BS: Scotless

Subject: BS: Scotless
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 09:20 AM

If the Scots go for independence what will the remainder be called?
DisUnited Kingdom? Lesser Britain?
Will the Scots Guards stop parading in London?
Will we stop using Scotchguard on our carpets?
Will whisky, porridge and shortbread go on the black market?
Will the Scots who have dominated British politics, sport and entertainment all go back home (Jim Naughtie, PLEASE do).

RtS

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Seaham Cemetry
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 09:31 AM

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The title still holds, as there will be a united kingdom within the confines of Great Britain, even if the top bit, not in The UK is sat with their head in the hands wondering why they followed a useless loser who made promises he couldnt begin to keep.

Irrelevant anyway. Turkeys dont vote for Christmas.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 09:33 AM

Actually they very often do!

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 09:34 AM

Will the current Union Flag have to be re-designed? If so, what should it look like?


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 09:37 AM

.... and if the Union Flag is re-designed, will countries like Australia and New Zealand have to change their flags?


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 09:57 AM

If you give Australia an excuse, they will change their flag. I suggest red white and red vertical panels with a red kangaroo in the middle, New Zealand could substitute a Kiwi. Bermuda, a pair of shorts, etc.

Look on the bright side English newspapers won't have to print the curling scores from the Olympics.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST, topsie
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 10:32 AM

There will still be whiskey, porage and shortcake.

If we redesign the flag, maybe we could add some black and yellow for Wales (or a dragon?), and even a bit of black and white for Cornwall.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 10:34 AM

If Hague, Cameron and their accomplices are so fond of self determination for an economic basket case like Ukraine, why are they against the same for a modern democracy like Scotland.

Something smells fishy.....an its no' Alex Salmond! :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 10:36 AM

"We would welcome Ukraine into the European Community"

Scotland???......Nae chance!!

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 11:49 AM

Will all reference to the Scots be banned from our speech here in England? Will we have to say 'a thingy mist', 'thingy broth' and 'er hum terriers'? And exclaim Great Thingummy! Not to mention 'Doodah tape'.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Al
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 12:15 PM

And certainly no more bleeding scots MP's
Al

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jim McLean
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 01:19 PM

Sorry, Al, there a few Scots with English seats. And the Uk won't exist in it's former UK state (FUK)?) Wales doesn't have a crown, it was included with England when the parliaments of England and Scotland were united in 1707, thus uniting the two Kingdoms. Ireland left the UK in 1801 and is now a republic. The North of Ireland doesn't have a crown either so that just leaves England. The crowns of Scotland and England were never united until their parliaments joined in 1707. The Union of the crowns of 1603 is a misnomer as both Scotland and England were independent kingdoms for over 100 years until 1707. So after independence RUK will be RUK and the blue should come out of the flag but I don't think anyone will bother their backside what RUK or EWNI, NEWI or whatever will call themselves. Independence is more important than bothering about flags and other frivolities. But please keep the Scots who have English seats, we don't want them.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 01:49 PM

Ireland left the UK in 1801 and is now a republic.

The union of Great Britain and Ireland happened in 1801. Ireland split from the UK in 1922.


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 03:01 PM

Jim McLean

It isn't the United Kingdoms is it? I think the name can say.

BTW, you had better keep quiet about the Scottish crown when you go or they might put Charles under it and send him to Balmoral.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jim McLean
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 03:48 PM

Sorry Doug, you're quite right, I slipped up there, replying too quickly. Unfortunately we can't help still having Charles. The crown is common to Scotland and England and the Commonwealth. Personally, being a republican, I would prefer to reject any connection with the crown but I suppose the SNP are being pragmatic. They don't want to rock the boat but I reckon it won't take too long to get rid of Charles at al after independence. Ireland did it and Australia is on the edge.
Jack, you can only have one United Kingdom if you unite two. If one leaves .... you have two separate kingdoms as was before the union of 1707.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: ragdall
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 03:19 AM

Will the curling world have to add another team to competitions or just drop "Great Britain" in favour of Scotland as the teams invariably have been from there?

rags

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 03:34 AM

It would be nice to have tennis commentators waffle on about "since Fred Perry" again.

