Thoughts?

It's up to the Scots really, the UK will become slightly less important on the global stage if it loses 5m people but maybe that's good if we can concentrate on improving our own living standards like smaller countries tend to do rather than trying to be a major world meddler.

As for Scotland itself, they would probably do ok if they left now because they would have the cushion of oil revenues to pay for the extra public spending they currently receive from the rest of us. If they leave it 20 years though, the oil money will have run out and they'll be stuck with big spending cuts, tax rises or a major borrowing requirement.

this poll really really needs a don't care option. The scots seem to want independence, but as far as im concerned i dont give a flying fuck what they do.

Its a bad idea because you'll have people who want independence and then people that want to stay with England. Didn't something like this get stirred up in Ireland? Oh ye it did and it wasn't good for anybody.

i think it's inevitable. i'd rather they didn't push for independence, but ultimately it's their decision. many of them seem to harbour a genuine hatred for the english, whether this feeling dissipates with independence only time will tell. i rather think it won't.

See ya Scotland!

Firmly against. Britain has been unified for 300 years (the crown for longer) and has achieved far more united than either England or Scotland ever did on their own. Oh and Britain just happens to have the best flag in the world (see other thread). I absolutely loathe the English St George Cross flag and all the yobbish racist football hooligan symbolism it evokes - also the intensely irritating "why don't we celebrate St George's Day?" bullshit. There is nothing inevitable about the breakup of Britain. A clear majority in Scotland wish to retain Britannia and so do I.

Scottish independance?
Let the scots decide. Im sure that the majority of the scots would be for having their own state and decide matters on their won.

For.

Because as soon as they become independant, they will no longer be taking 6,000,000,000 a year off us:)

And if they do get independance, but we STILL have to give them money, I am leaving the country. Why should we have to pay for their free universities etc...?

For.

Because as soon as they become independant, they will no longer be taking 6,000,000,000 a year off us...

scotland gets a £30bn grant from whitehall - source (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/scotland/story/0,,1995487,00.html).

What's England's "grand from Whitehall" then?

What's England's "grand from Whitehall" then?

that would be £1,000, wouldn't it?

arf, arf!

For.

Because as soon as they become independant, they will no longer be taking 6,000,000,000 a year off us:)

And if they do get independance, but we STILL have to give them money, I am leaving the country. Why should we have to pay for their free universities etc...?

The Northeast is a net drain on the UK economy. Sad, and not inevitable, I feel, but true.

An independent Scotland will be that - independent - and not receive any money from Whitehall. However, the North East will continue to subsist on handouts as it will remain (as it is now) the least economically productive region in the UK.

Eyes, planks, splinters, young Geordie lad.

that would be £1,000, wouldn't it?

arf, arf!


Ah bollox, I'm tired.

And if they do get independance, but we STILL have to give them money, I am leaving the country. Why should we have to pay for their free universities etc...?

Could happen when Scotland joins the EU and then gets money from the EU fund like Spain.
At the same time youd have to consider that Scotlands natural ressources made up for some of that money too.

I'm all for it, every nation has the right to self determination, I agree about the St George Cross though.

http://www.allstates-flag.com/images/full-size/flags/international/UK_Royal_Standard.gif

England's flag should be the "English" part of the Royal standard

one thing people dont mention is scotlands share of the national debt is much larger than englands. much much larger. as is their govt borrowing - they borrow rather more north of the border than we do, another way they can spend more money whilst being poorer. Indepedence is much more complex than Scots (and the English) understand.

Definitely for. The sooner they feck off and save us a shedload of money the better. They also don't seem to to like the English very much and as far as I'm concerned the feelings become mutual! Having said the country itself is beautiful and I've had some wonderful holidays in the highlands

guys listen there is 2 questions to address here i feel the rest of england seems to be very hostile against scots for no reason

people in scotland vote for SNP for 2 important reaons

1) because they are nationalist and vote with heart rather tha brain (however this is a small minority)

2) they are unhappy with the current labour goverment and blair is seen as a US puppet who does what he is told, its labours faluires and this brings discontent and unsatisfaction which leads to more SNP votes

I can say that majority of people vote SNP for last reason however there is alot who do want scottish independnce

look at prevoius elections when everyone is happy with current goverment no one votes for SNP but when current goverment lets the people down it laves us with no alternative opinion other than SNP

i am in sceince and if scotland gets independence its bad for science because we will losse alot of funding councils i am for united UK as long as we can make progress and move forward

Definitely for. The sooner they feck off and save us a shedload of money the better.

More handouts from London, the Southeast and East Anglia for underperforming Yorks and the Humber. Hurrah!

Could happen when Scotland joins the EU and then gets money from the EU fund like Spain.
At the same time youd have to consider that Scotlands natural ressources made up for some of that money too.

scotland will get fair share of north sea oil and gas but then we will losse the large subsidies we receive especially at the border areas, if u look at the figures it pretty much evens out, so its not like we are getting loads of $$$ and are going to get free univeristys, now students have to pay £2000 endowment free after graduation!

I am most definately against it.

People should also recall that unlike the economically underperforming English regions that are the home to the whingers on this thread complaining that "their" money is being spent in Scotland, Scotland is one of the UK's best performing regions.

Scotland's three main (and only significant) cities all have GVA/ head figures higher than the UK average (in the north of England only one big city, Leeds, manages that) and Scotland, as a whole, generates an income per head figure similar to the UK's as a whole.

People should also recall that unlike the economically underperforming English regions that are the home to the whingers on this thread complaining that "their" money is being spent in Scotland, Scotland is one of the UK's best performing regions.


It should be with all that money being spent on it. :)

yeah i mean look at the univeristys for examples, St Andrews, Edinburgh and Dundee are top unis

Dundee University wellcome trust is bigger than london medical school + Ninewells hospital which is a teaching hospital we have great collection of talent here and everyone works hard no get anything for free

guys listen there is 2 questions to address here i feel the rest of england seems to be very hostile against scots for no reason

people in scotland vote for SNP for 2 important reaons

1) because they are nationalist and vote with heart rather tha brain (however this is a small minority)

2) they are unhappy with the current labour goverment and blair is seen as a US puppet who does what he is told, its labours faluires and this brings discontent and unsatisfaction which leads to more SNP votes

I can say that majority of people vote SNP for last reason however there is alot who do want scottish independnce

look at prevoius elections when everyone is happy with current goverment no one votes for SNP but when current goverment lets the people down it laves us with no alternative opinion other than SNP

i am in sceince and if scotland gets independence its bad for science because we will losse alot of funding councils i am for united UK as long as we can make progress and move forwardYou are a lonely voice of sense amidst a vast ocean of utter stupidity. :ohno:

I'm more pissed off with the Northern Irish. They have had more than their share of tax payers' money for decades, whilst, unlike Scotland, generating very little tax income back from their weak economy. However, yesterday, we have the hypocrisy of anti-British Republicans demanding more big handouts from their enemy Britain, standing next to their new chums, the sectarian DUP, who after decades of ranting that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the UK, are now also demanding special funding largesse from Great Britain and saying that Northern Ireland shouldn't even have to pay the same taxes as Great Britain but should adopt RoI rates. Make your minds up, both you showers, do you want in or out?

To sum up, republicans and unionists think that they should pay less tax into the Treasury than everyone else and get more back than any other part of the UK. Neat.

And they get away with this with the implied threat that, if you don't shell out, we'll go back to blowing things up again and that would cost you more, wouldn't it?

Loyalists and Republicans finally united in running a protection racket on Britain.

Could happen when Scotland joins the EU and then gets money from the EU fund like Spain.

Scotland would probably be a small net contribuor to the EU budget, it's GDP per capita is pretty much the same as the UK as a whole.

The Northeast is a net drain on the UK economy. Sad, and not inevitable, I feel, but true.

An independent Scotland will be that - independent - and not receive any money from Whitehall. However, the North East will continue to subsist on handouts as it will remain (as it is now) the least economically productive region in the UK.

Eyes, planks, splinters, young Geordie lad.

Well, don't blame me. My parents pay stupid amounts in taxes, we have to down size soon because of the amounts we have to pay. Maybe if we werent practically being robbed, we would feel more compelled to work in this country and help this 'fair' government of ours. And as for the dross we have here who live on benefits (and don't act like there isn't any anywhere else) are paid for by US too, you know.

Atleast we are actually a part of England though, unlike Scotland, where the situation is very different.

You are a lonely voice of sense amidst a vast ocean of utter stupidity. :ohno:

hey monkey boy i never understood your comment are you calling me a stuipid!

^^No, he was saying you were a smart person amongst stupid people. I'm not sure if he'll be saying that again though?

hey monkey boy i never understood your comment are you calling me a stuipid!God no - quite the opposite! You are the only one talking any sense!!

God no - quite the opposite! You are the only one talking any sense!!

alright monkey boy thanks for the compliments :lol: :lol:

Well, don't blame me. My parents pay stupid amounts in taxes, we have to down size soon because of the amounts we have to pay. Maybe if we werent practically being robbed, we would feel more compelled to work in this country and help this 'fair' government of ours.

If they are paying so much tax, they must be earning lots too, so I don't see how taxes can be forcing them to downsize. It's hardly robbery, most countries have a higher top rate of personal income tax than we do.

^^No, he was saying you were a smart person amongst stupid people. I'm not sure if he'll be saying that again though?

sorry mate i never quite unterstood his ENGLISH humour if thats what it was!:)

The Northeast is a net drain on the UK economy. Sad, and not inevitable, I feel, but true.

