Jump to content

Recommended Posts

No, it's not a good thing. There is no possible way that Scotland and Scots would be better off in a totally independent country. I was born in Scotland but have been resident in Canada since I was a boy. I can't imagine why any Scot or anyone with Scottish connections would wish to identify themselves solely with Scotland and not Britain as a whole. I have a British passport, as well as a Canadian one, and that is what I want to keep.

The history of mutual achievement in the arts, in science and industry, in the export of democratic principles throughout the world , in the brotherhood of battle in two world wars. . . all these things and more have made Britain one of the greatest civilizations in history.

The greatness of Scotland is enhanced by its being a part of Britain. I am proud to be British, first, and Scottish second.

And remember, it was a Scotsman who wrote Rule Britannia. And furthermore, keep in mind that our current Queen Elizabeth is the direct descendant of James VI of Scotland (James I of England). The history of England and Scotland, their achievements, their economies, their cultures are too inextricably intertwined to make separation any benefit to either.

Marmora Man Wrote:

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

> Alec John Moore Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

Seeing things from a perpetually anglo

> > centric perspective is the thing that pisses

> the

> > Scots off on a regular basis.


I smiled when I read this. I know quite a few English people now living in the Scottish Highlands and this is exactly what they say happens and they get pretty annoyed about it too!


However, most

> > intelligent Scots can overlook that innate

> > arrogance and will sensibly agree with you that

> > political and economic independence would be a

> > pointless waste of effort.


> I believe, and hope, the majority of Scots would

> not favour full independence. However, I do think

> Alex Salmond now has to call the referendum -

> deciding who will be eligible to vote will be an

> interesting problem.


Absolutely agree and I hope that any sort of referendum will prove that the majority of Scots do not favour this.


> Many many ex pat Scots of my acquaintance would

> probably vote in favour of independence on an

> emotional basis, their view of Scotland being

> clouded by a misty remembrance of the past - but

> they would not return to live in Scotland,

> independent or not. I'd call that the Connery

> Conundrum.


I'd call him something else but I'm trying to be polite this evening.

>

> Additionally, in the event of independence the

> contractual disputes about who owns what, whether

> it be oil in the North Sea, military bases,

> equipment and personnel, NHS hospitals, roads,

> rail and other infrastructure would just be mind

> boggling.


So sorry for 'fisking' but I also agree with this, all that expense and for what end exactly? I know so many Scots living in England and vice versa.


If the Scottish get to vote on whether to remain in the Union or not, I think the English should get to vote on whether to keep it too - no, in fact, they should get to vote on whether to keep us Scots in! :)


My personal opinion - the only good thing to come out of a break up of the Union would be a renegotiation of the Treaty and a chance to get out of the EU.

Hi katie1997, do you mean the reverse of my statement? i.e that English people in Scotland get pissed of by the Alba-centric perspective of Highlanders? This doesn't surprise me. In Ireland they would be known as "blow-ins". It's one of the reasons I love living in London. Being the son of a cockney mother and having produced 3 Londoner children I now consider myself to be a Londoner, despite being Scottish by birth. I feel that "London" would welcome me as such. I also think that this is why Scottish independence is unnecessary. I don't deny that racial memory is long but it is also selective. I remember hearing a Highlander on TV once identifying with the history of the oppression of the native North Americans when being asked about the Highland clearances.

Hi AJM - yes, I did mean the reverse of your statement (eg English in Scotland) as well as the other non-reverse (?!), cannot think of the right word to describe it, (eg Scottish in Scotland)


London is very welcoming and it annoys me how much people can moan about it (and the English). You're spot on about selective memories too, I am sure that the Highland clearances were perpetuated by ... Scottish landowners? (no doubt someone will call me up on that if I am mistaken)!


Oh and that flipping Alex Salmond makes me (6)

Scottish independence as a stepping stone to withdrawal from the EU? That 's a new one.


Historically I guess if Scotland were to make trading ties with the UK weaker, they would naturally turn to France, so you'd imagine EU ties would be required to get stronger?


If that's the case it would need serious consideration. What part of the EU is it that you don't like? Human Rights? Common Market? Central bank? Foreigners in general?

