le veritable wrote:
The most recent poll was 54-46 against independence.
William Wallace was outnumbered a lot more than that when he led Scotland to freedom.
le veritable wrote:
The most recent poll was 54-46 against independence.
William Wallace was outnumbered a lot more than that when he led Scotland to freedom.
This is the reason Scotland should remain as part of the UK. They're always telling other people to shut up. Warning: Don't fight the British at Culloden. You'll lose.Scots reaction: SHUT UP!Result: They lostOne of many examples.
parochial boy wrote:
I'm Scottish, and haven't decided which way to vote yet.
You clearly know absolutely nothing about the issues.
So please shut up.
Thnank you.
How can they be independent when they are still part of the EU.
If they show Braveheart on tv the night before the vote they will probably get their 'independence'
Yes.
Scotland should obviously be independent.
It's a no brainer.
The scaremongering from every section of the English establishment has been very predictable, as usual. So, sooooooooooo boring.
It's time for a change. Scotland need to be allowed to run their own country as they want to. Hopefully they'll vote yes, and hopefully Wales can gain independence as well, the English have stolen Wales' resources for their own gains, they've tried to destroy Welsh culture and the Welsh language. Conservative politicians in London don't know what's best for Wales or Scotland and frankly they don't care either.
It's nothing personal, Scotland and Wales are countries with their own cultures, they have a right to be completely independent nations and to control their own assets and resources for the benefit of their own people.
interesting..... wrote:
Yes.
Scotland should obviously be independent.
It's a no brainer.
The scaremongering from every section of the English establishment has been very predictable, as usual. So, sooooooooooo boring.
It's time for a change. Scotland need to be allowed to run their own country as they want to. Hopefully they'll vote yes, and hopefully Wales can gain independence as well, the English have stolen Wales' resources for their own gains, they've tried to destroy Welsh culture and the Welsh language. Conservative politicians in London don't know what's best for Wales or Scotland and frankly they don't care either.
It's nothing personal, Scotland and Wales are countries with their own cultures, they have a right to be completely independent nations and to control their own assets and resources for the benefit of their own people.
You know Welsh people would vote against independence about 80% to 20%?
Scotland is voting no. Sorry.
Winds are changing in Wales.
Scotland vote will be like Quebec; relatively close but no cigar. Shit will die down after that. Scottish independence is a far-fetched neo-liberal grab attempt on the UK. (Won't explain think about it). Scottish oil is nothing, really. Won't work. If it happens, I applaud it. It WILL happen someday, though.
A Yank b/w a clue
Bad Wigins wrote:
le veritable wrote:The most recent poll was 54-46 against independence.
William Wallace was outnumbered a lot more than that when he led Scotland to freedom.
remind me...howd that work out for wallace again?
He became the hero of Scottish FREEDOM
Bad Wigins wrote:
He became the hero of Scottish FREEDOM
Regretfully I have to inform you that you are muddling up fact with cinema fiction.
It was a movie actor called Mel Gibson you are were watching on celluloid - not the real William Wallace.
The Scots will never vote for ‘freedom’ as they would then have to start working for a living and begin to create sufficient wealth to start living within their means.
As it is now, almost nine out of ten Scots are living on benefits inasmuch as receive more from the state than they pay in tax.
The ‘state’ in this case being the poor old English taxpayer.
Good riddance I would say, but turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.
luv2run wrote:
Ted Underhill wrote:Is Texas next? I read an article the other day that suggested TX would be better suited at independence (minus a few significant downsides) than Scottland.
And those downsides are? Regarding Texas.
They take in more federal money than they pay in taxes and at some point water is going to become a bigger issue than it is even now. They will have to pay for their own border protection. Healthcare costs. They are one of the more obese states in the union. Those are just a few. Despite what all those Texans would have you believe, there are benefits to being in this nation.
Ted Underhill wrote:
luv2run wrote:And those downsides are? Regarding Texas.
They take in more federal money than they pay in taxes and at some point water is going to become a bigger issue than it is even now. They will have to pay for their own border protection. Healthcare costs. They are one of the more obese states in the union. Those are just a few. Despite what all those Texans would have you believe, there are benefits to being in this nation.
Exactly. You hear BS like this from tx all the time. It’s just blustering politicians trying to incite the masses for elections, and it really works on moronic voters. You find something people identify with, and make them feel proud about it, and you win. Religion is one of these things, and texas pride is also one of these things. Irrational, but people get so excited about it.
The whole south in general is like this. It’s like an ischemic limb- it was useful once, but became unhealthy, and eventually a drag on the body as a whole, until it becomes a risk to the body and the only solution is to amputate it. If only we could amputate all those red taker states. Imagine reallocating and redistributing our blue giver-state money within ourselves instead of the money pit which is the south! I say let them secede, but build a wall so we don’t get infected with their problems as they die off.