Won't happen though. Nobody has asked The UK to stop existing. Start on that premise and the rest unravels nicely.

A letter in The Independent this morning saying a yes vote will he ecologically dangerous to the planet. Salmond's smug beaming face would glow enough to melt the ice caps.

Of course, having got him wielding even more power, and his track record, I don't fancy Scotland's economic outlook much. Even a daft sod like me can tell the difference between reality and his bluster.

If I lived in Scotland, I'd possibly be out pushing leaflets for Mr Darling. Now there's something I never thought I'd say.

Still. Nice to see Dick Gaughan in bed with the few percent who own the vast majority of the land. What price the diggers eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 04:08 AM

'...the few percent who own the vast majority of the land...' Reminds me of a song I enjoyed in an Edinburgh theatre, in a rather anti-English satirical show. It began, (in very posh public school accents) "We are the men who own your glen, but you won't see us there! In Edinburgh pubs and London clubs we show how much we care." The last line went, "If you want your land, we'll take a stand; we will not budge an inch!" I wonder if anyone here knows this song?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jim McLean
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 04:12 AM

Ignoring the comedy, Musket, could you tell me what you meant about about Dick Gaughan. If it was in the Independent, I get the Guardian.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 04:17 AM

The play was called The Cheviot, The Stag and The Black, Black Oil. It's quite relevant here, as it expressed many reasons for Scottish Independence in rather a bitter, satirical way.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 05:45 AM

I don't get either Jim. Buying newspapers only encourages the buggers.

The Indescribanlyboring however is a free iPhone download in their app.

Dick Gaughan plays at fund raisers for the yes vote. Some of which are on YouTube. Just thought it ironic, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jim McLean
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 06:54 AM

But Musket, I was looking for an explanation of your line "Still. Nice to see Dick Gaughan in bed with the few percent who own the vast majority of the land. What price the diggers eh?"
I just don't understand what you meant, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 07:06 AM

The Acts of Union of 1706 and 1707 saw the creation of Great Britain NOT the United Kingdom

The Act of Union in 1801 saw the creation and naming of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

In 1927 after the creation of the Irish Free State it became The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Should Scotland vote for independence on the 18th September this year then in 2016 it will become The United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jim McLean
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 08:44 AM

The Treaty of Union of the Two Kingdoms of Scotland England.
The above continually refers to " .... that the succession to the Monarchy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain ....

and "... That the United Kingdom of Great Britsin shall ....

and " ... a that all parts of the United Kingdom ...

and " ... that part of the United Kingdom called Scotland ....

There are innumeral examples of the terms Great Britain and the United Kingdom in the above Treaty.

The United Kingdom was formed between The Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England, remove one and there IS no United Kingdom.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 09:26 AM

Great Britain

Extract 1:
"This article is about the historical state (1707–1800). For the modern state, see United Kingdom. For the island, see Great Britain. For other uses, see Britain (disambiguation).

The Kingdom of Great Britain, occasionally referred to as the United Kingdom of Great Britain, was a sovereign state in north-west Europe that existed from 1 May 1707 to 31 December 1800.

Extract 2:
"On 1 January 1801, the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland merged to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland"

Extract 3:
"The Treaty of Union and the subsequent Acts of Union state that England and Scotland were to be "United into one Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain". They describe the new state as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the United Kingdom, using capital letters for such terms. The websites of the UK parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the BBC, and others, including the Historical Association, refer to the state created on 1 May 1707 as the United Kingdom of Great Britain. However, the state created by the union of England and Scotland in 1707 is named in the treaty as Great Britain; and is usually referred to by that name or as the Kingdom of Great Britain.