I'm a Scot and I detest the idea of independence which I think is just that - an idea. Most people back home that I know who are for independence can't even justify it. They see it as draping the Saltire at the window and one-upping the English or generally like the idea of having more parliamentary power. However I don't think one of them could explain how they would continue to fund the higher education system, free prescriptions, bus passes, etc. Unemployment is high and I can't see Westminster being so generous with money if Scotland are so arrogant to assume that they can survive on industry alone (what industry?! oil? Until that runs out...). What I will say is that since I have moved down to London I have noticed that there is practically no news about Scotland, whereas in Scotland there is often news about England and of course Westminster, it being the hub of all dodgy dealings. I worked at the Scottish Government and see huge differences but that's a whole other story...

Do you read in that article that he considers the British to be a sort of mongrel race with connections through family to different parts of the Kingdom without feeling especially at home in one part?


I've always considered the Scottish and the Irish to be quite similar and it made me wonder why the Scots would be so different to the Irish in not wanting Independence. Yet if you look at Irish history, the 1916 Rising was not at all well supported by the population. It wasn't until the 'English' executed its leaders that the path to actual Independence was born. If that hadn't happened then the Union Jack might well still be flying over Dublin today.


I doubt that Scottish qualification for a World Cup will have the same effect.

A sort of homogenous mongrel if that's possible.

One of the difficulties of trying to tease apart the genetic history of the British Isles, particularly in terms of Scots to Ireland and vice versa is that the genetic markers of pretty much everyone in the British Isles are basically the same so you can't really tell who went where within it.

Irish, Welsh, Scottish and English are geographical and cultural identities.


Genetically we're one big happy family*.


*ish, there are more hispanic markers in the atlantic fringe and more germanic markers in East Anglia, and most notably parts of eastern Scotland.

I partially agree with you about Ireland, but I think the main difference is that Scotland did really very very well out of Britain, and particularly empire, it's alwalys had a disproportionate representation among the generals, adventurers, entrepreneurs and politicians of Britain.

Plus it joined out of choice (mostly because it was bankrupt) rather than coercion.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Bit nerdy. But the traditional form of England/Wales local government was based on committees with themehmbers in proportion to the respective political parties numbers.  Blair government introduced for councils that chose it cabinet structure where the majority hold roles covering each of  former committee would decide/confirm. Additionally a Blair option for a super council leader Mayoral role such as Lewisham rather than ceremonial mayoral role who chairs council Council Assemblies of all councils. A number of councils have since moved from exec Mayoral role to cabinet basis.  Without Councillors being elected via a Proportional Voting system I personally would prefer to see a return to committee decision making structure. It ensures all Councillors have to know what they're doing rather than the ruling party leaving it to a few cabinet members and the rest just voting at Council Assemblies how they/re told. Just a personal view. 
    • With the elections coming up soon, it's interesting to note that residents over the boundary in Lewisham have a different system of local government than Southwark. Lewisham has a directly elected Executive Mayor while Southwark has kept a traditional local authority structure. Nothing is perfect, but I think Lewisham made a mistake with the Executive Mayor in that it blurs the legislative branch and executive branch of governance, and makes serious scrutiny of decisions less likely to happen - especially in a Borough like Lewisham which is essentially a one-party state. None of the political parties are offering any major reforms of local government for London, which is very disappointing since it seems obvious that having 33 local authorities - all with their own internal administrations - is not a good way to run things, when most of them are struggling even to maintain basic services.
    • My  understanding is that all developments whatever size, have to have an element of social housing…affordable housing… council housing..No longer sure of percentage but clearly less than years ago.. The point is house builders clearly make a profit or they simply would not  continue building what I refer to as modern  boxes!  Putting housing condensed or what originally was one house with land attached.  Huge development going on in Beckenham - 200 social housing and rest open market.. sited over several houses now demolished… up the road from the park on way into town centre.. might even be completed by now.. haven’t been that way in last year… certainly can’t miss it.. So, for example, let’s say a developer builds houses and flats on a site… social housing I assume would be in a separate block to other flats and I assume house as well. Ie to put it bluntly, away from main site.. Nothing wrong in that at all.  Many years ago, near Borough a developer built flats divided into blocks. . Price range £300/400,000. Social housing was in a different block…. Can’t remember how many… so families , couples etc got a brand new flat with modern kitchen and bathrooms, flooring etc  and could not even keep common parts clean.. trash thrown out and left including out of windows etc..total disregard for community and certainly not  grateful for brand new property and a home.. I hasten to add, not every flat in the social housing sector but certainly a fair few behaved that way.      
    • Please name all of the shops.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...