how do you feel about scottish independance
Full independance
34.5% (20)
34.5% (20)
devolution max
10.3% (6)
10.3% (6)
stay in the union
53.4% (31)
53.4% (31)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Scottish Independence?

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Simple really how do you feel about Scotland becoming independent from the UK. Not devolution max but actual independence. As far as im concerned you might as well go indie if you get devolution max as we wouldn't really be united would we.

I am English and I feel that to divide ourselves we would weaken us all. I also feel rather offended that Scots feel so impassioned that they want to leave the union I mean have we wronged you that badly. I think its hilarious that the Scottish nationalists want Scotland to have her own army as I don't really see the point. I think if you go independent you should have your share of the debt considering if you didn't you would have benefited from a bailout that you didn't pay for considering you would take the benefits of a still functioning RBS.

Why do you want independence anyway?

Basically what are youre reasons? is it simply patriotism or have the rest of the britih wronged you that much.

If scots want independence, it really is their own business. And they deserve to decide it for themselves.

And why would UK want Scotland to stay in the union anyway? Only reason labour isn't dead and uk as right wing as humanly possible is propably scotland. It seems to me anyway that right is where people of england want to take uk.

Yay, another thread where "full integration" isn't an option.

seraphy:
It seems to me anyway that right is where people of england want to take uk.

:| Not all of us.

ablac:
Simple really how do you feel about Scotland becoming independent from the UK. Not devolution max but actual independence. As far as im concerned you might as well go indie if you get devolution max as we wouldn't really be united would we.

I am English and I feel that to divide ourselves we would weaken us all. I also feel rather offended that Scots feel so impassioned that they want to leave the union I mean have we wronged you that badly. I think its hilarious that the Scottish nationalists want Scotland to have her own army as I don't really see the point. I think if you go independent you should have your share of the debt considering if you didn't you would have benefited from a bailout that you didn't pay for considering you would take the benefits of a still functioning RBS.

Why do you want independence anyway?

Basically what are youre reasons? is it simply patriotism or have the rest of the britih wronged you that much.

Ablac. Please don't be offended.

The reason why many like myself support independence has nothing to do with thinking "the British" (we are British, too) have wronged us.

I love English and welsh culture, too. Love movies, music, literature, history etc from Scotland, England, and Wales.

Scotland did well out of the union for a time. We all did. But times changed and people move on.

This is really about democracy, culture and economics and a world that is radically different from the one that once demanded a United Kingdom.

Most Scots found the pre-devolution days unacceptable mostly in a democratic sense, but also in an economic and cultural sense. Devolution hasn't gone far enough in addressing our need for more of a say in how our country is managed. The nationalism bit is about our belief that we are a country with a long, unique and proud history and for that I am a Scottish nationalist, but also proud of our British history, too. As for patriotism; I am patriotic about Britain and Scotland but only for the good things we have done, and remain critical for the mistakes and bad things we have done.

My support for independence is because I think Scotland would be a better, more democratic, more confident and richer country as a result.

I want England and Wales to be better countries, too and post-independence - if it happens - I would want our countries to contine to work well together.

Regards

Nightspore

I think with Alex Salmond and the nationalists running the show I will never be able to take an independent Scotland seriously. The problem is that I don't see how we are really separate countries I mean really there is nothing to divide us apart from what used to be and that doesn't feel like a valid reason. We have been the same country, Great Britain, for centuries so why are we still even considering ourselves as separate countries. I always view Scotland as something similar to a county rather than a state and I don't see why we still call areas by their old names when its all one country. I don't see why anyone can still consider themselves Scots or English (I only referred to myself as English as it was necessary as British seemed like it would not make it clear where I lived) as we are all British. I simply do not understand. The Scots seem to simply be an accent and a label rather than a nation or a race. I call Scotland to recognise what it once was and the fact that it is the name of the land but I do not see those in Glasgow or Edinburgh as any different from those in York, Manchester or London in how I see them as my fellow country men. No one alive today has known any different so why should we behave as if it is.