Should Scotland elect to go its own way (which it won't) on the 18th September 2014 then after 2016 the UK will still be known as the UK and carry on as normal. Scotland will have to find a currency, make up it's mind if it wants to apply for membership of the EU and NATO and a whole raft of other things including organising the referendum for those living in the Western isles, Orkney and Shetland to see if they wish to remain Scottish (If those islanders were sensible, particularly those living on Orkney and Shetland they would vote to return to Norway).

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jim McLean
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 09:38 AM

You have said it yourself,

The Kingdom of Great Britain, occasionally referred to as the United Kingdom of Great Britain, was a sovereign state in north-west Europe that existed from 1 May 1707 to 31 December 1800.

The rest of your post is speculation from an anti Indepence point of view which you are entitled to.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 09:56 AM

Err... You can't change the name without a referendum. The only referendum here is about leaving The UK. The UK still exists afterwards and each and every aspect of The Treaty of Rome commitment and membership still holds. For The UK that is.

Successive UK governments have also made it clear legally that currency union of any kind requires a referendum. The UK is not being given a referendum to my knowledge on currency union. If they did, the option, still open, to join the Euro and ditch the pound would possibly be an option as well as sharing our pound with a Foreign Scotland.

All moot anyway. Between now and then Salmond has to explain plan B if perfidious Albion won't roll over. After all, what's in it for The UK?

Sorry Jim but there are intelligent voters in Scotland. That's why functions are less ideological and more pragmatic than the knee jerk us & them approach sadly buggering up many areas of England.

Still. With the low life expectancy in your more populous areas, at least you won't have our pension crisis eh?

As Frankie Boyle inadvertently said as a joke. Scotland despite poor diet and alcohol doesn't have an obesity problem. Thanks to heroin. Poignant joke aside, who is going to vote to have an unsustainable social infrastructure?

Perhaps you could get Sean Connery to pay tax, seeing as he loves you so much. Billy Connolly seems to prop up Malta thinking on....

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 10:15 AM

Never mind 'Scotless'

We could soon be 'Scot Free'.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 10:19 AM

groats and bawbees?

RtS

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 10:28 AM

Cherry picking at its best Jim?

However the state created by the union of England and Scotland in 1707 is named in the treaty as Great Britain; and is usually referred to by that name or as the Kingdom of Great Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jim McLean
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 11:20 AM

Cherry picking indeed!
The currency after independence could be the same as before the union which was .... the pound Scots.
Musket, I'm still waiting the your explanation re Dick Gaughan.Again the rest of your posting is all supposition, time will tell but the rUK will obviously have to re negotiate EU budgets as it will be short of a large land area, fisheries etc.
So rUk will be just that, rUK. The Bank of England is independent and holds Scotish assets as well. Jim Wallace the advocate general for Scotland has just said that his analogy for Scotland leaving the UK is to leave a golf club and take holes 17 and 18 with them.
I think a fairer analogy is to say to Scotland you're not in the club but we want to continue paying your dues.
None of this can be resolved now, slagging or praising celebraties, whose opinions are of no matter except to readers of Hello magazine or the Telegraph. Balanced arguments are required.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 11:37 AM

"The currency after independence could be the same as before the union which was .... the pound Scots."

So you want to be like Greece before it joined the Euro?

:-)

Yeah, Scotland will vote for that!

:-D

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jim McLean
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 12:17 PM

Don't understand, Jack. Anyway I was replying to Roger.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 12:46 PM

I understand that it would be insane and self destructive for the people of Scotland to vote to reinstate the "Pound Scots." Someone else here had suggested that Scottish voters are practical. If they are, that won't happen.

Before the crisis in the Euro a few years ago, I am sure that looking at the explosive growth of a similarly sized economy in Ireland secession looked very attractive indeed. But in the current monetary climate, such a vote looks very risky indeed. Would Scots be willing to endure the sacrifice of serious competitive disadvantage while confidence in its currency is built?

