Scottish Referendum

[The Good Michael]

My wish too, since this independence would be in all friendship with their neighbours and inside Europe.

Now, how would they decide this - or not ? Would the vote be fair ?

If I take the case of Corsica, France government is just unfair : everybody living in Corsica has the right to vote, but since France has intensively colonized the island, there are only 33 percents of Corsicans living there.
If only Corsicans had the right to vote, including those living in France, Corsica would be independent already.

David,

But surely the French living there are Corsicans too? I tire of everyone wanting independence from one group or another. No one seems to grasp the concept of human race and instead insist on ethnicity, language, and religion as points of demarcation. It's everywhere and seems to me to be devolution.

Mike

[jason_c]

More importantly, a glorious page of Scottish history is about to be written.

Now your trolling.

Welcome independence if you wish but please show less ignorance of the Act of Union in future. Im for the Union. I suspect we will vote to remain in it.

[niko]

Independence.

Hi everyone, I am not into politic's, so I don't understand them. What I do think is, that if the Scottish people want their independence to form thier own country, and good relation's will be maintained with the bordering country, why not "give them independence" BUT I don't think it's that easy.

Here in Euskal Herria (The Basque Country) the Basque people have been wanting thier independence since the 1800's(I think). Euskal Herria (The Basque Country) has it's own language (Euskera) possibly the oldest language in Europe. Euskera (Basque language) was forbidden untill 1975 under the dictatorship of Franco. AND here we are today and still France nor Spain give independence to Euskal Herria (The Basque Country), "so good luck "Alba" (Scotland)".

If giving independence to countries which desire it is a good step forward for the world in which we all live in "I'm up for it" BUT I think instead of the countries being seperated in this World we live in, they should "unite".
With all this technology and knowledge we have aquirred in recent year's, putting it to good use I think we could make a better world than the one we live in, and we all become good habitant's of planet Earth. At the end of the day it's all money "poxy money" forgive me all those who think I'm talking a load of crap, all the best, agur.

niko

[Heinrich]

Now your trolling.

Welcome independence if you wish but please show less ignorance of the Act of Union in future. Im for the Union. I suspect we will vote to remain in it.

We all know how the English invaded Scotland with their red coats and the ruling class monarchs which followed might constitute some legitimacy with yourself but, for sure, the ordinary true people of Scotland were never consulted about the so-called union. The two countries had shared a monarch since the Union of the Crowns in 1603, when King James VI of Scotland inherited the English throne from his double first cousin twice removed, Queen Elizabeth I. Give us a break!
The popular view in Scotland was against that union but this was at a time, unlike today, when democracy was treated with utter disregard. So, it is no coincidence that London was to be the capital city for the Scots.
In Scotland, the Duke of Queensberry was largely responsible for the successful passage of the Union act by the Scottish Parliament. He received much criticism from the Scottish people, but in England he was cheered for his action. He had received around half of the funding awarded by the Westminster treasury for himself. In April 1707, he traveled to London in order to attend celebrations at the royal court, and was greeted by groups of noblemen and gentry lined along the road.
We're bought and sold for English Gold,
Sic a Parcel of Rogues in a Nation. (Robert Burns)
That the Scots today should be bound by the shenanigans of such privileged weasels is quite insupportable.
There was also a so-called Act of Union with Ireland which was just as venal.

[jason_c]

We all know how the English invaded Scotland with their red coats and the ruling class monarchs which followed might constitute some legitimacy with yourself but, for sure, the ordinary true people of Scotland were never consulted about the so-called union. The two countries had shared a monarch since the Union of the Crowns in 1603, when King James VI of Scotland inherited the English throne from his double first cousin twice removed, Queen Elizabeth I. Give us a break!
The popular view in Scotland was against that union but this was at a time, unlike today, when democracy was treated with utter disregard. So, it is no coincidence that London was to be the capital city for the Scots.
In Scotland, the Duke of Queensberry was largely responsible for the successful passage of the Union act by the Scottish Parliament. He received much criticism from the Scottish people, but in England he was cheered for his action. He had received around half of the funding awarded by the Westminster treasury for himself. In April 1707, he traveled to London in order to attend celebrations at the royal court, and was greeted by groups of noblemen and gentry lined along the road.
We're bought and sold for English Gold,
Sic a Parcel of Rogues in a Nation. (Robert Burns)
That the Scots today should be bound by the shenanigans of such privileged weasels is quite insupportable.
There was also a so-called Act of Union with Ireland which was just as venal.

