good and some of it bad and the positive is believed by some Scots. The negative I as a future tax payer without Scotland would like to know if it fails for the Scots do they expect me to pull them out of the mire
Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Jim McLean
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 03:53 PM

Selby, why should you? Scotland will not be your problem but a helpful, friendly neighbour. Maybe Scotland will need to help you ... Cameron might take you out of the EU and then what?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 04:06 PM

Scotland's finances are in the red but they are actually better, and have been for some time, than the UK as a whole. Thw whole premis that you shouldn't consider independence because should it all go wrong someone else may have to help leads nowhere. Should Scotland fail within the union then your taxes would automatically help. Failing countries aren't all small. Spain and Italy are two of Europe's major countries and both of them are in trouble. The UK itself not all that many decades ago was fiscally on the ropes. You are not immune. The argument is that should we have control of our own finances and resources then we'd be better able to steer the ship on a more prosperous course. Likewise the idea that if we were independent from Westminster then we would no longer be working and living together doesn't wash. Why would that stop? Salmond said some years ago "better to have a good neighbour than a sulky lodger"

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: selby
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 04:09 PM

As long as Scotland is not my and my countrymen's problem thats great I hope you have a tremendous future. Cameron taking us out of the EU unfortunately is a pipe dream, as is all the bunkum that an independent Scotland will not be part of the EU. The Brussels grandees will do everything to keep their gravy train running
Keith

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

All possibilities should be explored including negatives it is very easy to ride on a wave of nationalistic pride and passion.
Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 04:34 PM

Of course and all sides of the argument are explored in Scotland. Likewise the debates aren't based solely on nationalistic pride and passion. As far as nationalism goes that would work both ways anyway. Why would Scottish nationalism be based on base instincts etc and be negative but the British nationalism of the unionists be based on rational thought and be positive? Within Scotland we know that it is a civilised debate and it just wouldn't work to try and portray the Nats as jingoistic and inward looking. They aren't.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: selby
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 04:44 PM

As at the present a UK tax payer I am genuinely interested in what happens if it does not work I accept Jim;s point it could work the other way so twisting the question slightly.
Who is going to pay if it turns bad are you happy to bail us out.
Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 04:54 PM

The various European economies are pretty interlinked so the bailing out tends not to be that altruistic. For instance Ireland is one of the UK's major trading partners. They buy far more from us than China does! The UK helped Ireland financially because it was in the UK's interest to do so. The alternatives were worse. I think the main point about the financial crisis is that it has happened and hopefully lessons will be learned and no-one in the future wil be bailing out anyone else. Speaking hypothetically Scotland of course wouldn't have the clout to bail out a much larger neighbour though I don't see why it wouldn't be willing to help in conjunction with other European countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 06:47 PM

How many small villages in, let's say, England have a positive balance of trade so wouldbe better off without union? Lots actually. Yet it wouldn't be a good idea to claim UDI.

I read above the old idea that England would have a tory majority without Scotland. Err.. no. Never has been the case.   4% swings cause government changes and Scotland isn't relevant enough to affect that. Instead of decrying my observations have a look at two figures-the percentage of households dependent on public sector income and the percentage of households dependent on benefits. On the other side of the coin look at the income from trade to fund the above.

You can, as LSE have, compare the figure to England which has a similar issue only not in the same league. Not by a ruddy mile. They went further and took the cost of Scotland from England's figures.   In some ways it is a pity it won't happen.

Oh and no, I'm not being provocative. North Sea contracts are signed by Westminster and Westminster recognises UK coastal waters. This was clarified when BP asked the question as they consider whether to remain based in Aberdeen or move operations further south.

Might be a worth a punt buying property on the Northumbrian coast?

.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,marks(on the road)
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 06:57 PM

Better if Scotland would petition Canada to join as a new Provence.

Then the rest of us in North America could get better deals on single malt in addition to great lager beer.

Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 08:12 PM

I doubt very much if a Little Britain government would have the nerve or even the ability to try to annexe Scottish oil fields, in the event of the winding-up of the existing UK plc.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 02:46 AM

The idea that the UK isn't going to recognise Scottish territory is fairytale stuff. There would of course be negotiating over issues and some trading off as both parties looked to their interest but that is to be expected. As to comparing Scotland to small English villages well again it doesn't work. Scotland is a constituent nation of the UKofGB&NI and not a wee village in one of those constituent parts. You are right about the majority in Westminster thing though. Some Laboour supporting unionists claim that Scottish independence would be a bad thing for England because they would be left with a permanent Tory majority. The facts don't back that up though. Certainly as far as seats go all the Labour govts during the Blair/Brown era had sizeable majorities in England. Any election has to be damn close in the first place for Scottish seats to make the difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Stanron
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 03:54 AM

Here's a thought.

Round about 1700 Scotland was pretty much bankrupt, as a result of several years of bad harvests and the failure of the Darien Scheme for colonising part of South America (in which a large part of Scotands nobility had invested). At the same time England wanted to avoid problems that could come from the demise of the Stuart line and Scotland deciding to elect a new, and possibly anti English, monarchy. Hence the act of Union. Scotland gets bailed out and Britain gets a more stable political foundation. Large sums of money moved north.

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

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Jim McLean
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 04:04 AM

The money was sent as bribes to achieve the Union but not to the people of Scotland. I'm sure a deal could be struck if Westminster agreed to return years of oli and gas revenue taken from Scottish waters. And by the way, the enterprise taken in Darien was sabotaged by the English government ensuring the failure of Scotland's scheme.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 05:09 AM

In the surreal world of the EU, it's England that doesn't exist. Scotland is deemed to be a region of the UK but there's no England - just a number of romantically named regions such as 'South East' and 'South West' etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,gutcher
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 05:14 AM

The bribe paid to those with the power to ensure a vote for the union was termed "the equivelent" and meant that Scotland took on part of the national debt of England, Scotland having no national debt at the time.
If Scotland chose to declare UDI we would start with a clean sheet with no national debt which at present for the UK totals some £1.5 trillion pounds, however the present regime in Scotland have agreed to take the proportional share of this debt being £126 billion pounds which would mean an annual payment of £4 billion pounds in interest.
This of course would be managable due to the fact that the full cost, £27 billion pounds, of the nuclear weapons of mass destruction based on the Clyde is at present fully set off as a charge against Scotland, this being removed would leave a surplus of £23 billion which could be used for the good of the country and its people.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,gutcher
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 05:26 AM

As to Mr Camerons "better together"
It is like Orwells creed "some are more equal than others".
To alleviate the cost of care in old age in England he proposes to raise an inheritance tax to be levied in England, Wales, NI and Scotland. Tell me where is the equity in this proposal.?

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

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 09:55 PM

Disgusting because she is loaded down with these bills or because Scots haven't been daft enough to change the law so their kids have that kind of burden?

I reckon if the Scots go independent there could be a good few English counties that might ask to affiliate...

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Allan Conn
Date: 16 Feb 13 - 03:24 AM

"you seem to have enough Scot's in the government in Westminster" I wasn't even talking about nationality of any particular member. I asked how representative is the govt? The main govt party only received about 16% of the actual Scottish vote. Propped up the Lib Dems which has caused their rating to plummet in recent polls to now just 5%. Hardly representative.

As to the tuition fees I think you'll find the vast majority of Scots agree with you but hey, blame the right people. The fees in Scotland are paid out of the Scottish budget. The Scottish govt decides how to spend its allocated funds. If a majority of English MPs wanted the same system in England then it would get it. Sheer demographics in parliament would ensure that.

It is funny how people will look to lay blame on the most unlikely sources. I couldn't follow the logic of my English mother-in-law. For obvious reasons we have been looking at just Scottish universities for my son. She is adamant that the smaller choice is Alex Salmond's fault. If we didn't charge Scottish students for their fees then they'd be more likely to look to English Unis too. No hint of blaming the UK govt for actually charging the fees in England. Just blame the Scottish govt for not charging here.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Allan Conn
Date: 16 Feb 13 - 03:37 AM

"enough Scot's in the government in Westminster" Again I was talking about representing opinion rather than the actual nationality of particular mininsters but for interst sake after your comment I had a quick look at the make up of the Cabinet on Wiki. Obviously one position is the Scottish Secretary held by Michael Moore. Apart from that of the other 31 people who attend only one (Danny Alexander) represents a Scottish constituency.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Allan Conn
Date: 16 Feb 13 - 04:05 AM

"If we didn't charge Scottish students for their fees"

typo alert should read if wh charged Scottish students etc

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Dazbo at work
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 08:09 AM

Now I may be a simpleton when it comes to economics but if the money for student fees, free prescriptions, care of the elderly etc comes out of the Scottish Budget then, assuming they get proportionally the same money as in England per head, the money spent on that must come out of other budgets. From this it must follow (in my mind) that to make up this shortfall in other budgets the Scots must have to pay for something that the English don't have to pay for. What do I get for free that the Scots have to pay for?