Anyway, you are welcome to wait for Roger's reply. I am now contributing my own opinion and knowledge on a matter brought up in an open forum, not specifically replying to you.   

I am sorry for the attempt at humor if it bothered you.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jim McLean
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 01:46 PM

Jack, I didn't realise that was an attempt at humour so it didn't bother me, I just didn't understand what you meant (and still don't).
I'm sorry I can't really be bothered to repeat myself over and over again. Your understanding of the Scottish and international economies seems to be based on misconceptions and wishes.
I'm out.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 03:58 PM

I look forward to being proved wrong by the successful reintroduction of the "Pound Scots."

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 06:12 PM

On the ground here in Scotland, there is a definite move towards independence.
I travel around a lot and meet many people in my working life,a year ago few contemplated victory of the Yes campaign, NAANTA seemed to hold the balance of fear and the lies about the operation of the Barnet Formula were widely believed. Now there is a feeling of belief in ourselves, a "yes we can" feelgood atmosphere, a feeling that it's about more than an extra few pounds in our benefits, or a penny or two off our tax rate. It's about raising our beloved country up out of the mire, giving our young folks hope for the future and some chance of fulfilment in their lives, no longer second class citizens in our own land or cannon fodder in mad foreign wars.

We don't want anything belonging to other nations, just the chance to be ourselves at last and hopefully to be a template for the future for other countries, on the wrong side of Capitalism.


Freedom come all ye

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: GUEST,eric the viking
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 06:20 PM

It is interesting living up here in the same village as the MP (SNP)for Moray who travels down to London and back on our expenses.(Lives about 400 yards away) There isn't a muff from him. You would think there would be active campaigning in the towns and villages but having been just in the last week in Elgin, Inverness and Glasgow you would not believe the referendum was just around the corner. Apart from the odd bit in the local paper and the usual protagonist's letters it's really quiet. Even local BBC news doesn't contain information on a daily basis. But it does suprise me that Angus Roberstson( Robertson is the SNP Campaign Director for the referendum on Scottish independence) has never even addressed a local meeting about it. If you follow him on twitter he doesn't say much either.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 06:25 PM

Eric, Is SNP for or against?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 06:37 PM

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scottish-independence-warnings-over-pound-swaying-undecided-voters-as-poll-shows-strong-lead-for-no-vote-9147790.html


Scottish independence: Warnings over pound 'swaying undecided voters' as poll shows strong lead for 'No' vote


Two-thirds of people said they thought it would be in Scotland's best interests to keep the pound after independence, while 12 per cent say the country should have its own currency.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Eric the Viking
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 06:57 PM

SNP=Scottish National Party (Those who are fighting for the referendum) Alex Salmond (Leader). Angus Robertson SNP is campaign director for the YES vote. He is our MP in the British Parliament so he represents an area of Scotland in the English (Since it concerns itself mostly with the South) Parliament.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 07:21 PM

Jack, the whole UK media are lining up against the Yes campaign, there is not one media voice for a Free Scotland. I believe nothing I read in the English press.
The coverage is very biased, but the Scots are a stubborn people and one of the things that brings out our ire, is a feeling of being patronised by a posse of Public Schoolboys....the Tory/Liberal axis in Westminster.

The currency issue is simply fear mongering by the Unionists, Scot land keeping the pound, will be in everyone's interests, but more important to the Union, is keeping Scotland as a poor relation within it.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 04:28 AM

NAANTA seemed to hold the balance of fear ......

Who or what is NAANTA? Googling doesn't seem to help.


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Musket
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 04:38 AM

Notwithstanding that keeping the pound means being told your interest rates by Westminster, and therefore your economic policies being approved.....

Standard Life have lit the blue touch paper now. Stand well back.

Bye Bye! Thanks for the haggis!