This is a biased account but at least its more factually correct than your "invaded and annexed" nonsense from earlier. Queensbury was probably the only one who became wealthy as a direct result of the Act of Union passing. The rest of the legislators were paid off in more meagre amounts. Any account of the passing of the act of Union which fails to include Religion, the economy, the Stuarts or the Darien expedition is a misguided account of the process.


"Why should I be so sad on my wedding day?"

[Heinrich]

This is a biased account but at least its more factually correct than your "invaded and annexed" nonsense from earlier. ...

England did invade and annex Scotland:
1296 Annexation of Scotland by England. Scotland's Coronation Stone - the "Stone of Destiny" - was removed to Westminster Abbey (in London) by the English. Edward I invaded Scotland the same year and swiftly brought Balliol to heel, moving to establish full English control over Scotland.
1329 After Robert's death, England once more invaded on the pretext of restoring the "Rightful King" — Edward Balliol, son of John Balliol — to the Scottish throne
1547 After the death of Henry VIII, forces under the English regent Thomas Somerset were victorious at the battle of Pinkie Cleugh, the climax of the Rough Wooing and followed up by occupying Edinburgh.
1650 Oliver Cromwell invaded Scotland and defeated the Scottish army in a series of battles at Dunbar and Worcester. Scotland was then occupied by an English force under George Monck throughout the Interregnum and indeed annexed by the Puritan-governed Commonwealth.

[DVV]

Culloden, 16 April 1746

[Robert]

The Scots have invaded us a few times too.

[jason_c]

Culloden, 16 April 1746

Civil War.

[DVV]

Just kidding my dear

Cumberland The Butcher

[jason_c]

England did invade and annex Scotland:
1296 Annexation of Scotland by England. Scotland's Coronation Stone - the "Stone of Destiny" - was removed to Westminster Abbey (in London) by the English. Edward I invaded Scotland the same year and swiftly brought Balliol to heel, moving to establish full English control over Scotland.
1329 After Robert's death, England once more invaded on the pretext of restoring the "Rightful King" — Edward Balliol, son of John Balliol — to the Scottish throne
1547 After the death of Henry VIII, forces under the English regent Thomas Somerset were victorious at the battle of Pinkie Cleugh, the climax of the Rough Wooing and followed up by occupying Edinburgh.
1650 Oliver Cromwell invaded Scotland and defeated the Scottish army in a series of battles at Dunbar and Worcester. Scotland was then occupied by an English force under George Monck throughout the Interregnum and indeed annexed by the Puritan-governed Commonwealth.

None of which describes the Act of Union. The closest to annexation was during the time of William Wallace and the Bruce. Oliver Cromwell was as much a Civil War as anything. Scotland had stupidly taken sides with the King(and used its army) against Cromwell.

[DVV]

Vive les Jacobites !

[jason_c]

Vive les Jacobites !

Apologies. The future of my country has got me a tad edgy. The last thing I needed was Heinrich the Bruce winding me up with his misty eyed, bare arsed romanticism of Scottish history.

[Robert]

I thought the Jacobite rebellion was basically a Highland thing - the Lowlanders didn't want to know.

[DVV]

Jason, I was not talking too seriously, and I don't know what's good for Scotland and Great Britain.
I usually support local cultures, traditions, regional languages, etc, but at the same time I regret Yougoslavia and Tchecoslovaquia. I'll thus let the Scots (and the others, see Robert's first post) decide.