The point is Awayo, that Scotland is not actually poor, it is a midranking region within the UK, the North-East on the other hand is far more deprived, and yet public spending is far higher in Caledonia than it is in the NE. The NE should be receiving more per capita than wealthy Scotland yet it does not. Where is your justice there?

^ Oh look. King Fool has arrived.... :sleepy:

The Northeast is a net drain on the UK economy. Sad, and not inevitable, I feel, but true.

The point is Awayo, that Scotland is not actually poor, it is a midranking region within the UK, the North-East on the other hand is far more deprived, and yet public spending is far higher in Caledonia than it is in the NE. The NE should be receiving more per capita than wealthy Scotland yet it does not. Where is your justice there?

money goes where the mouth is, money goes into scotland for projects that will make in return you cant just point out one example and say justify it

although scottish parliament is differernt story:ohno:

The Unionists such as yourself don't like the truth. Your pathetic union crumbles a little bit further each day.

money goes where the mouth is, money goes into scotland for projects that will make in return you cant just point out one example and say justify it

Tell me why there should be more spending on a rich region like Scotland than on a poor one like the North-East?

I think the majority of anti-unionist feeling in England comes from being constantly being informed England is 'oppressing' them. It's the kind of BS that people will only take for so long. It comes not only from Scotland but from lots of other parts of the world with nothing to do with Britain. Here in Ireland most people consider the Scots banging on about independence rather absurd, especially considering nearly all the nutter unionists in Northern Ireland are descended from Scots (Paisley anyone?).

Great Britain is a fantastic institution and should stay. I just think that people need to calm down and be a little for rational before destroying so much so quickly.

money goes where the mouth is, money goes into scotland for projects that will make in return you cant just point out one example and say justify it

Tell me why there should be more spending on a rich region like Scotland than on a poor one like the North-East?

rich compared to what exactly? you make it sound like we get billions in aid and we are rolling in $$$

scotland has alot of problems, we have shortage of many things we are developing and need more investment in education, health, schooling, tourism, infrastructure and many many other things in decision making we need help and we want to make progress and move on not get caught in politics and go round in circles

there are many poor areas in scotland look at glasgow, its muder capital of europe we need stability and control so we can move foward its not all hunkey dorry here you know

I think the majority of anti-unionist feeling in England comes from being constantly being informed England is 'oppressing' them. It's the kind of BS that people will only take for so long. It comes not only from Scotland but from lots of other parts of the world with nothing to do with Britain. Here in Ireland most people consider the Scots banging on about independence rather absurd, especially considering nearly all the nutter unionists in Northern Ireland are descended from Scots (Paisley anyone?).

Great Britain is a fantastic institution and should stay. I just think that people need to calm down and be a little for rational before destroying so much so quickly.

no one is banging on about independence for sake of independence, i mean if independence bring misery then whats point of it??

anyone who has a clue and is educated knows what is invloved and if they say they want indepedence there is a good reason all you see on TV is some scottish pub and the residents saying yeah man we want to be independent from england! that isnt the story its much more invloved than that

Form a proper federation like Australia or confederation like Canada, giving England, Scotland, Wales & Ulster a capital of its own state/province instead of having this wishy washy 'devolution' bollocks leaving London the capital of the UK and shut up about it.

plain & simple.

against.

:)

Australia and Canada (or Germany etc) don't have one state/province making up 85% of the national population though.

A (con)federation dominated by England..

A) would not appease those scots wanting more control over their own destiny and

B) would not bring government any closer to the people in England which is one of the main aims of a federal system, a parliament representing 50m isn't that different in this regard compared to one representing 60m.

I love Scotland, I sometimes prefer it to England and would rather live there at times. But I want us to stay united! :yes: :grouphug:

Let them go. Never been too keen on Scotland myself :)

If they are paying so much tax, they must be earning lots too, so I don't see how taxes can be forcing them to downsize. It's hardly robbery, most countries have a higher top rate of personal income tax than we do.

Actually, they don't earn that much. I'd say £20,000 altogether, owning a business. Yet they still have to pay £thousands in tax. Mind it's not just the government. The people who work for my ma really take the piss sometimes, and that really doesn't help on the income front. 'Oh I have to go to the dentists to get my eyes checked'. Stupid bitches.

scotland has alot of problems, we have shortage of many things we are developing and need more investment in education, health, schooling, tourism, infrastructure and many many other things in decision making we need help and we want to make progress and move on not get caught in politics and go round in circles
Scotland gets a lot of money for these things. England (and Wales) have these problems too, but we get considerably less (not including Wales here) money per capita for these things.

INDEPENDENCE FOR ENGLAND more chuffing like!:cheers: man..i hope they fook off and soon.no offence Asif but your countrymen are a pain in the arse:bash: ..Good luck..just a shame it isnt english people voting..youd get your independece Then! :lol:

An independant Scotland could be good for Northern England. It would be another voice lobbying the European Parliament for better transport links with the rest of Europe. Those links would have to go through England.

A Scottish tiger economy could also create opportunity for people in Northern England.

well i see the SNP have just cancelled a planned tram system for edinburgh. they want to spend the money on buses in the highlands of scotland. they are also scrapping rail links to edinburgh airport.

money goes where the mouth is, money goes into scotland for projects that will make in return you cant just point out one example and say justify it

Tell me why there should be more spending on a rich region like Scotland than on a poor one like the North-East?

Why yes, under current arrangements Scotland, like Wales (and most egregriously) Northern Ireland get higher government spending per head than English regions. I mentioned Scotland's relatively good economic productivity to indicate that at least it contributes a fair amount back into the treasury in taxation.

Are you suggesting that the more a region contributes, the less it should get back? That does work in the South East, I know, but I thought that was the sort of thing that pissed you off.

That said, in fairness, due to their more rural nature, most settlements would give greater spending to these regions in any case. There may be an argument for greater government spending in some English regions (although, as consituted, these artificial regions are all quite a mixed bag in terms or their urban/rural mix - even your beloved South West does not have sort of hugh areas of very low population density that you see in Scotland or much of Wales). This would result in yet more redistriution from the south east to other parts of the UK, naturally.

Frankly, it's difficult to see things working much differently. Your agitation about the relatively high (but declining) treasury spend in Scotland is motivated only by your trenchent and ideosyncratic version of English nationalism. In terms of unfairness, it's no big deal.

yeah but at least in northern ireland there's a very large constituency who are british and pleased to be british. they dont have a whole culture of insulting the english like the scots do. likewise most people in wales are unionists, even PC doesnt want independence for wales and there are actually campaigns to take parts of wales out of wales and back into england.

^^Jeez, a large number of the Northern Irish can wage war upon England, but that's ok, they're not like the Scottish whom you reckon like to take the piss out of the English a bit.

Look again at this thread, like so many others on this subject over the years, post after post from angry, anti-Scottish Englishmen and nothing but sweetness and light from any Scots visitors. Whilst all the time, the English numpties are squealing that it's the Scots who hate the English. Wft? :?

An independant Scotland could be good for Northern England. It would be another voice lobbying the European Parliament for better transport links with the rest of Europe. Those links would have to go through England.

Why would the Aberdeen to Aalborg road tunnel go through England?

I hope Scotland gets independence . And Wales and Northern Ireland too.

I firmly back an independent Scotland as it would bring about a swift end to the British Union. For too long the peoples of England and Scotland have been pawns of the British, forced together 300 years ago when neither wanted to be united, for the purposes of building a war machine that set about establishing and expanding a global empire. As independent nations and peoples our futures will be so much more bright and hopeful.

Peace

^^That's a new one. Even the English have been oppressed by the British. I hate those guys!

Just who are these mysterious British that keep oppressing the English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish? :laugh:

Why would the Aberdeen to Aalborg road tunnel go through England?

Because the North Sea is narrower between Newcastle and Denmark and a tunnel could surface at Dogger Bank.

That wouldn't apply to the proposed Muckle Flugga-Torshavn suspension bridge though would it?

Just who are these mysterious British that keep oppressing the English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish? :laugh:

Someone who believes the Union should be eternally preserved. T'aint gonna work - at least it won't with Scotland in it. The Welsh are closer to us and share much more in common in the way of history and culture. But if the majority of them one day decided enough was enough, or they were a drain on our economy like Scotland, I'd support independence for them aswell.

Unions tend to be forced, unworkable attempts to assimilate everyone together.

I'm not particularly bothered - although, the 'Union' seems quite one sided to me - so I'm slightly more inclined to support Scottish Independence and/or an English Parliament.

As far as i can see it Scotland is a drain on (mainly English) taxpayers - there was a figure i read somewhere that said out of the 6 million residents in Scotland, only something like 25,000 were net tax payers (i think i've mentioned it before here and someone provided the data to back it up). With Scotland gone it would allow more investment to be given to poor areas in England.

Although - i's like to see a proper list for and against independence

Not neccesarily, I'm British rather than English or Welsh but I'm not a die hard unionist at all, if different parts of the UK want independence it's up to them.

Get rid of them now!Im fed up of all those scrounging Scottish who are given £11 Billion of English taxpayers money each year,and they should not be allowed to vote on issues this remains a discrace.
The ones in England who are down here looking for a better life should be tossed back over Harians wall where they belong:mad2:

The ones in England who are down here looking for a better life should be tossed back over Harians wall where they belong!

They'll still be in England if you do that, clarky. Northumberland to be precise. They might enjoy the ride, though.

