ChatterBank6 mins ago
Round 2 Of The Neverendum In Scotland: 2018 ?
30 Answers
Answers
"On what possible grounds do people such as yourself believe Scotland be be incapable of surviving in a similar state? " Oh I'm sure Scotland would survive in a similar state. Quite whether it would be more desireable to be like, say, Greece (25% unemployment
20:40 Sun 18th Sep 2016
"NJ, has either Liverpool or the IOW ever had its own Parliament, Monarch or legal system?"
No. And nor has Scotland had a Parliament or Monarch of its own for more than 300 years (excepting, of course, the Parliament set up by Tony Blair's ridiculous "devolution" arrangements). Its current separate legal system is a curious anomaly that should have been discontinued long ago. The differences between it and the system used in England and Wales is nothing short of a nuisance and subjects UK citizens to two different systems - a most unsatisfactory arrangement.
I'm not contemptuous of Scotland's future. As I said, I couldn't really care one way or the other. I'm simply illustrating a possible (or maybe probable) future they may face should they choose independence (unlikely) and be accepted as a member of the EU (extremely unlikely). Personally I hope they hold a second vote and choose to leave the UK. I just wish they'd do so asap.
No. And nor has Scotland had a Parliament or Monarch of its own for more than 300 years (excepting, of course, the Parliament set up by Tony Blair's ridiculous "devolution" arrangements). Its current separate legal system is a curious anomaly that should have been discontinued long ago. The differences between it and the system used in England and Wales is nothing short of a nuisance and subjects UK citizens to two different systems - a most unsatisfactory arrangement.
I'm not contemptuous of Scotland's future. As I said, I couldn't really care one way or the other. I'm simply illustrating a possible (or maybe probable) future they may face should they choose independence (unlikely) and be accepted as a member of the EU (extremely unlikely). Personally I hope they hold a second vote and choose to leave the UK. I just wish they'd do so asap.
NJ,
England hasn't (quote) "had a Parliament or Monarch of its own for more than 300 years" either! The problem is, of course, that whatever the English, by dint of population-size, want in general elections, referenda etc is what the English…and everyone else in the UK, regardless…get! Accordingly, what many Scots want is independence from England, simple as that.
Those who voted to remain in the EU, from both countries, clearly did not mind being subject to EU rules. Unlike you, they did not see these as being overly restrictive and felt their government was still able to legislate largely as it wished.
You list a lot of parlous financial statistics about Greece, as if Scotland was comparable, but you are just apples-and-pearsing as usual. Do you seriously imagine that a desire for independence is driven by money? Was that the sole reason for the English electorate’s decision to vote for Brexit? Or was an innate sense that being master of one’s own fate is inherently desirable equally relevant?
Your oft-repeated claims regarding Liverpool and the Isle of Wight having an equal claim for independence to Scotland’s remain clearly absurd. Why? Scotland does not just have a separate legal system from England’s, it has a separate educational system, a separate church and a separate cultural ‘system’, too. I know Scousers are a proudly ‘independent’ breed, but please explain in what ways their religious adherences, their schools and their - let's say - love of pipe bands differ from those of people elsewhere in England.
England hasn't (quote) "had a Parliament or Monarch of its own for more than 300 years" either! The problem is, of course, that whatever the English, by dint of population-size, want in general elections, referenda etc is what the English…and everyone else in the UK, regardless…get! Accordingly, what many Scots want is independence from England, simple as that.
Those who voted to remain in the EU, from both countries, clearly did not mind being subject to EU rules. Unlike you, they did not see these as being overly restrictive and felt their government was still able to legislate largely as it wished.
You list a lot of parlous financial statistics about Greece, as if Scotland was comparable, but you are just apples-and-pearsing as usual. Do you seriously imagine that a desire for independence is driven by money? Was that the sole reason for the English electorate’s decision to vote for Brexit? Or was an innate sense that being master of one’s own fate is inherently desirable equally relevant?
Your oft-repeated claims regarding Liverpool and the Isle of Wight having an equal claim for independence to Scotland’s remain clearly absurd. Why? Scotland does not just have a separate legal system from England’s, it has a separate educational system, a separate church and a separate cultural ‘system’, too. I know Scousers are a proudly ‘independent’ breed, but please explain in what ways their religious adherences, their schools and their - let's say - love of pipe bands differ from those of people elsewhere in England.
QM: "The problem is, of course, that whatever the English, by dint of population-size, want in general elections, referenda etc is what the English…and everyone else in the UK, regardless…get! Accordingly, what many Scots want is independence from England, simple as that. " - and the EU will be more sympathetic to the needs of your enclave? Right oh!
Like I said, QM, I don’t care one way or the other. It’s all the faffing about that gest on my nerves together with continual images of Ms Sturgeon believing she has an entitlement to call the shots for the UK when she and her party represent, at best, 60% of 8% of the population.
Although it’s somewhat unimportant, I have it in mind (from my ‘O’ Level history) that Scotland was keener on seeing a union than was England. I’m quite sure it was not England’s idea. The various aspects of separation that have ensued since then are a complete nonsense and an utter nuisance and they should have been ended years ago either by independence or proper assimilation. Instead Mr Blair comes up with his stupid devolution scheme which simply made matters worse.
I don’t know why about half the Scots want independence. If they don’t care about money it’s because, since 1707, they have never had to. They may find a little realism hits home should they go their own way (though I don’t doubt there will be two or three decades of “transitional” support).
As for my analogies with other parts of the UK, as far as I am concerned Scotland is simply a part of the United Kingdom. Yes, you can go back 300 years if you want to but I would suggest the time has come to move on. Lots of parts of the country do not get what they want when the government of their choice is not in power in Westminster. It’s called democracy.