ablac:
I think with Alex Salmond and the nationalists running the show I will never be able to take an independent Scotland seriously. The problem is that I don't see how we are really separate countries I mean really there is nothing to divide us apart from what used to be and that doesn't feel like a valid reason. We have been the same country, Great Britain, for centuries so why are we still even considering ourselves as separate countries. I always view Scotland as something similar to a county rather than a state and I don't see why we still call areas by their old names when its all one country. I don't see why anyone can still consider themselves Scots or English (I only referred to myself as English as it was necessary as British seemed like it would not make it clear where I lived) as we are all British. I simply do not understand. The Scots seem to simply be an accent and a label rather than a nation or a race. I call Scotland to recognise what it once was and the fact that it is the name of the land but I do not see those in Glasgow or Edinburgh as any different from those in York, Manchester or London in how I see them as my fellow country men. No one alive today has known any different so why should we behave as if it is.

*le sigh*

national borders do not work like that, by that logic europe, africa, asia, the middle east, the mediterrainian and russia should all be considered one nation because they're all on one piece of land (and japan should be divided into north and south japan, ditto for new zealand as those nations are over 2 or more islands) the reason they are considered separate nations is because they are separate nations, whether or not they're both on the same single land mass is irrelevant.

anyway, to put it simply, and as cliche as it sounds as to why they may want independence, things change. If the scottish people want independence its generally for the same reason anyone wants independence, they want to be able to make to make their own decisions in life, what is so hard to understand about that? and if the people vote in favour of that at the referendum who are you to say that they can't have it? and you can't say the precedent hasn't been set either because it was with australia gaining independence (not full devo max independence as we're still part of the commonwealth, but still independent none the less)

(btw maybe the fact that you see them purely as an accent and label rather than their own culture may be part of the problem with why you can't understand why they may want independence)

blind_dead_mcjones:
(btw maybe the fact that you see them purely as an accent and label rather than their own culture may be part of the problem with why you can't understand why they may want independence)

At the same time, any other point of view leaves one vulnerable to invented history.

To name an example from my book about political geography: Kilts aren't originally Scottish. They come from Dutch traders, mostly from Zeeland, where the fashion never caught on, but who still controlled the wool market in that area at the time.

Another good example is the northern province of Spain, where some people style themselves as being 'Basques' and they even have an independance movement and asociated terrorism from the ETA. Guess what? Basques don't exist. Much of their language and history is invented by a single guy in the 20th century, and a rather questionable guy on top of that (seeing as he was a fervent national-socialist).

Blablahb:
At the same time, any other point of view leaves one vulnerable to invented history.

To name an example from my book about political geography: Kilts aren't originally Scottish. They come from Dutch traders, mostly from Zeeland, where the fashion never caught on, but who still controlled the wool market in that area at the time.

Another good example is the northern province of Spain, where some people style themselves as being 'Basques' and they even have an independance movement and asociated terrorism from the ETA. Guess what? Basques don't exist. Much of their language and history is invented by a single guy in the 20th century, and a rather questionable guy on top of that (seeing as he was a fervent national-socialist).

Wow that is rather arrogant line of thinking. Do you often go and tell group of people that they don't exist?

Kingdom of Navarre was founded at 824 by a Basque king. So yeah their history isn't that short.

Blablahb:

blind_dead_mcjones:
(btw maybe the fact that you see them purely as an accent and label rather than their own culture may be part of the problem with why you can't understand why they may want independence)

At the same time, any other point of view leaves one vulnerable to invented history.

To name an example from my book about political geography: Kilts aren't originally Scottish. They come from Dutch traders, mostly from Zeeland, where the fashion never caught on, but who still controlled the wool market in that area at the time.