I am against it because it will be massively disruptive. Yet if it happens, I would strongly back any London independence movement. If Scotland can opt out, London should be allowed to leave the Union as well. London should leave the E.U. at the same time. And the SE could vote to join London or the "whatever is left".

Probably the future for the UK is to delegate fiscal responsability to the regions. Today one could still sell fiscal independence to Scotland and the North (because they would get most of the oil tax revenues), but in 5 years it wil probably be much harder.

You say the scottish steal billions from england! Bollocks to you then, how about the billions of pounds of money from scotlands oil, all of it goes strait through scotland and down ionto england where it is sold by the large enlish companies in London and they make billions and provide further investment in england and pay the workers at their fancy headquarters tonnes more than they pay the workers in the North sea. Shame on you, for even believing such a pie in the sky situation in which england loses billions and scotland is the big bad guy filling his pockets. Although I do agree some amount of money goes to Scotland, the Majority of it from the Scottish Tax Payers and businesses.

English companies? Really where is the English in British Petroleum?

I absolutely loathe the English St George Cross flag and all the yobbish racist football hooligan symbolism it evokes - also the intensely irritating "why don't we celebrate St George's Day?" bullshit.
One could also say:

"I absolutely loathe the British Union Flag and all the yobbish racist BNP symbolism it evokes - also the intensely irritating 'why don't we celebrate British Day?' bullshit."

I'm far from being the loud-mouthed Barmy Army In-ger-lander type, but your generalisations are stupid.

Also doesn't that evil, loathsome red cross on a white background constitute an integral part of your beloved Union Flag (which by the sound of things you use as a masturbatory aid)?

You say the scottish steal billions from england! Bollocks to you then, how about the billions of pounds of money from scotlands oil, all of it goes strait through scotland and down ionto england where it is sold by the large enlish companies in London and they make billions and provide further investment in england and pay the workers at their fancy headquarters tonnes more than they pay the workers in the North sea. Shame on you, for even believing such a pie in the sky situation in which england loses billions and scotland is the big bad guy filling his pockets. Although I do agree some amount of money goes to Scotland, the Majority of it from the Scottish Tax Payers and businesses.

North Sea oil accounts for about £9 Billion in tax revenue each year. Compared to the amount the government takes from other quarters this is a drop in the water. If i'm correct I believe 1/3 of the Oil and Gas fields would fall within English Territorial waters anyway. The Scots are also subsidised to the tune of £1500 more per head more than the English. You have nothing to complain about whatsoever!

As for the future of the UK well to be honest I can only see the UK surviving in a Federal system. I am verging on the side of English independance but I wouldn't be too unhappy if the current political inequality the English face of lacking there own Parliament is sorted out. An independant London within the UK is definately an interesting idea. It may do a bit to take away the huge influence England has within the UK over the other 3 countries. While England would still have 40 million or so people, most of the big influence comes from London. I can't see a truly Independant London however.

there are several voters in this poll who aren't even british.

there are several voters in this poll who aren't even british.

I have every right to vote on this matter even though I am not British.

I suppose that everyone realises that without the Scots, the Tories would rule forever.

Independence for the Midlands! Create a real north/south divide!

Wales might get a decent north-south road out of the bargain too, if that were to happen!

I suppose that everyone realises that without the Scots, the Tories would rule forever.

Tories/Labour what exactly is the difference at the moment?

I suppose it comes down to the fact that one of those parties have brought us:

- the minimum wage
- double the level of investment in the NHS compared to '97
- peace in Northern Ireland
- double the international development budget
- record spending and results in education
- Sure Start, the New Deal and Working Families Tax Credit
- An end to genocide in Kosovo

And the other party wouldn't have.

I suppose it comes down to the fact that one of those parties have brought us:

- the minimum wage
- double the level of investment in the NHS compared to '97
- peace in Northern Ireland
- double the international development budget
- record spending and results in education
- Sure Start, the New Deal and Working Families Tax Credit
- An end to genocide in Kosovo

And the other party wouldn't have.

Fuck me the Labour party are fantastic. So fantastic they stole Tory policies for years. Labour are an intellectually bankrupt party. Kosovo? Dealing with someone elses wars? Spending tax payers money? Wow thats so...innovative and brave of them. Oh and killed off David Trimble. Great.

Do you think the Tories would have ever introduced civil partnerships, gay adoption (Dave voted against), gay employment protection, gays in the military, the disability discrimination act.?

I'm a Lib Dem, but I can safely say I'd rather have Labour than the Tories.

The Union is cool, and luckily the Scots have at last realised that (50% wanted independence last year, last month only 22%)

I don't know where these Unionists get the idea that without Scotland, England would become a Tory enclave.

In terms of seats Labour is still significantly in front of the Tories in terms of seats, and if we operated a PR system no one party would have a majority and Tories + Lib Dems = Libertarian Party. Besides in any mature democracy there is always a swing of the pendulum between right and left. With English Only votes we would not have top up fees, foundation hospitals or ID Cards.

And even if it were so, I do not see it as an argument that a foreign country should remain in the Union for the sake of subverting the electoral intentions of the English. In fact this line of thinking is ultra-anti-democratic.

So my fellow English Progressive - we are not nationalists, far from it, we are internationalists - lets kill this hateful myth stone dead in the water. Unionists align themselves with Ian Paisley and Nick Griffin, whereas we do so with members of the Libertarian Alliance and Billy Bragg.

That's a new one. Even the English have been oppressed by the British. I hate those guys!

In terms of the small ruling British Elite, this is entirely accurate. Both English and Scots were heavily against the imperialistic act of union, only one parliament unfortunately had a vote on it. Had the Act of Union not taken place, I believe both countries would be progressive libertarian minded republics living together with seperate identities yet as proud neighbours.

Firmly pro a UNITED Kingdom but it is upto the Scots to decide.

United or divided?

[I]Had the Act of Union not taken place, I believe both countries would be progressive libertarian minded republics living together with seperate identities yet as proud neighbours.

unlikely. the scots would've still turned out as a bunch of lippy, anglophobic cunts with a chip on their shoulder the depth of a fat girl's bum crack.

unlikely. the scots would've still turned out as a bunch of lippy, anglophobic cunts with a chip on their shoulders' the size of a fat girl's bum crack.
:rofl:

I think the problem with Scottish is that it they have one regionalist/nationalist party, the SNP, and its main platform is independence. It would be interesting to see what the level of support for a SNP-type party that does not advocate independence would be. I think that party would reduce SNP to being a fringe party.

Spain has its rebellious regions as well. But, these tend to have two types of "nationalists." One advocating for greater cultural autonomy, and perhaps while having romantic visions of independence, prefer to work within the current system. And one that advocates for full severance, no matter the cost.

The Spanish situation is more complex. In general, I would compare Scotland with the regions that were part of the Kingdom of Aragon, the regions that were part of the Kingdom of Castile with England, the regions that were part of the Kingdom of Navarre with Ireland, and the regions that were part of the Kingdom of Leon with Wales.

The history is in many respects is almost identical. Like England and Scotland, a dynastic union brought together the largest realms of the geographic Iberian peninsula, Castile and Aragon. Like Wales, the title of the heir to the throne is one associated with the Leonese crown (and in the form of Galicia there is a significant Celtic component to the former Leonese territories). Like Ireland was brought to the English conquest by battle, Navarre was not brought into the Spanish "Union" through dynastic ties, but through maneouvering by it's larger neighber, Castile. Not to mention the even most powerful similarity between the former Kingdom of Navarre and Ireland, in the form of what was once part of Navarre, the Basque country: both have shared much violence.

So the, given the striking difference in restlessness?

But, I think, the crucial difference why there is no party in power, even the separatist ERC party that is part of the Catalan government in Barcelona, is that, there is MUCH greater regional autonomy throughout the ENTIRE Spanish state. Even the restive Basque region rebuked its leader when he tried to ram through a plan for "associated state status," i.e., independence-lite. It comes down to the fact that unlike in the UK, where only three regions have power, 17 regions have their own parliaments.

Spain would be a disaster if only some regions had their own parliaments but those regions decided things that would happen in the rest of the country without their own parliaments. And I am convinced that most problems will continue to remain until Spain de jure becomes a federal state, which for all intents and purposes, it already is.

Just my two cents.

I agree with DonQui - I'd rather the UK had MANY regional powers rather than the few it has.

goooo!! scotland

I totally support a free independént Scotland!!!

GO SCOTLAND!!! FREEEEEEEEDOM!!!! :D

XZhMuLEzP7s

no. i would have to buy a new globe.

Regarding the mini-North East/Scotland debate there's a simple solution..........the North East joins Scotland.

Regading Scottish independance, if that's what they want then that's fine by me. I think it was Alex Salmond who recently said independence was not a one way street and they could reverse the process if it didn't work out for Scotland.

If Scotland gets independance then there should be no going back, they make their bed - they lie in it.

Regarding the Union, would personally prefer it to continue as a more federal model. Could even try and expand and maybe get France to join :lol:

I suppose that everyone realises that without the Scots, the Tories would rule forever.

You could always move to Scotland were the Tories will never rule. Unless you turn the clock back to 1955 when the Tories had half the Scottish vote.

Parties don't always rule for ever, they split, they re-align themselves, they adjust themselves to the realities of democracy.

Scotland could become a success story like Ireland if they invest their money properly.

Not with the massive spending pledges from the SNP, with their combined tax cuts pledges.

Scotland could become a success story like Ireland if they invest their money properly.