Although it’s somewhat unimportant, I have it in mind (from my ‘O’ Level history) that Scotland was keener on seeing a union than was England. I’m quite sure it was not England’s idea. The various aspects of separation that have ensued since then are a complete nonsense and an utter nuisance and they should have been ended years ago either by independence or proper assimilation. Instead Mr Blair comes up with his stupid devolution scheme which simply made matters worse.
I don’t know why about half the Scots want independence. If they don’t care about money it’s because, since 1707, they have never had to. They may find a little realism hits home should they go their own way (though I don’t doubt there will be two or three decades of “transitional” support).
As for my analogies with other parts of the UK, as far as I am concerned Scotland is simply a part of the United Kingdom. Yes, you can go back 300 years if you want to but I would suggest the time has come to move on. Lots of parts of the country do not get what they want when the government of their choice is not in power in Westminster. It’s called democracy.
NJ
"Lots of parts of the country do not get what they want when the government of their choice is not in power in Westminster."
Perhaps true, but how many of these "parts", however large or small:
a) are countries
b) are peopled by a nation
c) have historical and profound legal, educational, religious and culltural differences from England?
The answer, as you perfectly well know, is NONE! So, how can you be so facile as to compare any of them with Scotland?
I should have thought that you and others like you, as out-and-out Brexiters, would appreciate rather than deprecate the desire of others to control their own fate.
"Lots of parts of the country do not get what they want when the government of their choice is not in power in Westminster."
Perhaps true, but how many of these "parts", however large or small:
a) are countries
b) are peopled by a nation
c) have historical and profound legal, educational, religious and culltural differences from England?
The answer, as you perfectly well know, is NONE! So, how can you be so facile as to compare any of them with Scotland?
I should have thought that you and others like you, as out-and-out Brexiters, would appreciate rather than deprecate the desire of others to control their own fate.
(a) and (b) – Scotland is not a nation. It is an area of the United Kingdom. It was a nation 309 years ago, but it is not now. It is not an independent nation state and is not a member of the UN . It is no more a nation (now) than is Patagonia or the Basque region of Spain.
(c) Apart from the history, try Bradford.
But as I’ve said, it doesn’t really matter. We just fundamentally differ on the issue of Scotland’s nation status. The United Nations and the European Union seem to have adopted my viewpoint; Nicola Sturgeon, Alex Salmond and Sir Sean Connery agree with you.
I have no objection to the Scots wishing to pursue their independence. However, I cannot reconcile your assertion that their wish (free of the UK but a member of the EU) will enable them to be any more in control of their fate than they are now. In fact, bearing in mind they will have to abandon their border control with the rest of the EU (as Schengen members), will be using a currency over which they have no control and the manipulation of which will not accommodate their interests (as users of the euro) and will have to spend their EU grants as directed (instead of spending their UK grants on what they like) I would suggest they would be far less in control.
Whatever they decide to do I just wish they’d get on and do it. But if, in the next year or two, they vote for a second time to remain part of the UK that should be the end of it for at least twenty years.
(c) Apart from the history, try Bradford.
But as I’ve said, it doesn’t really matter. We just fundamentally differ on the issue of Scotland’s nation status. The United Nations and the European Union seem to have adopted my viewpoint; Nicola Sturgeon, Alex Salmond and Sir Sean Connery agree with you.
I have no objection to the Scots wishing to pursue their independence. However, I cannot reconcile your assertion that their wish (free of the UK but a member of the EU) will enable them to be any more in control of their fate than they are now. In fact, bearing in mind they will have to abandon their border control with the rest of the EU (as Schengen members), will be using a currency over which they have no control and the manipulation of which will not accommodate their interests (as users of the euro) and will have to spend their EU grants as directed (instead of spending their UK grants on what they like) I would suggest they would be far less in control.
Whatever they decide to do I just wish they’d get on and do it. But if, in the next year or two, they vote for a second time to remain part of the UK that should be the end of it for at least twenty years.
Chambers Dictionary's primary definition of the word, 'nation' (quote):
"A body of people marked off by common descent, language, culture or historical tradition whether or not bound by the defined territorial limits of a state." Please note especially the latter half of that definition.
You say, "The United Nations and the European Union seem to have adopted my ( ie your) viewpoint."
Well, I beg to differ. When I want to know what a word means, I tend to consult a trusted dictionary. I could have referred to The Oxford English Dictionary; its definition is rather longer, but says virtually the same. It includes "...usually organised as a separate political state." Usually, not always.
Besides that, I'm rather startled to see - of all people - you using the EU as a supporter of your viewpoint! (Personally, I'm not all that enamoured of the United Nations as a supporter either!)
If we cannot even agree on what words actually mean, there's little point in this discussion continuing either here or elsewhere.
"A body of people marked off by common descent, language, culture or historical tradition whether or not bound by the defined territorial limits of a state." Please note especially the latter half of that definition.
You say, "The United Nations and the European Union seem to have adopted my ( ie your) viewpoint."
Well, I beg to differ. When I want to know what a word means, I tend to consult a trusted dictionary. I could have referred to The Oxford English Dictionary; its definition is rather longer, but says virtually the same. It includes "...usually organised as a separate political state." Usually, not always.
Besides that, I'm rather startled to see - of all people - you using the EU as a supporter of your viewpoint! (Personally, I'm not all that enamoured of the United Nations as a supporter either!)
If we cannot even agree on what words actually mean, there's little point in this discussion continuing either here or elsewhere.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.