Joe Binks wrote:
As it is now, almost nine out of ten Scots are living on benefits inasmuch as receive more from the state than they pay in tax.
The ‘state’ in this case being the poor old English taxpayer.
Really?
Can you show us some evidence?
parochial boy wrote:
I'm Scottish, and haven't decided which way to vote yet.
You clearly know absolutely nothing about the issues.
So please shut up.
Thnank you.
Tell us what the big issues for you are. You really aren't decided yet?
They have a cool flag.
So much drivel spouted in this thread, it's difficult to know where to start......
Firstly, you Americans with a, I'll be kind and say, "limited" understanding of the socio-political issues at play here - here's a quick primer :
Scotland is being seduced into independence by a snake-oil salesman called Alex Salmond, leader of the Scottish National Party. This party is broadly Socialist, vehemently anti-Nuclear (and when the entire UK's nuclear arsenal is situated in Scotland, this would present not only the rest of the UK, but NATO too a big problem), unenthusiastic about America, high-tax and has somehow convinced Scots that all of their problems (and the Scots have many) are down to the conniving English.
This is bs. Through the Barnett Formula, every Scot receives about $2000 per head pa more than the Welsh or English. In addition to this, 2 of the last 3 British Prime Ministers were Scots, the Scots have the smallest constituencies (making them unfairly represented in Parliament - think Wyoming and Montana versus California in the Senate).
Also, though English MP's in Parliament can't vote on Scottish legal, educational or health matters (as they're already governed from Scotland), there is no such block on Scottish MP's voting on English health, education or legal bills (the so-called West Lothian Question). This is patently unfair and anti-democratic.
Scotland does extremely well from the current arrangement, and it's a shame that only 7% of the population are allowed a vote on the break-up of the United Kingdom.
If the Scots vote for independence, my view is that they are voting for a poorer future. There are some at least intellectually honest Scots who know this but who think self-determination is worth it anyway. But Salmond thinks that by becoming independent, they can somehow keep the £, stay in the EU, become richer, spend more money on their health service, etc etc. it's just flat out not true.
As a lover of the Union, I just hope the Scots don't find out they've been sold a crock, the hard way.
Seems like you should throw them out if they don't leave.
Joe Binks wrote:
Regretfully I have to inform you that you are muddling up fact with cinema fiction.
It was a movie actor called Mel Gibson you are were watching on celluloid - not the real William Wallace.
I'm afraid you have me confused with an uneducated person. I'm talking about the real William Wallace. Did he or did he not lead the Scots to victory at Stirling Bridge, emboldening the rebellion and leading ultimately to Scottish independence? Yes or no.
HRE wrote:
Seems like you should throw them out if they don't leave.
Some of the English newspapers have been suggesting this lately.
It's such an interesting moment in Scotland's relationship to England. I find it very interesting that the MPs at Whitehall defend the union by continually making reference to the economic risks that independence would entail. 'Better together' primarily means better together solely in an economic sense. That really seems to be the only argument that south England politicos are able to level against a Yes vote.
From my perspective, if the government of the UK is only able to provide some sort of security as an economic zone, it's a very small carrot indeed. The UK's common Protestantism means little in a secular age (at least outside Northern Ireland). The career opportunities and financial benefits of the empire are long gone. Worse still, Thatcher and Blair dismantled the welfare apparatus that bound Britain together since the second world war. Why should they stay?
All this being said I get really worried when people start making ethnic claims for territory. *ahem, eastern Ukraine* 1914, anyone? Also is it worth noting that the United Kingdom is 70 years older than the United States?
Bad Wigins wrote:
Joe Binks wrote:Regretfully I have to inform you that you are muddling up fact with cinema fiction.
It was a movie actor called Mel Gibson you are were watching on celluloid - not the real William Wallace.
I'm afraid you have me confused with an uneducated person. I'm talking about the real William Wallace. Did he or did he not lead the Scots to victory at Stirling Bridge, emboldening the rebellion and leading ultimately to Scottish independence? Yes or no.
Actually, concepts of 'nation,' 'independence,' and 'freedom' would have been totally alien to a lower noble such as Wallace. These concepts, which you are using to discuss the late 13th century, were actually formulated in the 19th century. So, yes the Scots won a battle on a bridge in Stirling. But the conflict was more about feudal allegiance (claims to titles and landholdings) then it was about ethnic territorial sovereignty. Your comments do raise a good point that the 1995 movie apparently did create some nationalist feeling in Scotland. But I imagine to our modern social and political sensibilities we would have found that Scottish nobles treated their subjects as equally nasty as the English did theirs.