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 05:05 AM

I was up in the South West of Scotland last weekend, as I have been on many occasions, and the overriding impression I get from my friends there is that independence will be a bad thing. My impression may be skewed but it is what I have found. I have no axe to grind as it will not affect me but when Salmond says he believes the Westminster government and the EU are 'bluffing', I wonder about the sense of a man who is playing poker with a whole countries future as the stakes.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 05:08 AM

I've got a better idea than pound Scots (poonds?).
Just how many Muckles make a Mickle?
Scottish friends tell me that Cameron/Osborne's interventions have turned manya "don't know/don't care" people into pro-Independence.
Don't get me started on flags....


RtS
(1/4 Indian-born Irish 3/4 Brummie)

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 05:19 AM

"Jack, the whole UK media are lining up against the Yes campaign, there is not one media voice for a Free Scotland. I believe nothing I read in the English press.
The coverage is very biased, but the Scots are a stubborn people "
The whole UK media are against it? Surely (at present) Scotland is part of the UK. Are you saying you can't even find a Scottish newspaper that favours separation?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 05:32 AM

Ah the Pound Scots which at the time 1707 1 Pound Sterling was worth 12 Pounds Scots. What would this new currency be based on? Borrowings made on possible future earnings from the North Sea? On very unsure ground there.

Lithuania took quite a few years to first get an internationally recognised currency and may finally get the Euro 27 years after it started out seeking to acquire it as a currency.

The UK already a member state of the EU will have to renegotiate nothing on the basis of Scotland electing to leave the UK. It will be Scotland that has to do the applying and negotiating after which Scotland in seeking EU membership will have to overcome the greatest hurdle to her gaining membership - the unanimous acceptance of existing member states - Off the top of my head I can think of at least 6 member states, not counting the UK, who would bar Scottish membership, for reasons connected with what they perceive as being in their own nation's best interests.

I am a Scot born and bred, I have no problem being British, never have had, I have never felt as though I have been treated as a second class citizen, in fact quite the reverse. I wish to see my country remain within a Union that has been beneficial to both partners down through the centuries and that is why on the 18th September I will vote NO. I then hope that Alex Salmond and the SNP will immediately resign and apologise to the population of the British isles for foisting upon them the unnecessary waste of £millions on this bloody stupid referendum and campaign that only they wanted, yet were either too stupid or too arrogant to prepare for. A campaign in which their lies, deceptions and distortions have been caught out and exposed time and again.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Musket
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 05:42 AM

I'd think on Dave. A yes vote would affect UK citizens, as the government cannot enter into currency union without a referendum. That's the point. Cause and effect.

On a positive note, propping up the welfare bill and disproportionally huge public sector won't be our problem, till we start the bail outs from foreign aid......

Seriously, I cannot get excited about it. I was in Scotland (Fife) the other weekend and I am giving an after dinner speech next week in Edinburgh. Again, not representative, but in have yet to hear anyone I know speak in favour of it. The after dinner speech is at a Royal College that has yet to publish a view, but knowing many council members, they would be concerned about seamless accreditation, breakup of regulators that affect their students and alumni and attracting students in the first place to their part of the university.

If ever the people of Scotland are advised of the advantages, consequences and otherwise, a debate can begin. But even if I were the most tartan wearing, sporran hugging, bagpipe annoying, deep fried haggis gobbling nationalist around, I'd still possibly be curious enough to look further than Salmond's assurances that everybody will do as he says outside of his fiefdom.

Two years ago, someone said that a referendum in the next three years isn't feasible as far too much negotiating has to take place in order that the electorate are given the answers to "what happens with..?"

You know who said that and where?

Alex Salmond on BBC Question Time.

Lose the referendum? He needs to lose his seat.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotless
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 05:53 AM

Somewhere in the dim and distant past on this forum I was assured that a referendum for Scottish independence would have taken place before 2010. That did not happen, but one would have thought that had that been the SNPs original date for it then by 2014 they would have every i dotted and every t crossed with regard to every facet of an independent Scotland. We are now seven months away and it is as plain as a pike staff that they simply do not have a clue.