Jump to content

Scottish Independance


Clive

Recommended Posts

How to have your (Dundee) cake and keep it!.

 

So, the Scottish first minister is advocating Scottish independence but he still wishes to retain Her Majesty the Queen as their head of state and also the British Pound as their currency. Surely this cannot be Scottish independence with the Bank of England determining monetary policy and the Queen is after all the monarch for the UNITED kingdom. If this is anything it is surely “devo-max” under another name. For sure, I smell something fishy from Scotland’s first minister and this sounds to me like a grab for more local powers and little else.

Come on Alex its either ALL IN or ALL out. You cannot cherry pick just the bits you like.

Lastly ALL countries of the UK through their heads of state agreed to the union some 300 years back, the same is necessary now if the UK is to become fragmented. If you get a referendum for the Scottish people then we in the rest of these isles deserve the same. Fair for all.

C.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite, Clive. I find the assumption that only the Scots need to be consulted over the partial deconstruction of OUR United Kingdom borders on arrogance. Home rule for Sussex, say I! :-D

I also note Salmond seems to think he will retain the benefits of UK armed forces, while at the same time saying (on tele, and I heard and saw him saying it) that Scotland would not have agreed to the invasion of Iraq. Whereas I can't disagree with him over the foolishness of that particular venture, the idea that Scotland would hold some kind of veto over what the forces could, or could not, do is sheer lunacy. What is he proposing? To lend us the Black Watch from time to time, so long as we give them back undamaged? What total twaddle. Power grab? I think just a grab for oil, and Salmond's glory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The queen is head of state for several countries, don't think the ozzies view themselves as anything less than independant.

Keeping the pound I think is a bit like the euro, it proboly makes sence for all that it remains thier currency, but I don't pretend to know enough about such matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Brian and Clive.

 

Britain is a small island, to fragment it into separate independant countries is lunacy.

 

Salmond has said that if in the future re-joining the UK was to be in Scotland's interest, he would consider it (having cake and eating it at everyone eles's expense).

 

When the Glasgow Airport bombing took place in 2007, Salmond said publicly that the perpetrators, "were not Scottish". Do you think that if the atrocity had happened at Heathrow, Gordon Brown (the then Prime Minister) would have said that the perpetrators, "were not English"?

 

SNP = Racist Party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also agree totally with Clive & Brian. That said, if I was given the vote, as an Englishman I would vote for Scottish Independence.

 

If it were granted, as I understand it, an independent Scotland could peg its currency to whatever other currency it wanted, tho' the two obvious options are the £ and the €. There would have to be a Bank of Scotland - all that would happen for us is that we would save a great deal of money and the Bank of England would carry on as before.

 

As for any allegiance to the Queen, I think Salmond is on a sticky wicket here as most Scottish people that I know readily state that for them the Queen is Queen Elizabeth the First - because the original Queen Elizabeth First was only Queen of England up unto 1603, not Scotland.

 

What to me is even more interesting than Salmond wanting to take Scotland somewhere that most of the Scottish people do not want to go it seems, is the fact that the one section of the UK that could, again as I understand it, more easily than anywhere else become independent is the Duchy of Cornwall. This is one of the reasons why the actual status of Cornwall is shrouded in secrecy.

 

Cornwall is legally a territorial and constitutional Duchy with the right to veto Westminster legislation. It has never been formally incorporated into England via an Act of Union - it is not merely a county of England as many in Westminster would have us all believe.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CliveH - 2012-01-29 5:39 PM

 

I also agree totally with Clive & Brian. That said, if I was given the vote, as an Englishman I would vote for Scottish Independence.

 

He doesn't want us to have the vote Clive because he knows that if we do most would vote for their independance. He wants to cherry pick the best bits like the Barnett formula but for us to keep the debt.

 

Brian Kirby - 2012-01-29 11:52 AM

 

I also note Salmond seems to think he will retain the benefits of UK armed forces

 

He also doesn't want nuclear submarines in Scottish waters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I point out that linking the currency to the Pound is not unusual. The Irish republic linked their Punt to the Pound for many years until they joined the euro. A lot of currencies around the world are pegged or linked to others. For example Malaysia links to the US dollar. Doing so would enable stability to remain for whatever length of time was felt appropriate, chaos would affect both sides.