If the answer is nothing then how can England not be subsidising Scotland either directly or by Scotland not paying its way in the Union?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 12:36 PM

Speaking as someone embroiled in such debate for a living these days, Scotland gets a lower outcome from investment in The NHS. Life expectancy and general morbidity demonstrate this. England has clusters of health inequality but sadly Scotland is a cluster.

Tax revenues are largely from public sector jobs too, so whilst applauding lack of tuition fees or elements of free nursing cate, I wonder if either are sustainable till the day of the vote without fancy accounting? Scotland has issues same as everywhere else and has used its parliament to decide priorities. Priorities based on present funding streams. Mmmm....

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Allan Conn
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 12:52 PM

"how can England not be subsidising Scotland"

Different points really. Scotland does have higher spending per head than England does. It naturally would as spending throughout the UK depends and is worked out on the supposed cost of services to a particular area. That applies within England too. Scottish spending is over and above what it should be even on that basis. However that isn't the same as being subsidised by the rest of the UK. Whether we are subsidised or not depends on how much Scotland contributes compared with how much we take out and not on how much is spent per head!

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Jim McLean
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 01:24 PM

My original posting was to show the Westminster Government's belief that Scotland was extinguished and joined a greater England under a new name, I.e. the UK. However please find below some answers as the financial position of Scotland.


Surplus finance fourth year in a row
23/06/2010

Scotland's public finances are in a healthy position, with the country generating more income than it spends even in a period of recession, official statistics published today show. This is the fourth year in a row that Scotland has generated a current budget surplus, compared to a UK-wide deficit over the same period.

The latest Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) report for 2008-09 includes a share of the UK Government's Financial Sector Interventions to support the banking sector.

Even with that spending factored in, Scotland's financial position in 2008-09 was a current budget surplus of £1.3 billion, or 0.9 per cent of GDP, including a geographical share of North Sea revenues. At the same time, the UK was in current budget deficit of £48.9 billion, or 3.4 per cent of GDP, including 100 per cent of North Sea revenues.

GERS also estimates Scotland's net fiscal balance - which factors in capital and infrastructure investment for the nation's long term benefit. On this measure Scotland had a deficit of £3.8 billion or 2.6 per cent of GDP. In comparison, the UK's deficit was substantially greater, standing at £96.1 billion or 6.7 per cent of GDP.

Across the OECD as a whole, the average net fiscal balance was 3.3 per cent of GDP in 2008. In other words, GERS shows Scotland in a stronger fiscal position than the average of the major developed economies, as well as the United Kingdom.

The cumulative value of Scotland's current budget surplus over the four year period from 2005-06 to 2008-09 now stands at some £3.5 billion. Over this same period, the UK built up a deficit of £72.3 billion.

Welcoming the report, Finance Secretary John Swinney said:

"This is an extremely positive report - demonstrating beyond any doubt that Scotland is in a far stronger financial position than the UK as a whole, as well as the OECD average.

"In 2008-09, Scotland generated a current budget surplus of £1.3 billion, or 0.9 per cent of GDP, compared to a deficit for the UK of £48.9 billion, or 3.4 per cent of GDP.

"This is the fourth year in a row to record a Scottish current budget surplus - even as the UK moved into recession - and the cumulative value of Scotland's surplus since 2005-06 now stands at some £3.5 billion, compared to a UK deficit over the same period of £72.3 billion.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Jim McLean
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 02:32 PM

I should add that when the film Braveheart came out, every English person I met (I live in London) were experts on Scottish 13th century history. Now they all seem to be experts on Scottish/English economy.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 06:31 AM

This is a bit of a bugger, I've only just found out that my Great, Great Grandfather was probably born in Half Morton, Dumfreisshire, circa 1830. I was going to use that "gem" when my Scottish mates start rabbiting on ad nauseam about things Caledonian.