Of course they could, its been proven many times over what is possible when you are free to govern yourselves. The Unionists will always argue this though. They will always arrogantly talk down to the smaller nation and tell them that they will not achieve anything and that they need the Union to survive. They are like bad, evil and vindictive teachers who tell their pupils that they will never achieve anything of great note and that they are stupid and hopeless, in an attempt to crush the childs spirit and self belief, but it wont happen, because I think we all realise that their tactics of scaremongering are born out of their insecurity and great fear that their rule over this Union which makes up their power base is slipping from their grasp. The British Unionists have already given up arguing for the Union on terms of national identity because the hearts and minds of the people do not believe in it and that is the first nail in the coffin of any Union. All they have left is the economic and political scaremongering tactics that Scotland or any other prisoners of the Union will never survive if they go it alone.

The British Unionists have already given up arguing for the Union on terms of national identity because the hearts and minds of the people do not believe in it....You obviously haven't read this thread if that is what you believe. :ohno:

Scotland could become a success story like Ireland if they invest their money properly.

But they can already do that now.

Maybe fiscal autonomy should give them a little pat in the back. I do believe that if the UK wanted to give a huge boost to its economy, it should create a number of regions that are all self-governing from a fiscal perspective.

This debate isn't purely about Scottish independence. England is not more homogeneous than the UK. The idea of an English parliament makes me laugh; London and Edinburgh have more common ground than London and Newcastle. Regions in the UK just want more autonomy and as a Londoner I think this is a good thing. The UK is too centralised.

All that is happening is that in Scotland you have a pretty smart politician that is exploiting this general feeling to plead for independence. If you have nothing else to say, nationalism is always a good card to play for politicians.

To me this whole debtate remains puzzling because I still fail to really appreciate the difference between the "English" and "Scottish" cultures. To me they appear pretty much the same. I also always thought the Lake District is in Scotland and Glasgow is in England, and I am not the only foreigner getting confused about this.

You're right in the main. The cultures of England and Scotland differ a little (and have regional differences within each other) but the differences pale into insignificant compared to those between anywhere in Britain and even our closest neighbours, and any other English-speaking country, for that matter.

London and Edinburgh have more common ground than London and Newcastle.

Newcastle and Edinburgh are very closely linked, as I've suggested before the North East's future probably lies in continued close links to Scotland.

well england has always been a coherent nation state - infact many historians believe the nation state was invented by alfred the great. anyone who wants to break up england in any way, shape, or form, underestimates the feeling of englishness that exists. we've had devolution referendas in england in the north and people voted against it. we are not a federal state like germany or whatever because unlike germany we are a true nation state, have been for 1300 years and that's not going to change any time soon.

well england has always been a coherent nation state - infact many historians believe the nation state was invented by alfred the great. anyone who wants to break up england in any way, shape, or form, underestimates the feeling of englishness that exists. we've had devolution referendas in england in the north and people voted against it. we are not a federal state like germany or whatever because unlike germany we are a true nation state, have been for 1300 years and that's not going to change any time soon.

So we are stuck with centralised government, London-centric political decision making and uneven economic development forever then, great!

I always thought Armenians invented the nation state.

Regarding the mini-North East/Scotland debate there's a simple solution..........the North East joins Scotland.

Northumbria is the crucible of English Culture. They speak a dialect closer to Anglo-Saxon and without decadent latin additions more so than any other region, they were the first of the great English Achievements in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries. I do not see why they should (and they never ever would) switch national allegiances to get proper funding.

Instead the English should abolish the racist Barnett Formula.

Bairn, broon, toon. I know what you mean. :ohno:

Armenia had a national identity from its early christian traditions but there is a strong and respectable line of thinking that would say England under Athelstan was the First Nation-State. We are wrong to talk about "inventing them" though. An English National Identity existed very early on, quite probably at the time of Bede's Writing - a North-Easterner who certainly did not regard himself as a Scot -, and that is very telling.

Bairn, broon, toon. I know what you mean.

Excellent.

Regions in the UK just want more autonomy and as a Londoner I think this is a good thing. The UK is too centralised.


They obviously don't because the North East voted massively against having an elected assembly. Although I agree the UK is to centralised but I believe this is something the government is currently dealing with.

This debate isn't purely about Scottish independence. England is not more homogeneous than the UK. The idea of an English parliament makes me laugh; London and Edinburgh have more common ground than London and Newcastle.

In terms of indigenous culture, anglophobe, there is far more diversity within Scotland than England, yet you say nothing about this in your ever increasing hate for England. Londoners simply can't be trusted with this issue.

As someone who's entire family comes from the North East the idea that it has more in common with Scotland then the rest of England is utterly laughable. Seriously what are people basing this on? Geographic location?

I totally support a free independént Scotland!!!

GO SCOTLAND!!! FREEEEEEEEDOM!!!!

How appropiate that you mark Scotland by showing a drunk, anti-semitic, Christian bigot who is a dwarf.

As someone who's entire family comes from the North East the idea that it has more in common with Scotland then the rest of England is utterly laughable. Seriously what are people basing this on? Geographic location?

Ignorance.

Quite simply, the North-East is the most English of all areas of England, it is absolutely ridiculous to consider it as some sort of a Lesser Scotland.

As someone who's entire family comes from the North East the idea that it has more in common with Scotland then the rest of England is utterly laughable. Seriously what are people basing this on? Geographic location?

Don't be too concerned. Its a ploy by Unionists to deny the existence of England as a nation and a people to make their claims of a strong and vibrant British identity plausible.

Exactly. They are desperate to scare the home nations into the identity that the only way they're nation can be preserved is through the Union - which is laughable considering England has no independent recogntion as a nation within it's own right in the union.

I totally support a free independént Scotland!!!

GO SCOTLAND!!! FREEEEEEEEDOM!!!!

How appropiate that you mark Scotland by showing a drunk, anti-semitic, Christian bigot who is a dwarf.

I'm not sure I like your tone. We're not all dwarves.

Dwarves are from The Hobbit. Two Mel Gibsons are a pair of dwarfs.

My assessment of Unionist tactics with regards to Wales and Scotland is that they do recognise them as nations and peoples - their hand has been forced with regard to this now that there is devolution - but their tactic to thwart any drive for self determination is done by spreading fear and to arouse doubt as to the feasibility of independence. They have long given up on the idea of a British identity with regards to Wales and Scotland, they know this is of little interest to them. All they are left with is to scare them into staying within the Union on economic and political grounds.

With England they have to approach it differently. They know they can't possibly make the argument that England would not survive as an independent nation, as England is the overwhelming component of the Union, upon which all depends. Therefore their only option to keep a lid on nationalist sentiment is to deny the existence of England as a nation and a people and to push the British identity. If there is no English nation and people then there can be no independence.

They obviously don't because the North East voted massively against having an elected assembly. Although I agree the UK is to centralised but I believe this is something the government is currently dealing with.

I think that was more to do with the the lack of powers a devolved North East Assembly would have had. People didn't want to pay for an expensive talking shop on top of county councils. I'm confident that had it been an Assembly that would have had proper self-governing powers it would have been voted for.

Regarding the mini-North East/Scotland debate there's a simple solution..........the North East joins Scotland.

Northumbria is the crucible of English Culture. They speak a dialect closer to Anglo-Saxon and without decadent latin additions more so than any other region, they were the first of the great English Achievements in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries. I do not see why they should (and they never ever would) switch national allegiances to get proper funding.

Instead the English should abolish the racist Barnett Formula.

I agree with your sentiments, but I am struggling to see another way we can prosper as a region. Christ, we can't even convince the Government to dual the A1 through Northumberland.

As someone who's entire family comes from the North East the idea that it has more in common with Scotland then the rest of England is utterly laughable. Seriously what are people basing this on? Geographic location?

And as someone who lives in Northumberland I mean what I say in that we have close links with Scotland. Not meaning to (or wanting to) switch allegience to another country here but unless something changes in regards to funding we are stuck in a kind of no-mans land between the main population belts of Scotland and the North West/Yorkshire.

well england has always been a coherent nation state - infact many historians believe the nation state was invented by alfred the great. anyone who wants to break up england in any way, shape, or form, underestimates the feeling of englishness that exists. we've had devolution referendas in england in the north and people voted against it. we are not a federal state like germany or whatever because unlike germany we are a true nation state, have been for 1300 years and that's not going to change any time soon.

wait, i though england was a political no-man's land where all the decision making comes the national government.

well england has always been a coherent nation state - infact many historians believe the nation state was invented by alfred the great. anyone who wants to break up england in any way, shape, or form, underestimates the feeling of englishness that exists. we've had devolution referendas in england in the north and people voted against it. we are not a federal state like germany or whatever because unlike germany we are a true nation state, have been for 1300 years and that's not going to change any time soon.

You need to look at the data as to why people voted against in North East. When you examine it, the clearest answer was that it was white elephant, it didn't do anything.

One can draw from that, if the people of the north-east were given an option to have an assembly with real devolution powers it might have been different. It was more the deal on offer, rather than the principle. But now the principle has been killed by the offer.

You need to look at the data as to why people voted against in North East. When you examine it, the clearest answer was that it was white elephant, it didn't do anything.

One can draw from that, if the people of the north-east were given an option to have an assembly with real devolution powers it might have been different. It was more the deal on offer, rather than the principle. But now the principle has been killed by the offer.

Exactly, it was just something to try and appease the voters of the North East but ultimatley people saw it for what it really was. Whitehall would still have the real power and we would have another layer of politics to get round.

But they didn't necessarily reject the concept of regional devolution.