 

Similarly, although i am personally not a monarchist if the country as a whole wished to retain the Queen as head of state, then why not. After all she is head of the Commonwealth and is head of state in Australia etc. Just as long as we managed to lose her scrounging brood I would not complain. I also hear that the Queen and Salmond are good buddies anyway.

 

As for the Act of Union being agreed, that is a bit disingenous. Yes, a small number of Scottish nobles agreed and signed the deed, but the majority of the population were against it. However, time was a healer. Plus do note that ALL countries did not agree to a union. Unfortunately Wales was conquered and did not get any choice in the matter.

 

While, as I have stated, I am not in favour of independence it is very apparent that all the main political Parties have treated Scotland dismally and have directly led to the SNP gaining so much ground. Blair with his Labour Party opened Pandora's Box becasue he thought he could con us, and it has come back to bite his Party. For that I have no sympathy. The English may argue that the Scots caused the problems we now have, and in part that is true, but these guys did it because they were idiots, not because they were Scots, and for all his innumerable faults you have to accept that Brown did keep the UK out of the euro, when all others wanted in.

 

It is also a good point as stated by Thatcher, that it is a good idea to 'starve these people of the oxygen of publicity' but the English media cannot see that. Up here we are fed up with it but get it shoved at us daily. No documentation is going to come out before 2013 so until then nobody has a clue what will be in or out, so as far as I am concerned the most important thing this year is planning my trip to Spain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Can I point out that linking the currency to the Pound is not unusual. The Irish republic linked their Punt to the Pound for many years until they joined the euro. A lot of currencies around the world are pegged or linked to others. For example Malaysia links to the US dollar. Doing so would enable stability to remain for whatever length of time was felt appropriate, chaos would affect both sides."

 

But he doesn't say he wants a Scottish pound pegged to Sterling, he says he wants to retain Sterling.

 

"Similarly, although i am personally not a monarchist if the country as a whole wished to retain the Queen as head of state, then why not. After all she is head of the Commonwealth and is head of state in Australia etc. Just as long as we managed to lose her scrounging brood I would not complain. I also hear that the Queen and Salmond are good buddies anyway."

 

If Scotland wants to retain the Queen as ceremonial head of state, fine.

 

"As for the Act of Union being agreed, that is a bit disingenous. Yes, a small number of Scottish nobles agreed and signed the deed, but the majority of the population were against it. However, time was a healer. Plus do note that ALL countries did not agree to a union. Unfortunately Wales was conquered and did not get any choice in the matter."

 

This is more cherry picking. I live in Sussex, the land of the South Saxons. I understand that when William invaded and suppressed the Saxons, he too failed to consult widely. How far back do you want to go? The Romans? The Dane-geld? That last ice age? What happened 300 years (12 generations by my reckoning) ago, is what was normal at the time. We are all, by degrees, the victims of our history, national and family. It is a measure of who, and what, we are.

 

"While, as I have stated, I am not in favour of independence it is very apparent that all the main political Parties have treated Scotland dismally and have directly led to the SNP gaining so much ground. Blair with his Labour Party opened Pandora's Box becasue he thought he could con us, and it has come back to bite his Party. For that I have no sympathy. The English may argue that the Scots caused the problems we now have, and in part that is true, but these guys did it because they were idiots, not because they were Scots, and for all his innumerable faults you have to accept that Brown did keep the UK out of the euro, when all others wanted in."

 

Blair is a Scot, born in Edinburgh. Gordon Brown is a Scot, born in Giffnock, Renfrewshire. The Labour party is British political party. These guys did it because they were Labour, not because they were Scots or English. That is about politics, not about being either Scots, English, Welsh, or Irish.

 

"It is also a good point as stated by Thatcher, that it is a good idea to 'starve these people of the oxygen of publicity' but the English media cannot see that. Up here we are fed up with it but get it shoved at us daily. No documentation is going to come out before 2013 so until then nobody has a clue what will be in or out, so as far as I am concerned the most important thing this year is planning my trip to Spain."

 

On your first point I disagree. It would be completely wrong to leave this slumbering until 2013, and then let Salmond and his supporters draw up the question for a referendum in Scotland alone, wrapping themselves in tartan and skirting all the difficult issues. The hard issues must be drawn out now, debated, and resolved. Then there can be a properly informed referendum across the whole country. That is the only way to get a legitimate answer. If Scotland gains independence, it will fire the starting gun for the probable conversion of the UK into a federation of individual countries: Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. If that is to be the plan, lets know of it now, and have the principle settled. If that is what is to be done, there must be a place at the table for the Republic of Ireland, because it would be unthinkable to simply exclude them. We, and particularly the Scots, have a lot of "history" with Ireland. I have no problem with the idea, but it had better be more sensibly formulated, and better implemented, than was the introduction of the Euro: that other great triumph of political will over economic reason.