Foiled again !

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Dazbo at work
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 07:46 AM

Now whilst I very happy to hear that Scotland has a budget surplus I'm wondering why Scotland has so much public money spent on it by the UK government. Jim quotes that Scotland is so many billions in surplus but the UK is in so many (more) billions of deficit yet the UK government spends per person

England          8,491
Scotland         10,088
Wales             9,740
Northern Ireland 10,620 (from the House of Commons Library for 2012)

Now I don't know where this money comes from but it looks to me (again in my economic ignorance) that not only does Scotland have a surplus but gets more than the areas of the UK that are in deficit.

If I read it correctly Wikipedia says that due to the Barnett formula it doesn't matter how much money Scotland "earns" and keeps for itself they'll still get more money from the UK government than anyone in England.

If looks like a subsidy, smells like a subsidy, walks like a subsidy it's still not a subsidy!

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Peter
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 08:40 AM

The fun will start if an independent Scotland decides to become part of the Schengen Area. The UKBF will want a new Hadrian's Wall along the border.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Allan Conn
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 08:40 AM

"I'm wondering why Scotland has so much public money spent on it by the UK government"

Again spending throughout the UK is not primarily based on per head of population. It is based on the cost of providing services. There are a whole range of factors which affect the said cost. This is how it works throughout the UK including within England itself. By the UK govt's own criteria Scottish spending should be higher than spending in England because of the said range of factors. Actual spending is even higher than it should be but still doesn't amount to a subsidy as Scotland over the years has paid its way. The lastest figures did show a deficit but again it is better than the deficit for the rest of the UK. The point being that if the official figures are all to be believed then the rest of the UK would be in a worse financial position without Scotland.

The whole discussion going down this route is fruitless anyway. Scots who want independence don't want their taxes going through Westminster prior to coming back to Scotland. Likewise the most popular option in Scotland is for devomax which is basically moving towards fiscal autonomy within the UK. That is money being raised in and spent in Scotland with Scotland then paying the UK directly for things like defence etc. Ardent unionists or anti-devolutionists should be asked to defend the present financial system - not people who want to see an end to it!

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,gutcher
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 08:41 AM

As I remember it the difference in spending per head of the population is accounted for by the density of the population in each part of the UK. This should be self evident to any thinking person.

I am at present digging out the figures which show that the MOD spend a much smaller part of its budget in Scotland than is warrented by an equitable share of their overall spending.

The same applies to the BBC who also dayly pump out information with a unionist slant, this is considered by some a breach of their charter which requires them to be impartial in handling these matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Jim McLean
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 09:59 AM

Peter, Scotland will not have to join the Shengen area. Ireland opted out and is party of the Common Land Area with the UK hence no passports required. If Scotland becomes independent then the rest of the UK will also have to renegotiate certain terms. The UK IS Scotland and England so no Scotland means no UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Dazbo at work
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 11:44 AM

Apparently the Barnett formula (not so much a formula as a stick a finger in the air and pull out a number) is based on the population size and not their needs. Therefore, the richer the Scottish economy becomes and the better off the population becomes under the Barnett formula they still get more money.

Go figure!

Anyway, I'm going to move to Scotland and vote for full independence

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Allan Conn
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 12:33 PM

Barnett is the means as to how funding is adjusted and is based on population. The Nats don't like Barnett because in the long term it erodes spending in Scotland. Again as I say the general move is towards at the very least much more devolution with more fiscal autonomy. The Uk govt refused to allow that option on the forthcoming referendum, promising that their proposals will be put forward after the vote though in scotland we've heard that before from a Tory govt, whilst the Nats were content to have the devomax option included. That would be a move towards money being raised and spent in Scotland without going in and back out of the Westminster coffers - then with devomax Scotland would pay directly for its share of joint spending like defense etc. It is the UK govt and the Tories in Scotland who are most against changing the status-quo.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Jim McLean
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 01:22 PM

Good on you, Dazbo, I might do the same. The Barnet formula will be irrelevant, of course, after Scotland becomes independent. With revenue from oil and gas, whisky, no massive bills for Trident and many more advantages coming with independence The inhabitants of Scotland will be much better off, both financially and culturally.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,van
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 07:30 PM

Scotland does not have an economy. The oil thing relies on international treaties, the whisky industry is largely owned by foreign companies who pay little tax here or elsewhere, the public sector part relies on civil service jobs which were removed from England and would return there, and the guy at the head of all this seems to have bankrupted a bank. WOW go for it!