I'm sorry, but you England Splitting Unionist Racists are clutching at straws. Compare the NE Assembly to the Welsh Assembly votes, the most enthusiastically nationalistic parts of Wales (the Welsh Speaking Western Coast) voted by 4 or 5 to 1 for the Assembly whereas the same number of the English Border Constituencies voted against. The obvious thing is that those who supported considerably more devolution will vote for a limited assembly in the hope that in all likelihood it will be extended.

There wasn't the apetite for regional devolution, people see themselves as Geordies, Northumberlanders, Prince Bishop County Durham and Mackems.

They rejected regional devolution because they rejected regional devolution - no mickey mouse degree holding guy's half baked explanation changes that. But then again this is the same man who believes that votes for the SNP are not a sign of a willingness for independence.

You only have to go look at opinion polls for years particularly in the North East, for support for a regional assembly. It was overwhelming, therefore because the proposal was voted down, it was because it was a toothless tiger, not fully supported by government.

And please Lostboy, you should really stop questioning my degree in everything you post. How about you engage with the arguments, rather than in personal attacks.

Can ask you, have you ever worked in politics?

we are not a federal state like germany or whatever because unlike germany we are a true nation state,

And true nation states cant employ federalistic principles?
Anyways, it works quite well here in Germany and the US.

the united states arguably is not a nation state. even the name is a bit of a giveaway there.

I always thought people have more alligance to cities than they do to areas, bring back the 19th Centry City States! That's what I say.

england was the first example that wasnt a city state which conquered other places and became an empire

Washington DC is often referred to as the "Nation's Capital"

Didn't Normandy conquer England?

The Duke of Normandy conquered England with an army of Normans, Bretons and disaffected Saxons. I don't think there was a state knowns as Normandy, just a group of Norsemen who had settled north of the Isle de France over the years.

Another Duke conquered Sicily a few years later and created one of Europe's greatest cultures.

Didn't Normandy conquer England?

Yes but the fact that there was an England - and an English Nation - before 1066 proves the point of Gothic.

You only have to go look at opinion polls for years particularly in the North East, for support for a regional assembly. It was overwhelming, therefore because the proposal was voted down, it was because it was a toothless tiger, not fully supported by government.

And please Lostboy, you should really stop questioning my degree in everything you post. How about you engage with the arguments, rather than in personal attacks.

Can ask you, have you ever worked in politics?

It was not overwhelming polls showed that the preferred option of an English Parliament rather than a regional assembly was true everywhere (with the exception of Cornwall) including the North East. You haven't answered my point about the Welsh Question, North Easterners knew full well that if they wanted an assembly with substantial powers, they would first vote for the toothless version in the expectation and likelihood that it would get further power.

North Easterners identify with local, not your enforced and hateful, Labourite, top down, racist regional identity. But I am arguing over someone who believes that people who vote for the SNP are Unionists apparently, and that they have not had a great victory.

I suppose you could say I have worked in a politically related field, - it needed a proper degree - but thats beside the point, the fact you've used your online university degree to get you some job making tea for a political institution does not mean your opinion holds anymore weight here than mine, especially from everything I have seen so far, except for eighteenth century political theory, which rarely manifests itself in real politics, I don't hold you to have a particularly extensive political knowledge.

Didn't Normandy conquer England?

Yes but the fact that there was an England - and an English Nation - before 1066 proves the point of Gothic.

There wasn't an English nation, there was a Saxon and Norse aristocracy owning land and serfs in mainly the east and south of the British mainland, and a Norman Duke had a claim to be the head of this aristocracy and a group of adventurers and chancers saw opportunities for advancement and joined in the fun.

The Duke of Normandy conquered England with an army of Normans, Bretons and disaffected Saxons. I don't think there was a state knowns as Normandy, just a group of Norsemen who had settled north of the Isle de France over the years.

Another Duke conquered Sicily a few years later and created one of Europe's greatest cultures.

Wrong on almost all points in this post. Sorry that's a harsh way to say it but it is.

The army was composed of, in no specific order, Norman, Bretons, Flemings, Aquitanians, and other various French nobles (Odo of Blois-Champagne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odo_IV%2C_Count_of_Troyes) was one of the most famous, read Capetian France by Elizabeth M. Hallam and Judith Everard page 48). Saxon participation was marginal, Harold Godwinson had almost universal support in his country. 20 years after the conquest only 2 nobles were still of English extraction, one of them was hanged and the other one deserted (David Carpenter, The Struggle for Mastery between page 61 and 105, too lazy to dig). Aquitanian participation was so important that the German chronicler Frutolf (discussion on History Channel board (http://boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?threadID=800016551&tstart=60&mod=1169309398773))attributed the victory to the Aquitanians and not the Normans, it is considered got his source from Saxon knights who fled England to join the Byzantine Empire as mercenaries (there were a few, it is partly why Harold was sainted in Constantinople).

The Bayeux Tapestry refers to the invaders simply as French and the defenders as English and it's not easy to get a good estimation of proportions in William's forces. Though the Saxons are given no credits and were probably a tiny proportion of William's force.

The state named the Duchy of Normandy was well established. The northmen had largely integrated (contrasting with the Conquest of England, it took centuries for them to integrate in England when they did it very quickly in France), it is considered the last part of the transition between the Norse and French culture was done under Richard the Fearless (Richard I of Normandy). Richard I supported the first Capetian king in his election of 987 (Richerus Liber IV: 12. (987, Jun. 1.) Promotio Hugonis in regnum. Hac sententia promulgata et ab omnibus laudata, dux omnium consensu in regnum promovetur, et per metropolitanum aliosque episcopos Noviomi coronatus, Gallis, Brittannis, Dahis, Aquitanis, Gothis, Hispanis, Wasconibus, rex Kalendis Jun) and recognised French royal overlordship. He adopted the French language as aristocratic and exploited the Frankish political structures that were in place before the Norse settlement (Bates' Normandy before 1066), there is a continuity before and after the Siege of Paris in the political structures of the land that would become Normandy. It was divided in Pagi and the administrators were Prévots and Seneshals, the laws used in France for successions were also continued and eventually brought in England (for example a king's son was crowned during his father's reign, all Medieval French king but Philip I did so and the most famous attempt to bring the system to England was Henry the Young King (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_the_Young_King)). Other elements Richard I adopted from the local (pre-norse) culture are castles and heavy cavalry, something the Norsemen didn't know that much. Of course it was not a brutal transition, but Richard I is the last point possible between Norse and French culture, before him even William I (William Longsword) spoke French as first language.

The was a clearly established norman state, not that different from most French states, they were part of a wider feud for power on the continent that would oppose them to neightbouring state or even sometimes their king.

England was also a clearly established state, with the most advanced social and political structures of the time. A single coinage, a common law, a kingdom efficiently divided into Shires, an oath to the king performed by everyone in the kingdom (constrasting with France were only the nobles had to do so) and a semi-parliamentary system (abolished after 1066). It also showed clear signs of patriotism and loyalty before 1066 (as people were very religious and had to swear allegiance under god to the king). What allowed William to take over the country was an abscence of solid fortifications like castles, a couple of Norman knights just had to ride at night and set barns on fire to terrorise the population, forcing thousands to starvation. As soon as the English army was routed at Hastings, there was no possible resistance.

I stand corrected,

There was resistance around Ely though which would illustrate your point about England being an established state.

I stand corrected,

There was resistance around Ely though which would illustrate your point about England being an established state.

Yes there was a resistance around Ely, and also around York and a few other places (on the Welsh border and others). I should rephrase my sentence, there was no possible succesful resistance after Hastings.

PS: Tancred de Hauteville wasn't Duke, he was the lord of Hauteville before his son Roger became Count of Sicily (on the Byzantine Empire's behalf) and his descendant Roger II became King of Sicily.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tancred_of_Hauteville

Another Duke conquered Sicily a few years later and created one of Europe's greatest cultures.

You only have to go look at opinion polls for years particularly in the North East, for support for a regional assembly. It was overwhelming, therefore because the proposal was voted down, it was because it was a toothless tiger, not fully supported by government.

And please Lostboy, you should really stop questioning my degree in everything you post. How about you engage with the arguments, rather than in personal attacks.

Can ask you, have you ever worked in politics?

It was not overwhelming polls showed that the preferred option of an English Parliament rather than a regional assembly was true everywhere (with the exception of Cornwall) including the North East. You haven't answered my point about the Welsh Question, North Easterners knew full well that if they wanted an assembly with substantial powers, they would first vote for the toothless version in the expectation and likelihood that it would get further power.

North Easterners identify with local, not your enforced and hateful, Labourite, top down, racist regional identity. But I am arguing over someone who believes that people who vote for the SNP are Unionists apparently, and that they have not had a great victory.

I suppose you could say I have worked in a politically related field, - it needed a proper degree - but thats beside the point, the fact you've used your online university degree to get you some job making tea for a political institution does not mean your opinion holds anymore weight here than mine, especially from everything I have seen so far, except for eighteenth century political theory, which rarely manifests itself in real politics, I don't hold you to have a particularly extensive political knowledge.

Very good Lostboy, like I said you are not a psephologist, when you look at the breakdown of the votes in Scotland, even a simple political scientist can reveal, that the UNionist vote far outweighed the nationalist vote. The SNP did not pick up significant numbers of Unionist voters, but did pick up votes from the collapse of the Scottish Socialists. You are the person who seems to be saying that a vote for the SNP ONLY equals a vote for independence. I was arguing that simply isn't true. It is a basic rule of politics that oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them. You are so twisted in your ideology that you can't understand that the Scottish elections were much more complicated than a proxy referendum. It was a verdict on Labour's performance in Holyrood, a verdict on the Blair years, yes for some voters on independence, but you paint a broad stroke. Which only reveals your complete lack of balanced analytical skills.

