Tranquillus in Exile
New member
At least eleven British prime ministers, including two so far this century, were born in Scotland or elsewhere of Scottish parents.
That's some exploitation!
That's some exploitation!
English law blocks Scottish independence
- Thread starter moon
- Start date
moon
Satire for Sanity
At least eleven British prime ministers, including two so far this century, were born in Scotland or elsewhere of Scottish parents.
That's some exploitation!
Were they Scottish nationalists or Anglophiles ?
Into the Night
Verified User
Argument of the Stone fallacy. Scotland has made no indication they want to join the EU. They simply want independence.
They have before. Why not now?
Speculation. Why would Scotland, having won independence, want to give it up again for an authority even further away than London????!?
Tranquillus in Exile
New member
Don't know about "Scotland", but the Scot Nats certainly have:
The SNP believe that EU membership delivers many social, economic and cultural benefits for individuals, businesses and communities across Scotland. We believe that the best way to build a more prosperous and equal Scotland is to be a full independent member of the EU.
https://www.snp.org/policies/pb-what-is-the-snp-s-position-on-rejoining-the-eu/
That’s their OFFICIAL POLICY. Don't you believe them?
moon
Satire for Sanity
Unilateral declarations of independence may be morally correct- but the newly independent state must be recognized by others.
moon
Satire for Sanity
Into the Night Soil has no interest in facts, scientific or otherwise.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Stop digging that hole ffs, it's official SNP policy now shut the fuck up.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Another subject you know fuck all about, you seem determined to show everybody just how moronic you are on as many topics as possible.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
UK ministers seek advice on whether Nicola Sturgeon's independence drive is UNLAWFUL - as First Minister faces new legal bid to stop SNP spending public money on indyref2
Civil servants in the Scottish government have been allowed to help SNP ministers - but, now that the Supreme Court has ruled the policy area is reserved to Westminster, the policy may now be in question.
UK ministers will demand 'urgent clarification' on whether it is lawful this week by writing to the permanent secretary of the Scottish government, John-Paul Marks, and are seeking Whitehall advice.
It comes after five judges unanimously ruled in the Supreme Court last week that the Scottish Government cannot press ahead with a referendum without the consent of Westminster.
It has emerged that 24 Government officials are working on the updated prospectus for independence, with their salaries costing up to £1.5million.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...la-Sturgeons-independence-drive-UNLAWFUL.html
Civil servants in the Scottish government have been allowed to help SNP ministers - but, now that the Supreme Court has ruled the policy area is reserved to Westminster, the policy may now be in question.
UK ministers will demand 'urgent clarification' on whether it is lawful this week by writing to the permanent secretary of the Scottish government, John-Paul Marks, and are seeking Whitehall advice.
It comes after five judges unanimously ruled in the Supreme Court last week that the Scottish Government cannot press ahead with a referendum without the consent of Westminster.
It has emerged that 24 Government officials are working on the updated prospectus for independence, with their salaries costing up to £1.5million.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...la-Sturgeons-independence-drive-UNLAWFUL.html
Are you suggesting that is a problem?
Into the Night
Verified User
So the SNP is NOT seeking independence. They are seeking to give up their sovereignty to a government even further away than London.
Into the Night
Verified User
Into the Night
Verified User
No, actually Nordberg is right on this one. If Scotland declares itself independent, it will be. There is nothing London can do to stop that.
Into the Night
Verified User
They don't have any authority in this area. If Scotland wants to secede, they can simply do so. They do not need anyone's permission except that of the Scottish people.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Why Scotland won't secede
by Dan Hannan, Contributor
March 13, 2017 01:03 AM
When Scotland voted on independence in September 2014, Nicola Sturgeon, then the deputy leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP) and now its leader, described the referendum as a "once in a generation" event.
I suppose the definition of "a generation" is flexible. To Sturgeon, it evidently means "four years": She now wants another vote next fall.
What has changed? Not public opinion. The polls have barely budged since the last referendum, which resulted in a 55-45 vote against separation. Scots are an admirably bloody-minded people and, when asked the same question, they tend to respond the same way, only with added emphasis. Fewer than one in three Scots favors a second poll, and the SNP's insistence on one strikes even pro-independence voters as the act of a bad loser.
Sturgeon justifies her volte-face by pointing to last year's European Union referendum, in which England and Wales returned Leave majorities, while Scotland and Northern Ireland voted Remain. She insists on seeing Brexit as a product of English nationalism — something supposedly alien to goody-goody, Left-of-Center, cosmopolitan Scotland. And, in fairness, there was a divergence in the vote — though you'd never guess, listening to the SNP leader, that two in five Scots voted Leave.
Still, the idea that Scotland is somehow a more intrinsically European place than England is fanciful. When the previous European referendum was held, in 1975, the Scots voted to withdraw in far larger numbers than the English.
The truth is that Scotland and England share most of the attributes that usually define national identity. We speak the same language, watch the same TV, shop at the same chains, follow the same sports, eat the same unhealthy food, talk in the same sardonic tone.
The elemental case for union was made by its first champion, King James VI of Scotland, who, on the death of his cousin, Queen Elizabeth, also became King James I of England. In his first address to England's Parliament in 1604, speaking with a heavy Scottish accent, he observed that the border between his two realms was accidental rather than ethnographic: "Hath not God first united these kingdoms, both in language and religion and similitude of manners? Hath He not made us all in one island, compassed by one sea?"
His Majesty was right. There was a cultural frontier in Great Britain, but it divided the Highlands from the rest of the island, not England from Scotland. Lowland Scots felt more kinship with their fellow English-speakers than with the wild clansmen from whom they were sundered by faith, speech and custom. Highlanders, for their part, used the word "English" or "Sassenach" (Saxon) to describe both Lowlanders and Englishmen, making no distinction between them.