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Jim McLean
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 06:06 AM

Old, scare stories, Van. I read your pal Nigel Farage of UKIP in today's Glasgow Herald and is totally in agreement with you. Sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 06:35 AM

If there are no Scottish / English economics experts in England, what makes you think there are any north of the border? Err.. Broon?, err... badger features?

Just out of interest, if Scotland did bugger off, treaties etc that The UK are part of still stand. One kid running off with his ball does not mean the game of football has to end. The status of The UK is not part of the referendum . If it were, the grown ups would have a say, silly.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Allan Conn
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 06:42 AM

Turnover in the whisky industry alone in Scotland is estimated at £5,048million and it has been booming in the last decade. Consumption the UK is falling but worldwide it is going through the roof. It is massive but the amount reinvested in Scotland is small by comparison. The argument is that Scottish govt control over the industry could greatly increase benefits to Scotland. Theoretically they could already do that. Under the 2012 Scotland Act the devolved gvt supposedly has the power to raise new tax. This publication gives an example of a tax of say 20p being paid by the producers on every bottle produced. It would give revenue to the Scottish govt of 270million. The estimated loss to the UK revenue through reduced corporation tax due to the hit on profits would be £62million. Even if the devolved gvt reimbursed Westminster for the loss Holyrood would still be £208million per annum better off. Just tinkering but how much more could they make the industry benefit Scotland directly if they were independent. Of course oil and gas are the real big earners for UK or for an independent Scotland. Suggesting there is no economy is just silly.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Allan Conn
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 06:49 AM

http://reidfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Whisky-and-the-Scottish-Economy-BiGGAR-Economics-Nov12.pdf


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry I forgot to include the link in the last post. Incidentally did anyone read Karine Polwart's piece in Scotland on Sunday? Thought it was quite interesting. She is not so much interested in whether we will be a wee bit better or worse off - but more interested in what the values of a new Scotland will be and what kind of society we aim to build. Her main point was that she thinks the SNP are making a tactical error in going along the line of things aren't going to be so different. She feels that a more positive we are going to make things different and better would be the way to go. Thought it was interesting anyway

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Jim McLean
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 07:15 AM

I agree, Allan. Interestingly she votes for the Green Party, underlining that Independence is not just an SNP driven policy but a multi party aim.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,gutcher
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 08:40 AM

If Scotland be such a drain on Big Brothers resourses can Musket and others please explain to us simple peasants why the Westminster regime is so keen to hold on to us come hell or high water, Could it have something to do with the facts laid out in the McCrone report, supressed for near thirty years by our caring sharing masters, which showed that had it not been for the oil in Scottish territorial waters, England would be in the same position today as Ireland is. But of course I am forgetting, Scotland, in the eyes of those who cannot see past their own noses, does not exist, or if acknowledged has its uses as a milch cow with those who believe what they read in the unionist press and hear and see in the heavily biassed BBC being starved of the correct facts on most subjects pertaining to the debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 11:42 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Peter
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 11:50 AM

Peter, Scotland will not have to join the Shengen area. Ireland opted out and is party of the Common Land Area with the UK hence no passports required. If Scotland becomes independent then the rest of the UK will also have to renegotiate certain terms. The UK IS Scotland and England so no Scotland means no UK.

Jim, I don't think you really grasped the meaning of the word "IF" in my post.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 12:10 PM

Gutcher. Yes I can.

Technology information and global business means The UK is about as small as it gets.
I'm not speaking as an English bloke addressing a Scottish bloke. Unlike Scottish nationalists I don't recognise an us and them. I speak as a we. So if Scotland is a net drain or a net asset it makes no difference. Taxes paid by the Big houses in the nice village where I live help the large town down the road. If I were to use Scottish logic we'd let the town starve as we're alright Jack. Whether Scotland is financially viable is irrelevant. The size of the public sector in feeding the domestic economy is a concern that accountants in distilleries won't be able to disguise with fancy spreadsheets though. My sincere concern awsy from teasing small minded nationalists is that there are too many contrasting forecasts around for any sane person to be sure of their conviction that their choice is the best outcome.