I would love to find out where your degree is from, and what you job actually is, afterall put your money where you spout shit from.

england was indeed the first nation state. we have the remains of what alfred established today - such as the shires and boroughs. the man single-handedly developed an entire system of government and geographical representation combined with a form of democracy. until 1066 english kings were elected, we already had things like trial by jury and so on and the magna carta for example was drawn up to restore political rights that had been lost for 150 years. unfortunately we kept the norman idea of feudalism for a little while longer. it's a big shame that people dont learn about that period of our history in school -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_The_Great
yes you read that right, the english sent diplomatic missions to india! he was arguably the greatest leader the english ever had, and certainly had more of an impact on the country we live in today than anyone else since the romans.

When I was in Scotland a few years ago I undertook a Haggis Tour, a tour of the country with travellers from every corner of the globe. The tour leader kept talking about those FEBs down in London and the resentment he had in relation to their concentration of power and wealth. It was the first time I ever became aware of such fervent Scottish nationalism. Looks like their discontent, aspirations for the future, along with their pro-activity is writing a new chapter in British politics.

I have every right to vote on this matter even though I am not British.

go on then, astound me...

the united states arguably is not a nation state. even the name is a bit of a giveaway there.
ermmmmm, ya.......no.

:crazy:

The Civil War kinda settled that one for us.

england was indeed the first nation state.

England is the first nation state?
As far as I know, the idea of a nation state first came up in Germany at the Peace treaty of Westphalia in 1648.
(Germany is a nation state aswell btw, just like Switzerland which is also federalistic)
Anyways, we were talking about Britain and not England.

Anyone has his own version, some will say it was the Napoleonic Wars.

Switzerland certainly is not a nation-state. France and England alone have the right to compete as to what was the first nation-state. The first debate may well have taken place in the seventeenth century, but England in the 9th Century had all the requirements of a nation-state, with a national identity going back two centuries before.

Very good Lostboy, like I said you are not a psephologist, when you look at the breakdown of the votes in Scotland, even a simple political scientist can reveal, that the UNionist vote far outweighed the nationalist vote.

The combined nationalist vote, or even that of the SNP alone has never been as high as the elections of 3rd of May 2007, not even during the 1970's. This has set a new benchmark. The votes for the Labour Party and Lib Dems and even the Tories are not pro-Union votes but simply the votes of Scottish People who are yet to back the SNP, but might well back Independence.

The SNP did not pick up significant numbers of Unionist voters, but did pick up votes from the collapse of the Scottish Socialists.

The combined votes of the SSP and Solidarity was not as insignificant as you make out but the split was very much. Even so it was a 10% + gain by the SNP, far more than any demise of the SSP/Solidarity and Greens. There are 50 Nationalist MSP's in Parliament, that is a significant number indeed, they would require just 15 more to get a majority, and yet they gained 20 in one election. 2011 could be the date.

You are the person who seems to be saying that a vote for the SNP ONLY equals a vote for independence. $I was arguing that simply isn't true.

It is not neccessarily true, but it is most certainly a strong indication. Much like UKIP they are a one issue party, we can assume that most people voting UKIP are not doing so if they are pro-European. Equally votes for the Unionist parties do not equate to Unionism, but old voting habits.

It is a basic rule of politics that oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them.

No. It is an erroneous quote by not so bright, political analysts that is the case. In reality a prospective change of government requires a well run and competent opposition. If it was the case that oppositions lose elections the Conservatives would never have lost in 1992 and Labour in 2005. Likewise many other elections where the country was crying out for a change, but the opposition was not seen as a government in waiting.

You are so twisted in your ideology that you can't understand that the Scottish elections were much more complicated than a proxy referendum.

I don't, I see it as a very strong indication in an increase in Scottish Nationalism, the fact that you do not even see a 21 Seat Increase (far more than the Greens and SSP had in Parliament) as a significant event and one in which nationalism at least played a part, shows your stubborness to accept the fact that the union is in a serious crisis.

It was a verdict on Labour's performance in Holyrood, a verdict on the Blair years, yes for some voters on independence, but you paint a broad stroke. Which only reveals your complete lack of balanced analytical skills.

In 2003, the McConnel run government, after the McCleish affair and the general unpopularity of Labour in Scotland didn't inspire an SNP Victory (far from it) despite the fact that most people would like to have taken it out on Labour. And why is it that only the SNP is seen as a protest party. Why did Lib Dems (who already indicated that they would not stand in a Labour coalition again) and the Tories (argue all you like about their unpopularity but most Scots are more right-wing on many issues than credit is given, it is the Unionist not the Conservative in their name that puts off Scotland from voting for them).

England is the first nation state?
As far as I know, the idea of a nation state first came up in Germany at the Peace treaty of Westphalia in 1648.
I always thought nationalism itself was an even more recent phenomenon, beginning with the American and French Revolutions. Before then, it was more about sharing loyalty to your monarch rather than sharing a sense of deep-rooted belonging. The likes of William Wallace and Joan of Arc were more loyalist figureheads than nationalist freedom-fighters.

It's weird...when I think about this I think about the olympic team or andrew murray or something stupid.

I wouldn't want scotland to go, and hope it doesn't.


I'm British first...English second.
And I don't fancy seeing my country dividing up.

I always thought nationalism itself was an even more recent phenomenon, beginning with the American and French Revolutions. Before then, it was more about sharing loyalty to your monarch rather than sharing a sense of deep-rooted belonging. The likes of William Wallace and Joan of Arc were more loyalist figureheads than nationalist freedom-fighters.

The exceptions are Armenia, England and Ethiopia.

Can ask you, have you ever worked in politics?

Why else would he go ad hominem?

Well, actually not everyone in politics uses personal charateristics to win an arguement, some of us, prefer to use the quality of the argument rather than attack the quality of those who argue it.

I'm painting with a firehose here.

fuck scotland, man. just fuck dat shit. miserable bastards. i piss on their highlands. if any dude wore a skirt near me i'd mess him up.

yeah, not really very constructive points there jack. you know what you need to do? you need to "chill-ax". get it? chill and relax - "chill-ax".

i'm so cool.

Well, actually not everyone in politics uses personal charateristics to win an arguement, some of us, prefer to use the quality of the argument rather than attack the quality of those who argue it.

right on comrade :|

We should keep the Red Flag flying here

Scots are so hot...no.

It's neck and neck.

The votes for the Labour Party and Lib Dems and even the Tories are not pro-Union votes but simply the votes of Scottish People who are yet to back the SNP, but might well back Independence.

Thats the best spin I have ever heard, that 65% of Scottish votes for Pro-Union parties, are not votes for those parties, but voters who are YET to back the SNP.

What kind of warped world do you live in? No that's not a Conservative voter, its someone who is yet to vote Labour.

Switzerland certainly is not a nation-state. France and England alone have the right to compete as to what was the first nation-state.

Switzerland and Germany arent nation states?
Care to explain?
And why would England (not Britain) or France be the first nation states?

Thats the best spin I have ever heard, that 65% of Scottish votes for Pro-Union parties, are not votes for those parties, but voters who are YET to back the SNP.

Yes, that is very much the case. The vast majority of Scots would be ideologically independence minded if they think it would not harm them economically or diplomatically. The SNP do not have the problem of trying to convince Scots that an Independent Scotland is a great ideal, but rather that it is a practical enterprise. With Alex Salmond they have a great charismatic leader and would be statesman to convince them of that, next election the SNP and Greens will have an outright majority.

Switzerland and Germany arent nation states?

Germany is, Switzerland isn't.

And why would England (not Britain) or France be the first nation states?

Because through the unpredictable events that shape history both these countries can argue that they had a state with all it's institutions form around it from a common shared sense of nationhood.

Any actual proof, or just what 'you reckon'?

So what you are really saying that people who didn't vote for the SNP actually meant to vote for them. Also that non-SNP supporters are secretly all SNP supporters, but they just don't know yet.

So really the only votes you accepted as proper votes are votes for the SNP, everything else isn't as valid. The 65% of people who voted for pro-Union parties didn't vote for the Union, they really voted for independence but don't know they did yet? But all the votes for the SNP definately is a vote for independence and not for any other reason.

Anyway why would someone who is looking for a job in the Netherlands care about the state of the Union?

Germany is, Switzerland isn't.

You mean that the swiss dont have a national identity or a national history?
Ever heard of Wilhelm Tell for example?


Because through the unpredictable events that shape history both these countries can argue that they had a state with all it's institutions form around it from a common shared sense of nationhood.

Fine, but why should they have been the first?
Got a source on that?

So what you are really saying that people who didn't vote for the SNP actually meant to vote for them. Also that non-SNP supporters are secretly all SNP supporters, but they just don't know yet.

No they are not all SNP Supporters, but many of them are certainly supporters of Scottish Statehood, but not yet strong enough to vote for a single issue party, just as in the South-West supporters of both the Conservatives and even Lib Dems are supporters of Withdrawal from Europe, but not so much that they wish to vote for a single issue party.

So really the only votes you accepted as proper votes are votes for the SNP, everything else isn't as valid. The 65% of people who voted for pro-Union parties didn't vote for the Union, they really voted for independence but don't know they did yet? But all the votes for the SNP definately is a vote for independence and not for any other reason.