 

As to your trip to Spain, I wish you well, but do remember you have to get through England first! :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being English and Living in Scotland , I find I,m in a Quandry over this issue, as I have said once before on this forum, I live in the S/W part of Scotland and have done so for the past 10 years,I voted SNP solely for the reason they said and have stuck to thier promise not to Raise the Council Tax,as you can Imagine this has helped many, many, Pensioners and Low Paid ,But if the vote is given to the populous of Scotland as Promised,I will be voting against Scotland breaking from the Union, and speaking to many of my Scottish Neighbours and Friends not one of them have come out in Favour of the Proposed split, Perhaps Alex Salmon has mistaken his Parties Popularity for keeping the Council tax down,as a platform for independence, only the polls will tell. I served in the Army with many Scots Lads , Brilliant Soldiers ,Dependable friends,Scotland is  an Asset to the UK, and long may it be that way,  But I cant help thinking have I a right to vote on what is in Essence a Scottish People,s Vote.  ??
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian Kirby - 2012-01-29 11:53 PM

 

"Can I point out that linking the currency to the Pound is not unusual. The Irish republic linked their Punt to the Pound for many years until they joined the euro. A lot of currencies around the world are pegged or linked to others. For example Malaysia links to the US dollar. Doing so would enable stability to remain for whatever length of time was felt appropriate, chaos would affect both sides."

 

But he doesn't say he wants a Scottish pound pegged to Sterling, he says he wants to retain Sterling.

 

"Similarly, although i am personally not a monarchist if the country as a whole wished to retain the Queen as head of state, then why not. After all she is head of the Commonwealth and is head of state in Australia etc. Just as long as we managed to lose her scrounging brood I would not complain. I also hear that the Queen and Salmond are good buddies anyway."

 

If Scotland wants to retain the Queen as ceremonial head of state, fine.

 

"As for the Act of Union being agreed, that is a bit disingenous. Yes, a small number of Scottish nobles agreed and signed the deed, but the majority of the population were against it. However, time was a healer. Plus do note that ALL countries did not agree to a union. Unfortunately Wales was conquered and did not get any choice in the matter."

 

This is more cherry picking. I live in Sussex, the land of the South Saxons. I understand that when William invaded and suppressed the Saxons, he too failed to consult widely. How far back do you want to go? The Romans? The Dane-geld? That last ice age? What happened 300 years (12 generations by my reckoning) ago, is what was normal at the time. We are all, by degrees, the victims of our history, national and family. It is a measure of who, and what, we are.

 

"While, as I have stated, I am not in favour of independence it is very apparent that all the main political Parties have treated Scotland dismally and have directly led to the SNP gaining so much ground. Blair with his Labour Party opened Pandora's Box becasue he thought he could con us, and it has come back to bite his Party. For that I have no sympathy. The English may argue that the Scots caused the problems we now have, and in part that is true, but these guys did it because they were idiots, not because they were Scots, and for all his innumerable faults you have to accept that Brown did keep the UK out of the euro, when all others wanted in."

 

Blair is a Scot, born in Edinburgh. Gordon Brown is a Scot, born in Giffnock, Renfrewshire. The Labour party is British political party. These guys did it because they were Labour, not because they were Scots or English. That is about politics, not about being either Scots, English, Welsh, or Irish.

 

"It is also a good point as stated by Thatcher, that it is a good idea to 'starve these people of the oxygen of publicity' but the English media cannot see that. Up here we are fed up with it but get it shoved at us daily. No documentation is going to come out before 2013 so until then nobody has a clue what will be in or out, so as far as I am concerned the most important thing this year is planning my trip to Spain."