I sincerely hope I'm not that petty. The polls suggest neither are most Scots.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Allan Conn
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 12:19 PM

"small minded nationalists" Just wondered who the small minded are? The debate in Scotland is generally pretty civilised. Both arguments have their merits. Why someone who is a Scottish nationailst should be described as small minded whilst British nationalism is ok still passes me by. As I've said previously the SNP are more pro-European than most mainstream British parties; they are more in favour of immigration than most mainstream parties; and the regard everyone legally living in Scotland as Scots. There is nothing small minded about wanting to have more, or as much as possible, control over how your own country is run. You may not agree with it but there is no need for name calling.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Jim McLean
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 12:29 PM

Musket, have a Google on the Nordic Council to find out how small countries can work together and still retain their independence.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 01:37 PM

A question:

If I, with a distance Scottish ancestor, wished to relocate to a newly devolved and vibrant Scotland and take advantage of the economic benefits of that "new" independent country, how would I stand?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 02:04 PM

Well you'd have to shave your legs.....no one looks good in a kilt otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Jim McLean
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 02:08 PM

Raggytash, your nationality is immaterial. If you are on the Scottish electoral roll/register you will treated like William Wallace himself ... prepare to be hung, drawn and quartered.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 02:09 PM

The difference being they started as small countries and work on that basis.   An excellent health and social care system for people with dementia shouldn't lead to people wanting to lose their marbles in order to buy in.

I'm not name calling. I simply have a view that self determination gets less attractive economy wise the smaller you get.   You keep saying you are European in outlook yet the ethos of The EU is integration for common good not segregation to satisfy historians.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 02:25 PM

"If I, with a distance Scottish ancestor, wished to relocate" As mentioned earlier in the thread the SNP's position is that on independence should they be in govt everyone legally living in Scotland at that time would automatically be offered citizenship regardless of place of birth, nationality, colour or religion. Should they decline citizenship it would not affect their right to abode etc. In a hypothetical future as Scotland intends to remain in the EU then there would be the same free movement of people as there is at the moment. For non-EU citizens it would of course be different but saying that the govt has already said it would like the tools to attract more incomers than there are coming at the moment. No doubt there would be rules and restrictions just as there are at the moment and just as every country has. There is no reason to believe it would be harder to gain entry than it is at the moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 02:33 PM

The SNP have no wish to segregate Scotland. They want to remain in the EU and work with all their neighbours excepting that they want Scotland to have its own seat at the table. You seem to be suggesting that we would be incapable of working for the common good unless we are ruled from Westminster.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Rumncoke
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 03:58 PM

There was a slight hitch to the remaining in the EU plan - someone in the EU pointed out that if Scotland became a separate country they would no longer be in the EU and would have to apply to join and negotiate the terms of their joining.

There was then a 'No - we are in the EU already' 'Yes - but if you leave then you aren't' sort of argument, after which various people got rather thoughtful.

I have no idea if it went any further, but it did rather surprise and bewilder some people who assumed that Great Britain could divide and still be regarded as the same in the eyes of the EU,

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,gutcher
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 05:41 PM

Three points are usually raised against Scots who have the temerity to stand up for themselves:--[1]They are petty small minded nationalists
[2]They are mean and come of a mean spirited race.                  [3]They live on the bounty of their more prosperous neighbours.
Points [1] and[2] are usually made by people who use them to cover their own leanings in these directions:-- point [1] has been refuted by Allan Conn, point [2] can be refuted by reference to any national money raising effort for charity where the Scots consistantly donate two and a half to three and a half times more per head than their southern neighbours.
Point [3]:-- see an article by James Maxwell in the New Statesman for 6/11/11, also G.E.R.S. Scotland, if these details were widely disseminated to the Scottish public there would be a landslide yes vote in the coming referendum. Unfortunately the mainstream media do not give coverage to facts that would damage the better together campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Van
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 08:04 PM

Jim
I thought better of you. If argument is failing - don't result to insult. I spent a long time helping to establish a parliament in Edinburgh while you were strumming your guitar - oh phone your granny, she wants advice on how to suck eggs

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 22 Feb 13 - 02:20 AM

If Scottish people knew the facts they'd vote yes?