If you are voting for what is effectively a single issue party you are voting because you agree with your cause and you now agree with how they present it. There is a strong support across Scotland for independence, but not for the SNP, a party which has no experience in government. I don't think you realise how significant this event is, it is allowing the people in Scotland for the first time ever to experience the governance of the seperatist party, something that has never happened before, and takes a leap of faith for any people to allow some party from outside the traditional pendulum of rule to do. There has never been a time before when the SNP has got more votes than any other party. It is comparable to the first, short lived Labour government, people were prepared to give their trust to a new party which had no previous experience of governing, and we all know how successful they would later become. You will live to tell your adopted children, you were involved in politics, when one of the most stable states that was created by aristocrats for aristocrats finally crumbled, and the people of England, Scotland and Wales, not to mention Northern Ireland, were free from this artificial and imperial invention. That much is certain, but whether you present it in terms of regret for a shameful yet significant past or with optimism of knowing that it was a union whose time had long since elapsed and looking to the future of an Independent Republican England operating alongside fellow Northern European Nations in a New Europe. I don't know yet.

Anyway why would someone who is looking for a job in the Netherlands care about the state of the Union?

This has got to be your silliest point yet.

Independence is good. There's no argument, ask an American.

yeah, not really very constructive points there jack. you know what you need to do? you need to "chill-ax". get it? chill and relax - "chill-ax".

i'm so cool.

you lying bastard, i never made any reference to the f*cking highlands.

you lying bastard, i never made any reference to the f*cking highlands.

i order you to chillax! :D

Independence is good. There's no argument, ask an American.


but this independence that Scotland would have has to be contexualised.... independence... within the UK or being subsumed in the EU.... which would have more power..... Westminster or Brussels.... 'independence' in this context is a joke, they would be much more heavily controlled by Brussels as an 'independent' nation than they where in the UK that they obsess (quite incorrectly) about.

but this independence that Scotland would have has to be contexualised.... independence... within the UK or being subsumed in the EU.... which would have more power..... Westminster or Brussels.... 'independence' in this context is a joke, they would be much more heavily controlled by Brussels as an 'independent' nation than they where in the UK that they obsess (quite incorrectly) about.

Thats a very good point

seriously though, we can debate this all we like but the bottom line remains that if the scottish do, do (doodoo!) the inevitable and vote for independence, then they're a bunch of miserable, insular, ungrateful, disloyal, traitor, sissyboy bastards, right?

and that's the no spin zone. i'll give you the last word (that is unless you're a traitor scot, in which case hand your british passport in at the departures gate and be grateful if you don't receive a swift kick up the backside on your way out from her majesty's finest).

http://mvp-seattle.com/Images/JPEGlibrary/ImageLib9/oReillyCropped.jpg

the notion of self determination is precisous... one reason I am nowdays actually against the EU (not Europe, Europeans or the idea of collaboration, but the specific EU 'project'). The situation of shared sovereignty as opperated within the UK set up has been skewered and manipulated by anti English Scots for generations until people now perceive that it was something bad and exploitative...it wasn't and isn't.

I personally believe that we should pull out of the EU and use our federation (the British Union) as our base for international relation building in the future... much more stable, effective and less dangerous in the future I think.

What a sorry, sad state of affairs all this is. The abolition of Britain, and a great union....and for what? Because people labour under the false impression that independance is superior in this case, and worth breaking up something we we're once proud of.

Instead of facing our problems and grievances, we'd rather be hostile to each other.........labouring under false pretenses that all Scottish people hate the English, and all English hate the Scottish. What utter crap that is.

It's power hungry parties like the SNP who are fuelling this anti union sentiment.

For godsake we are Britain, the United Kingdom, and it's that union that has enabled us to achieve so much. Alex Salmond places a clever game, but people like me can see right through it.

Honestly, all you people debating whether to throw away the union like it was a knackered old car.

Never underestimate the ability of the British chatterring classes to shit on their own country.

For fucks sake, the UK has contributed more to the development of this planet in the last 300 years than ANY other country. From political to economic to scientific discovery, no other country has done more.

And we want to throw it all away, just because some slimy little bastard like Alex Salmond wants to strutt around on the world stage to proclaim "Freedom" from the "Arrogant English"....what a complete smarmy tosser he his.

He argues that he has nothing against the English.......are people bloody stupid????

That's something I've never heard explained from the SNP, they harbour an entirely illogical hatred of Britain to the extent that it defines them as much as pro Scottishness. It's never made clear that the SNP would actually cede Scottish powers on currency and law to Europe, privileges presently granted by Westminster. It's only comprehensible on the basis of an anti english bias.

They appeal to the most base nationalist instincts of people and use that as a catch all cure for any particular problem. It's a difficult line to counter without arguing your own inferiority. They are helped too by being the main opposition party, Scotland's markedly left wing in its voting which squeezes the Tories to distant third.

For fucks sake, the UK has contributed more to the development of this planet in the last 300 years than ANY other country. From political to economic to scientific discovery, no other country has done more.


Arent you exaggerating "a bit" here?

OK, flip it around then, can you think of another country which has contributed more to human endeavour over the last 300 years than the UK?

Several can claim to have done so, it all depends on your definition, the USA, Germany, France amongst others have made some pretty remarkale contributions. In short all the major powers of the last three hundred years.

OK, flip it around then, can you think of another country which has contributed more to human endeavour over the last 300 years than the UK?

Yep I can. Of quite a few actually.
Are you guys serious anyways? :lol:

OK, flip it around then, can you think of another country which has contributed more to human endeavour over the last 300 years than the UK?

theres no country that could claim the title to have done more than any other country to have contributed to humanity.
Germany, France, Britain, Italy all have done quite a lot in this regard.

I would honestly argue the UK has because of the range and breath of contributions, it wasn't limited to success in a few fields but across a whole range, from science, engineering, literature, philosophy, evolution of democracy, navigation, inventions, education.

But anyway, I was reluctant to post on this topic, for fear of sounding too 'Monkey-esque'

Yep I can. Of quite a few actually.
Are you guys seriously anyways? :lol:

Please enlighten us with some names, and why? Remember over the last 300 years! Oh and remember Lostboy, that would be BRITISH achievements as the Act of Union is 300 years old.

I would honestly argue the UK has because of the range and breath of contributions, it wasn't limited to success in a few fields but across a whole range, from science, engineering, literature, philosophy, evolution of democracy, navigation, inventions, education.


Do you honestly think that the UK has done more in this regard than other countries?

Please enlighten us with some names, and why? Remember over the last 300 years!

Germany, France, Italy, the US.....

Over the last 300 years, yes.

Germany, France, Italy, the US.....

And why?

It's not countries, it is individual people who have contributed to human endeavour, Freud not Austria, Darwin not the UK, Picasso not Spain, Daimler not Germany, Pasteur not France, Verdi not Italy, Tessla not Croatia, Edison not the USA.

People not states.

The thing is Pricey it all comes down to definition, now of course Britain directly and indirectly is responsible for much of what is now considered common and international: Common Law, English Language, Parliamentary as opposed to Presidential etc, but had any other country been dominant their systems would have been used in much the same way.

Though I certainly wouldn't have Italy there on that list. I am in Rome, and this city has contributed much to global history and indirectly to our way of life, but that was not been the case since Italian Unification.

It's not countries, it is individual people who have contributed to human endeavour, Freud not Austria, Darwin not the UK, Picasso not Spain, Daimler not Germany, Pasteur not France, Verdi not Italy, Tessla not Croatia, Edison not the USA.

People not states.

Absolutely.

The thing is Pricey it all comes down to definition, now of course Britain directly and indirectly is responsible for much of what is now considered common and international: Common Law, English Language, Parliamentary as opposed to Presidential etc, but had any other country been dominant their systems would have been used in much the same way.

Though I certainly wouldn't have Italy there on that list. I am in Rome, and this city has contributed much to global history and indirectly to our way of life, but that was not been the case since Italian Unification.

I suppose that much is true to a point. But in order for certain things to occur, i do believe most are country specific. For example to age of science in the UK directly lead onto the industrial revolution. It occurred in the UK 1st because of very local factors. Equally, one could argue the competition between Italian city states and the way in which early science and art was funded by benelovant city rulers was critical. Prussian militarism was responsible for the 2nd industrial revolution in Germany. Local factors are important.

And why?

Do I ,for example, really need to list all the german or french inventions, scientists etc...?

Of course, but who is ultimately more successful those who were influential or those who were influential to the the influential. People take an almost Darwinianistic Ladder view of culture, the idea that somehow we (or even humans in general) are at the top of the ladder currently rather than simply we've adapted to specific needs and the current lifestyle and progress are merely the end results of the current needs, not the culmination of progress.

but had any other country been dominant their systems would have been used in much the same way.


Dominant over what?
Are you talking about colonialism?

Yes.

I think there is a tendency to split the difference and avoid this kind of discussion and just assume that all countries are equal out of political correctness. I personally think this is a mistake and historically inaccurate.

It doesn't give a fair appraisal of the impact of countries over the last 300 years in furthering humanity and creating the modern world.

How come people marvel at the achievements of the Roman Empire, or China, but get a foreigner to say something similar about the UK over the last 300 years and you would think you have asked them to support the Nazi.

No subsequent European Empire has any of the achievements of Rome, or come close to that. And even in Tacticus day, there were people within the empire, Senators indeed, who would lionise the Noble Barbarian at the expense of a costly comparison of the decadent and corrupt Roman.