Forget what you saw in "Braveheart." Scotland was not annexed by its larger neighbor. If anything, it was the other way around. When James VI inherited his second kingdom, Scots swarmed south with their monarch, snapping up lands and titles. The English felt almost as if they were being invaded, and resentfully refused to grant James the title he craved, "King of Great Britain." It took a century before the two parliaments were merged — again, provoking furious resentment in England.
Scottish separatism is in a different category from, say, Kosovan or Kurdish or Chechen separatism. It isn't based on ethnic or linguistic identity. Rather, its chief appeal is political: Break away from England, the argument goes, and you'll never get another Conservative government. This is true enough; but it is already being addressed by more devolution of powers, especially over taxation.
The idea that Scotland is somehow held down is contradicted by the recent referendum. Not one U.K. politician tried to deny that Scots had the right to walk away. The same would not be true if, say, Corsica wanted to leave France, or Sardinia, Italy. When Catalonia organized an independence referendum two years ago, its leaders were put on trial. I also seem to recall that South Carolina ran into some resistance when it tried to secede from the United States.
London's relaxed attitude is, ultimately, why Scotland is unlikely to break away. Two years ago, despite a question written by the SNP, a franchise altered to favor independence, a spike in the price of North Sea oil and a truly dismal pro-UK campaign, the secessionists couldn't carry the day. Nothing since then has strengthened their position.
Dan Hannan is a British Conservative MEP.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/why-scotland-wont-secede
by Dan Hannan, Contributor
March 13, 2017 01:03 AM
When Scotland voted on independence in September 2014, Nicola Sturgeon, then the deputy leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP) and now its leader, described the referendum as a "once in a generation" event.
I suppose the definition of "a generation" is flexible. To Sturgeon, it evidently means "four years": She now wants another vote next fall.
What has changed? Not public opinion. The polls have barely budged since the last referendum, which resulted in a 55-45 vote against separation. Scots are an admirably bloody-minded people and, when asked the same question, they tend to respond the same way, only with added emphasis. Fewer than one in three Scots favors a second poll, and the SNP's insistence on one strikes even pro-independence voters as the act of a bad loser.
Sturgeon justifies her volte-face by pointing to last year's European Union referendum, in which England and Wales returned Leave majorities, while Scotland and Northern Ireland voted Remain. She insists on seeing Brexit as a product of English nationalism — something supposedly alien to goody-goody, Left-of-Center, cosmopolitan Scotland. And, in fairness, there was a divergence in the vote — though you'd never guess, listening to the SNP leader, that two in five Scots voted Leave.
Still, the idea that Scotland is somehow a more intrinsically European place than England is fanciful. When the previous European referendum was held, in 1975, the Scots voted to withdraw in far larger numbers than the English.
The truth is that Scotland and England share most of the attributes that usually define national identity. We speak the same language, watch the same TV, shop at the same chains, follow the same sports, eat the same unhealthy food, talk in the same sardonic tone.
The elemental case for union was made by its first champion, King James VI of Scotland, who, on the death of his cousin, Queen Elizabeth, also became King James I of England. In his first address to England's Parliament in 1604, speaking with a heavy Scottish accent, he observed that the border between his two realms was accidental rather than ethnographic: "Hath not God first united these kingdoms, both in language and religion and similitude of manners? Hath He not made us all in one island, compassed by one sea?"
His Majesty was right. There was a cultural frontier in Great Britain, but it divided the Highlands from the rest of the island, not England from Scotland. Lowland Scots felt more kinship with their fellow English-speakers than with the wild clansmen from whom they were sundered by faith, speech and custom. Highlanders, for their part, used the word "English" or "Sassenach" (Saxon) to describe both Lowlanders and Englishmen, making no distinction between them.
Forget what you saw in "Braveheart." Scotland was not annexed by its larger neighbor. If anything, it was the other way around. When James VI inherited his second kingdom, Scots swarmed south with their monarch, snapping up lands and titles. The English felt almost as if they were being invaded, and resentfully refused to grant James the title he craved, "King of Great Britain." It took a century before the two parliaments were merged — again, provoking furious resentment in England.
Scottish separatism is in a different category from, say, Kosovan or Kurdish or Chechen separatism. It isn't based on ethnic or linguistic identity. Rather, its chief appeal is political: Break away from England, the argument goes, and you'll never get another Conservative government. This is true enough; but it is already being addressed by more devolution of powers, especially over taxation.
The idea that Scotland is somehow held down is contradicted by the recent referendum. Not one U.K. politician tried to deny that Scots had the right to walk away. The same would not be true if, say, Corsica wanted to leave France, or Sardinia, Italy. When Catalonia organized an independence referendum two years ago, its leaders were put on trial. I also seem to recall that South Carolina ran into some resistance when it tried to secede from the United States.
London's relaxed attitude is, ultimately, why Scotland is unlikely to break away. Two years ago, despite a question written by the SNP, a franchise altered to favor independence, a spike in the price of North Sea oil and a truly dismal pro-UK campaign, the secessionists couldn't carry the day. Nothing since then has strengthened their position.
Dan Hannan is a British Conservative MEP.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/why-scotland-wont-secede
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Holy fuck, he finally gets it. The nationalists are so far removed from reality that they actually believe the EU gives a fuck about the Sottish people. Ask the Irish about that, the EU just arse reamed them comprehensibly and with gusto.
Last edited:
moon
Satire for Sanity
On reflection- no- but some outside support for Scottish independence would assist their cause.