 

On your first point I disagree. It would be completely wrong to leave this slumbering until 2013, and then let Salmond and his supporters draw up the question for a referendum in Scotland alone, wrapping themselves in tartan and skirting all the difficult issues. The hard issues must be drawn out now, debated, and resolved. Then there can be a properly informed referendum across the whole country. That is the only way to get a legitimate answer. If Scotland gains independence, it will fire the starting gun for the probable conversion of the UK into a federation of individual countries: Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. If that is to be the plan, lets know of it now, and have the principle settled. If that is what is to be done, there must be a place at the table for the Republic of Ireland, because it would be unthinkable to simply exclude them. We, and particularly the Scots, have a lot of "history" with Ireland. I have no problem with the idea, but it had better be more sensibly formulated, and better implemented, than was the introduction of the Euro: that other great triumph of political will over economic reason.

 

As to your trip to Spain, I wish you well, but do remember you have to get through England first! :-)

 

You are splitting hairs. The Scottish Pound is Sterling, in fact the Scottish pound was in exisitence before the English one. We already have our own currency which you will find is almost the sole means of paper currency up here. No bank except HSBC actually issues English notes. It is not signed by the governor of the Bank of England and although ti is currently issued under a licence, that is easily cancelled if we did decide to part the ways. It is also in England's interest to keep it at parity or again, as with the 2 Irelands, you will get cross border smuggling which does neither any good.

 

The Act of Union is specifically between Scotland and England, NO one else. All other countries and regions of the UK were conquered by someone or another. Conquered tends to mean 'no discussion'. This is the only one where that did not happen. The Act also specifically states the sovereignty of Scotland is sacrosant. Why you raise the Republic of Ireland as being part of the discussion is a mystery. It is a totally independent country and seceded from the Uk way back in 1921 if memory serves, however it did link its currency to the UK Pound. All the other countries in the UK must make their own decisions, not have one forced upon them. The Federation idea is more present than we really think. Northern Ireland is for all intents and purposes separate. After all, the only time they are on the News in England is if a bomb goes off, which I am sure makes them feel really part of the family. The Welsh are pushing for a language that no one else can speak, so be thankful that we at least are sticking with English, except of course in parts of Glasgow and Edinburgh where no one understands them. The majority of BBC news indicates the whole of the UK is comprised of the area south of Northampton at times and a comedian once said 'I see all these signs in London directing me to The North. Where is The North because I never seem to get there'. Cornwall is making noises I hear, but that is up to them, nothing to do with us.

 

I was not stating that we should leave it slumbering, no one up here was in the slightest bit interested. The SNP had their Conference which attracted so many supporters, they had to get a 2nd case of beers in. Yeah, it was the topic of all conversations...Not. Again, as is appearing in many newspapers up here the only reason people voted for the SNP was because the others offered absolutely nothing. The SNP at least offered, and have delivered a Council Tax freeze. Who would you support on that one?? Of course the English think we are all loving high on the hog provided by them and yes indeed today I, and all my countrymen queued up at the Post Office to get our cheques of English benevolence. Then it was a quick trip to the Bookies and the pub to splurge the lot. I wish. Of course we have the lowest lifespans of the whole UK, the dearest fuel costs, the highest incidence of Multiple Sclerosis and liver damage in the UK, if not the world. Yeah, this is indeed the land of milk and honey and you are welcome to come and join us, if you like grey skies and wet summers. In fact the whole issue was only raised because Cameron decided to try and push it and of course put his size 12Is right in it. The media love to stir up anything they think will sell newspapers and suggest we are all running around fevourishly desperate to separate, but curiously, and disappointing to them, the majority up here do not wish to leave the UK, unless Westminster makes an even bigger pigs ear of running things, which seems highly probable.

 

Until anyone has details of what will, or will not happen then any meaningful discussion is pointless. I do not buy a car without seeing it so why should I decide the future of a country without knowing what that entails? I use the word 'I' deliberately. Ina divorce the move invariably comes from one party not both. The other has to accomodate the first invariably. I do agree with Salmond when he states that when you are considering the most important decision you are going make in 300 years, you do not rush it. Or do you think we should get Fred Goodwin to run it? The so called '5 second' man. After all the Scottish Conservative and UNIONIST Party's main question for the Scottish Parliament was............will the Executive allow gay marriages in churches. They obviously have their agenda right up to speed as to what is of importance to the general public. No wonder they have so little support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave225 - 2012-02-01 9:27 PM

 

I do agree with Salmond .................

 

So do I for the first time today.