We are still looking at the relatively long lasting Empires of Britain, France and others after a relatively short amount of time has elapsed following their demise. A truer more realistic perspective will only be avaliable after it has gone both through living memory and even a few generations since. But even so don't expect it to be positive, what Europe did, other countries could have done if different events and different directions had occured.

The thing is Pricey it all comes down to definition, now of course Britain directly and indirectly is responsible for much of what is now considered common and international: Common Law, English Language, Parliamentary as opposed to Presidential etc, but had any other country been dominant their systems would have been used in much the same way.

Though I certainly wouldn't have Italy there on that list. I am in Rome, and this city has contributed much to global history and indirectly to our way of life, but that was not been the case since Italian Unification.

Espresso machines, pasta, pizze, brown shoes, red shirts, never see any of them in England.

From the last 300 years, Awayo.

Unfortunately we do not see Italian Pizza, we see something resembling it but that doesn't even come close. Everyone should have a pizza in Naples before they die, until then you've just tasted a weird dough and tomato mix.

The Pasta is so much better as well, but I'm not quite sure how even we can manage to mess up when it comes to making pasta.

From the last 300 years, Awayo.

Eh? Lostboy claimed that Italy had had no influence on our way of life since its unification - in 1861, as it happens.

I mentioned a few glaringly obvious example of how that country has influenced how we live; what could be more fundamental to our lifestyles than the food we eat and the clothes we wear? This was to indicate that Italy has had a huge influence on the culture and lifestyles of British people and that's just considering the last forty years.

No subsequent European Empire has any of the achievements of Rome, or come close to that. And even in Tacticus day, there were people within the empire, Senators indeed, who would lionise the Noble Barbarian at the expense of a costly comparison of the decadent and corrupt Roman.

We are still looking at the relatively long lasting Empires of Britain, France and others after a relatively short amount of time has elapsed following their demise. A truer more realistic perspective will only be avaliable after it has gone both through living memory and even a few generations since. But even so don't expect it to be positive, what Europe did, other countries could have done if different events and different directions had occured.

But why aren't other historical empires criticises for their barbarity and violence, but praised for their scientific, cultural and political achievements? For example, the term 'decimate' obviously comes from latin for 10. How did it get its modern meaning? Well, its was Roman practice that when the locals attacked or abused a Roman soldier, thwe reprisal would be to kill 1 in 10 of the local inhabitants. But today we celebrate the Romans as a relatively forward thinking, enlightened bunch. Not for their brutality.

But even so don't expect it to be positive, what Europe did, other countries could have done if different events and different directions had occured.

Yeah, thats certainly true.

Eh?

Its achievements over the last 300 years.

The thing is Pricey it all comes down to definition, now of course Britain directly and indirectly is responsible for much of what is now considered common and international: Common Law, English Language, Parliamentary as opposed to Presidential etc, but had any other country been dominant their systems would have been used in much the same way.

Though I certainly wouldn't have Italy there on that list. I am in Rome, and this city has contributed much to global history and indirectly to our way of life, but that was not been the case since Italian Unification.

Is Common Law as widespread amongst developed countries as Napoleonic inspired legal systems?

Presidential Repuclicanism also seems to be more popular than Parliamentary constitutional monarchy.

The Metric system is also far more popular than our imperial units.

I'd agree that Italy made its biggest contributions in the Roman period and the renaissance, since then they have been relatively quiet.

Britain had a burst of great creativity in the century and a half around the industrial revolution but by the end of the 19th C we had been overtaken in industry, chemistry, engineering etc by Germany and in the 20th Century the US has undoubtedly contributed more to human knowledge.

But why aren't other historical empires criticises for their barbarity and violence, but praised for their scientific, cultural and political achievements?

I don't think that is the case. I think somewhere fiercely proud of their independence such as India, will still tell you there has been several such achievements, likewise no doubt in Madagascar to the French, most of the bitching or downplaying of that is done to Europeans by Europeans as a local rivalry - there are Classical Precedents here too. It just happens that any such achievements are dwarfed by those ongoing in America, but there also the criticism is louder.

As a non-English, scouse republican I think that the British Empire should largely be celebrated as improving the world! Imagine if they had left those vast swathes of Pink around the world to the Spanish, French or the Belgians? The British Empire, as far as Empires go, was a goodun!

But today we celebrate the Romans as a relatively forward thinking, enlightened bunch. Not for their brutality.

No, that's the Ancient Greeks you're thinking of, the Romans are well known for immensely cruel pastimes, brutal armies etc. The Romans were good organisers but compared to the Greeks they didn't actually create or discover that much new.

I think that's unfair, and in the spirit of revionism.

Greeks = Civilised and Good

Romans = Savage and Bad

Remember also that contrary to popular belief many of the great scientific Greek Inventions occured after the Hellenistic Period and not in the Classical Period, when the former Hellenistic Kingdoms were under the domination of Rome.

Italians and Romans are not the same people. Barbarian invasions happened in between.

Not the Germanians?

Hope Scotland will be an independent country, guess it's time to break this fake british union down, couse everybody wants to have his own country and not to be a part of something

Not the Germanians?

That's the ones, from north of the Black Sea, running away from the Huns at the time, who chased them into the Roman Empire and then decided to follow.
The Turks were chasing the Huns anyway.

Hope Scotland will be an independent country, guess it's time to break this fake british union down, couse everybody wants to have his own country and not to be a part of something

e viva la California libre!! :okay:

That's the ones, from north of the Black Sea, running away from the Huns at the time, who chased them into the Roman Empire and then decided to follow.
The Turks were chasing the Huns anyway.

Who were the Mongols chasing?

The Turks

And they were being chased by the Bungholes. Nasty business.

Has there ever been a mass-migration of a whole people from West to East across Eurasia or has it always been one-way traffic??

Hope Scotland will be an independent country, guess it's time to break this fake british union down, couse everybody wants to have his own country and not to be a part of something


within the EU? Is this an oxymoron? I know that 'independent nation' and 'member of the EU' are utter fucking contradictions.... we would all be better joining that other Union, across the pond!

within the EU? Is this an oxymoron? I know that 'independent nation' and 'member of the EU' are utter fucking contradictions.... we would all be better joining that other Union, across the pond!

:laugh: whatever, at least we are one (a larger one) of many small parts in the EU, how much of a voice would we have in a union with the USA, a single nation of 300m? Judging by how much influence TB has had with Bush, nothing, we'd just jump when told.

within the EU? Is this an oxymoron? I know that 'independent nation' and 'member of the EU' are utter fucking contradictions.... we would all be better joining that other Union, across the pond!

Oh that great myth that the Atlantic is smaller than the Channel.

Has there ever been a mass-migration of a whole people from West to East across Eurasia or has it always been one-way traffic??

It is thought that at some point there was a mass migration from the West into India.

The Lithuanian language has similarities with Sanskrit.

It's only stuff I've read in small articles though, I have no real idea.

As a non-English, scouse republican I think that the British Empire should largely be celebrated as improving the world! Imagine if they had left those vast swathes of Pink around the world to the Spanish, French or the Belgians? The British Empire, as far as Empires go, was a goodun!

I would say its a goodun, 1/5 of the worlds land mass and 1/4 of the world population under British control, those were the good days. :)

Anyway involving Scottish Independence, they've been part of the U.K. for 100's of years with no problems, and I dont see why they want Independence now.

It would completly tear the U.K apart.

I was joking guys (about joining the US)... a way of highlighting how bad I think the European Project is....soft lads!

Has there ever been a mass-migration of a whole people from West to East across Eurasia or has it always been one-way traffic??
The Tocharians spread eastwards as far as western China. Not only was their language (or languages if you like) Indo-European, but it was believed to have been closest to Celtic and Germanic rather than Indo-Iranian. Also, several mummies have been excavated in Xinjiang dating back to 1000 B.C. which resemble northern Europeans in physical characteristics and clothing.

I haven't read the whole thread, so forgive me, but here is my 2p.

I'm quite strongly against independence. While I'm by no means an avid supporter of Great Britain and all that jazz, I can only see negatives for both sides should the countries split.

Scotland in the long term would not come off well in my opinion. While just now we have the oil reserves and the possibility of another Celtic Tiger should we split, the fact is that the oil will not last forever (although it will last much longer than media sensationalism suggests), and Ireland's Tiger is already beginning to recede, leaving behind an incredibly high price of living and an as of yet unclear economic future.

I like our devolved state. I don't feel that we need to make every decision about this country for ourselves - after all, Scotland's population is only half of Greater London's; we ain't a big place at all. I'm of the opinion that we have all the control we need - social and economic policies are (within reason) controlled from up here, along with numerous other aspects of the country's administration, and I feel that no more need be taken on.

Subsidy wise, I have to point out that Edinburgh is the 4th financial centre of Europe - the central belt of Scotland is no economic slouch. A financial sector that puts all other UK provincial cities to shame, Silicon Glen and Aberdeen's vast oil capital makes Scotland a high performer with an extremely skilled workforce. Britain's loss of the Scottish economy would undoubtedly impact England for years to come.

So while Scotland does get money put into it by Westminster (obviously - it should do!), it more than reciprocates this investment.


Anyway, I could go on for hours about the pros and cons, but I'm tired.

Have I made any sense?

I agree, the Union has been overwhelming mutually beneficial.

Scotland's population is only half of Greater London's; we ain't a big place at all.

That's one of the reasons why I love visiting Scotland. :yes:

United we stand and divided we fall.

what the fuck does that mean precisely? So Indonesia, the Philipines etc should join China?... Mexico throw its lot in with the USA?... don't be stupid!