Clearly it isn't me here who treats the Scottish electorate with contempt. ..

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Allan Conn
Date: 22 Feb 13 - 02:53 AM

Rumncoke. The problem is it is a precedent so it will be tested. Jose Manuel Barroso refused to comment on Scotland specifically but claimed that a new state would negotiate from outside of the EU. It is not his choice to make but is his opinion. However that has been refuted from various quarters. The UK govt's own report commissioned from Prof James Crawford confirmed that Scotland would renegotiate terms but that it would be done from within the EU as we are existing members and that though it wasn't an automatic shoe in it should be straightforward and completed within an 18 mth time scale. Closer to the SNP's claims than it is to the UK gvt's claims or to Borroso's view. Prof David Edward a former judge on the European Court of Justice stated that "Scotland's continued membership of the EU is beyond question". whilst just today in the Scotsman Lord Malloch Brown the former deputy secretary general of the UN and senior Foreign Office diplomat under Brown writes that an independent Scotland would be welcomed at the EU table and that Europe sees its difficulties not with Edinburgh but with London.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Van
Date: 22 Feb 13 - 03:36 AM

Of course the EU have no difficulties with Edinburgh. It deals with Westminster

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Jim McLean
Date: 22 Feb 13 - 03:48 AM

Van, I have no idea what you are talking about re my supposed insult. I f I have hurt your feelings then I apologise but your skin must be exceedingly thin and, by the way, I don't play the guitar.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,gutcher
Date: 22 Feb 13 - 06:14 AM

Before jumping in with a snide remark check out the facts for yourself. Nice to see I have touched a raw nerve, more and wider distribution of the true state of the union dividend should be made compulsory reading for all.
Will your next post claim I have nazi leanings because I mention the word compulsory?. That would of course be the lazy mans way.
Facts are chiels that winna ding.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Allan Conn
Date: 22 Feb 13 - 12:36 PM

"Of course the EU have no difficulties with Edinburgh. It deals with Westminster"

What is being referred to is that in his opinion the EU in general doesn't worry so much about a potential gvt in Edinburgh that is likely to be more pro-European than the present gvt in London is. It worries more about the gvt in London's own attitude. I think there will be exceptions of course. For instance Spain! Not that it has anything against Scottish independence it just doesn't like the precedence. Especially when the current polls in Catalonia show a much higher support for independence there than they do here in Scotland, and that said part of Spain is being flatly denied a referendum by the gvt in Madrid.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Allan Conn
Date: 22 Feb 13 - 12:50 PM

"The difference being they started as small countries and work on that basis"

Norway has only been completely independent since 1904. Prior to that it was in a union with Sweden and prior to that with Denmark

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Jim McLean
Date: 23 Feb 13 - 12:58 PM

Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland .... all countries with a triple AAA rating.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,gutcher
Date: 24 Feb 13 - 11:51 AM

Scare stories--Scotland will have to apply to become members of the EU
Cameron in almost the next breath promises a referendum on the UK leaving /remaining a member of the EU.
Scotland would lose the coveted AAA rating with disasterous consequences.   The UK have just been downgraded from AAA status.
Removal of the nuclear weapons of mass destruction from the Clyde would result in the loss of 190000 jobs--claim in Westminster debate.
MOD figures in 2012 state 520 people are directly employed in the WMD programme in Scotland.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Manuel
Date: 24 Feb 13 - 12:39 PM

Eliza, having pursued studies at Edinburgh U,your view on this topic would be of interest to me,half a world away, and no doubt to others as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Jim McLean
Date: 24 Feb 13 - 01:27 PM

Guest Manuel, I also studied at Edinburg Uni ... see my posts above.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,gutcher
Date: 24 Feb 13 - 04:18 PM

The job loss quoted should of course read 19,000.
Note--- must remember to put the comma in in future

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Manuel
Date: 24 Feb 13 - 06:31 PM

Thanks, Jim. I've read them carefully. What a coincidence! You all have this historic referendum coming up in 2014 and we here have our own potentially far-reaching one which is set for October of this year.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Jim McLean
Date: 25 Feb 13 - 05:40 AM

I have just read today that the Westmister government will argue for Scotland to retain the Pound Sterling in the event of Independence! Usual scary caveats, of course.