For sometime now since they've been talking about taking the Shreds knighthood off him I've been saying about the corrupt life peers in the Lords who after serving their time for embezzlement will still be allowed to take their seat after serving their time. The Eck brought up that same point today. I'm just surprised that it's never been mentioned before and on this I support the Eck 100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave225 - 2012-02-01 9:27 PM

 

You are splitting hairs. The Scottish Pound is Sterling, in fact the Scottish pound was in exisitence before the English one. ....................

With respect, I think you split the hairs. You seem to be focusing on the name, rather than the currency. My point, simply, is that the Bank of England is the lender of last resort for - as you object to it being called Sterling - the British Pound. If Scotland gains independence from the UK, it must have its own currency - call it Sterling if you wish - but the Bank of England must not be its lender of last resort. Scotland must provide its own. It can then peg its value to the Rupee if it so chooses. :-)

 

The Act of Union is specifically between Scotland and England, NO one else. ..................................

Your original point was that the Scots as a whole were not consulted over the Acts of Union. My point was that, at that time, no such consultation would have been considered. First James VI of Scotland became the English King James I, while both countries retained independent parliaments. Eventually, through two, independently voted Acts, Scotland and England became the United Kingdom. Those parliaments were not parliaments as we know them today, but they were, nevertheless, the governing bodies of their day. We are all the victims of our history, and trying to apply today’s practises retrospectively to yesterday’s deeds is, IMO, a fool’s errand. Hence my question: how far back do you want to go? Remember, the Celts were also invaders who failed to consult resident populations. Hence my allegation that the Scots are merely seeking to cherry pick a point in history convenient to their present cause.

 

I was not stating that we should leave it slumbering, no one up here was in the slightest bit interested. ...................................

Good, then let us have it all laid bare, for all to examine, and have a full, United Kingdom, referendum, on a fully worked proposal.

 

Until anyone has details of what will, or will not happen then any meaningful discussion is pointless. ...................................

Agreed so, as above, lets have the details now, give the whole population the time necessary to digest and question them, and then make the decision both sides of the border. You may even find a majority of the Scots vote to stay in, and a majority of the UK votes for them to leave. Could be interesting, but if that were the outcome? :-D

 

Why you raise the Republic of Ireland as being part of the discussion is a mystery.............................

Ah Ireland: well, two things.

 

First, Henry VIII was made King of Ireland in 1542 under an Irish Act. Then, when James VI of Scotland was made James I of England, he inherited the title King of Ireland. So, on that ground it seems a bit remiss, since we are picking our bits of history to recast, not to invite the Irish to a place at the table of a Federation of the Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ulster.

 

Second, because of our mutual history and our interdependencies, it seems to me diplomatic good manners, if we are to scrap the country from which the Irish seceded, and put in its place the independent British (note, Roman origin, including the whole of the British Isles) states of England, Scotland, Wales and Ulster, to exclude them from involvement, should they so wish. They may, they may not. However, at least one Irish Senator suggested, at the time of the Queen's recent visit, and in the light of the economic mess into which Ireland had sunk, that it might be a good time to give the whole lot back to her - so you never know! :-)

 

Of course, this re-visiting of history may encourage others to slap down a few demands for history to be re-written in their favour. For example, the Spanish, over Gibraltar, The Argentinians, over the Falklands. Then of course there are the French, and all those claims and counter claims over the right of William to claim the English Crown, the outcome of the 100 years war, Waterloo, should one go on ...............................................................!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lord Braykewynde - 2012-02-03 1:28 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2012-02-03 12:22 PM

 

For example, the Spanish, over Gibraltar, The Argentinians, over the Falklands.

 

The government shouldn't move one inch until the Spanish consider leaving their enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla. I'm sure Morocco would like them back. Talk about hippocrites *-)

Well yes, but hardly relevent to the matter in hand: the prospective break up of the UK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian Kirby - 2012-02-03 7:19 PM

 

Lord Braykewynde - 2012-02-03 1:28 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2012-02-03 12:22 PM

 

For example, the Spanish, over Gibraltar, The Argentinians, over the Falklands.

 

The government shouldn't move one inch until the Spanish consider leaving their enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla. I'm sure Morocco would like them back. Talk about hippocrites *-)

Well yes, but hardly relevent to the matter in hand: the prospective break up of the UK.

 

By stating the prospective break up of the UK, you obviously think it is a done deal, it is not. However, the way much of the media is throwing petrol on the flames, they are trying to ensure it.

 

To suggest that the facts should all be 'laid bare' as if this is something that can be achieved over a weekend for example, is bluntly ridiculous. Look at any discussion between nations and it takes months if not years for a settlement to be agreed, and you expect us to be any different? A 2 year timetable is for such a major event, in my opinion not unreasonable, it you wish it to be done correctly. We do not wish any more of Blair's 'on the back of a fag packet' policy ideas do we?? After all if it takes Westminster 4 years to remove 1 knighthood, how long will it take to part with 1 country? We all wish to see all the facts, but I am prepared to be patient in order to get the correct ones.

 

As for England throwing us out, I doubt that has any legality whatsoever. Our dear friends in Brussels would have a field day punishing England for that one. What England can do is remove itself from the United Kingdom, if it so wishes, but that would appear to be a bit nose cutting and face spiteing to me. Again, this is all so far down the line I know that people will be bored silly by it before too long.

 

But one thought that may be of interest to England as a country. If this did all go ahead then they would have the most densely populated country on the planet for such a small land mass and increasing exponentially. Putting nearly 70 million in to such a small space is going to cause some problems and 'escape' up here may not be so easy. Our next big project is to rebuild the Wall.

 

Anyway, tomorrow is a big day for both countries. It is ironic that the most outspoken person up here regarding being 'anti English' is the Scottish team manager and he is English. There are a lot of English fans in the capital today but I did not see any of them getting a hard time. Maybe if we win tomorrow then in the pubs things will get 'interesting'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman

I like small ;-)................as its cheaper to run..............so separation in to smaller parts will make us less of a target in the world :D

 

Lets face it we don't exactly have a illustrious history to the rest of the world *-)

 

The biggest export we have is our politicians ego's >:-(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave225 - 2012-02-03 8:53 PM

 

It is ironic that the most outspoken person up here regarding being 'anti English' is the Scottish team manager and he is English.

 

Who is paying his wages Dave? (lol)

Also he no doubt holds a grudge having been sacked by the RFU. and considering his record so far with Scotland I don't think he'll last long there either despite his contract until 2015 :-(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave225 - 2012-02-03 8:53 PM.....................By stating the prospective break up of the UK, you obviously think it is a done deal, it is not...............................

No. But I certainly wouldn't want to wait until it is a "done deal", if it ever is, before addressing that possibility. This United Kingdom of ours - as it still is - is a shared territory, it is not the exclusive property of the inhabitants of one part to dispose of at will.

 

To suggest that the facts should all be 'laid bare' as if this is something that can be achieved over a weekend for example, is bluntly ridiculous. ............................

Indeed. It would take a bit longer than a weekend, but given the impetus, the considerations could be laid out within one month. That is what I mean by laying bare. Then we can all turn to considering the potential implications. That is the bit that would take the years of which you speak. You first sketch out the "heads of agreement", then you negotiate. What I seem to be seeing at present is a determined effort by the SNP to keep their expectations under cover, reveal them at the last minute, and try to bounce everyone into spatchcocked decisions without due consideration. So, I want the issues put on the table now, so that there is ample time for their consideration by all concerned.

 

As for England throwing us out, I doubt that has any legality whatsoever. .........................

What I said was that, following the above due consideration, the referendum should include the whole population of the UK. I hypothesised that one outcome could be that the Scots might vote to stay in, but the rest of the UK might vote for them to leave. Chucking out doesn't enter into it. The referendum will indicate people's inclination, it will not determine what actually happens, or when.

 

But one thought that may be of interest to England as a country. If this did all go ahead then they would have the most densely populated country on the planet for such a small land mass and increasing exponentially. Putting nearly 70 million in to such a small space is going to cause some problems and 'escape' up here may not be so easy.

No. The population of England would not be affected by the secession of Scotland, and neither would its density, anymore than would those of Scotland. Whatever Scotland may do, any problems of population density in England would be unaffected.

 

Our next big project is to rebuild the Wall.

Would you like me to obtain quotes? :-D

 

................................................
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you keep quoting it Dave 225 I will correct you as regards Wales being conquered as the means of becoming part of the union. It was in fact the marriage of Margarette Baufort to Henry Tudor who became Henry the seventh that finally brought the two countries together. Even though Henry the fourth defeated Owen Glendwyr (200 Yrs) previously.

I fully support total independence for Scotland, the sooner the better.

Winging lot of buggers anyway IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...