Another good example is the northern province of Spain, where some people style themselves as being 'Basques' and they even have an independance movement and asociated terrorism from the ETA. Guess what? Basques don't exist. Much of their language and history is invented by a single guy in the 20th century, and a rather questionable guy on top of that (seeing as he was a fervent national-socialist).

Here we go again.

The truth is that ALL human culture is invented, constructed, chosen, selected, etc.

If that is what makes something "fake" or "questionable" then the only thing that you can consider "authentic" is shitting in the woods, grunting, fucking and chucking rocks at stuff.

As for the Dutch kilt BS. Many cultures have worn something that looks like a knee-length skirt that is made from wool and many cultures have traded in such things. What makes the kilt Scottish is because we have something - doesn't matter if it was "invented" or "caught on" 1,000 years ago or ten years ago - that is definitely now authentically and distinctly Scottish and you Dutch guys don't. We have had something like a kilt since the 16th century and have called it as such. For sure, much of the named family patterns were invented later in the 19th century but we are moderns now and our modern culture is no less authentic than our premodern cultures. As far as I am aware, something distinct that has existed in a culture for over 500 years - as the kilt has - is pretty much an "authentic" part of that culture IF that culture chooses it to be. Why don't you try selling Dutch "kilts" instead of what you guys currently sell to the tourists in Amsterdam and see how far that gets you. Because contemporay Dutch kilts would be fake. They would be cheap imitations because kilts - no matter what their origin (and we all came from Africa anyway) - are now Scottish, Irish and celtic.

It's a bit like if the Chinese said that Italy doesn't really have a culture because ice-cream and pasta "originally" came from China and that therefore Italy doesn't have the right to call itself a nation. Or like me saying that Japanese manga or American comics or British comics are fake because "comics" were originally "invented" by ancient cave painters.

However, note that none of this has anything to do with the current Scottish independence debate and your suggestion that the "kilt" is something that fundamentally underpins contemporary Scottish culture and the independence issue is somewhat insulting.

Regards

Nightspore

blind_dead_mcjones:

ablac:
I think with Alex Salmond and the nationalists running the show I will never be able to take an independent Scotland seriously. The problem is that I don't see how we are really separate countries I mean really there is nothing to divide us apart from what used to be and that doesn't feel like a valid reason. We have been the same country, Great Britain, for centuries so why are we still even considering ourselves as separate countries. I always view Scotland as something similar to a county rather than a state and I don't see why we still call areas by their old names when its all one country. I don't see why anyone can still consider themselves Scots or English (I only referred to myself as English as it was necessary as British seemed like it would not make it clear where I lived) as we are all British. I simply do not understand. The Scots seem to simply be an accent and a label rather than a nation or a race. I call Scotland to recognise what it once was and the fact that it is the name of the land but I do not see those in Glasgow or Edinburgh as any different from those in York, Manchester or London in how I see them as my fellow country men. No one alive today has known any different so why should we behave as if it is.

*le sigh*

national borders do not work like that, by that logic europe, africa, asia, the middle east, the mediterrainian and russia should all be considered one nation because they're all on one piece of land (and japan should be divided into north and south japan, ditto for new zealand as those nations are over 2 or more islands) the reason they are considered separate nations is because they are separate nations, whether or not they're both on the same single land mass is irrelevant.

anyway, to put it simply, and as cliche as it sounds as to why they may want independence, things change. If the scottish people want independence its generally for the same reason anyone wants independence, they want to be able to make to make their own decisions in life, what is so hard to understand about that? and if the people vote in favour of that at the referendum who are you to say that they can't have it? and you can't say the precedent hasn't been set either because it was with australia gaining independence (not full devo max independence as we're still part of the commonwealth, but still independent none the less)

(btw maybe the fact that you see them purely as an accent and label rather than their own culture may be part of the problem with why you can't understand why they may want independence)

No scotland used to be a seperate nation but now they are not. i was not saying they shouldnt be seperate because they are connected to the same piece of land i was saying that just because they live in what was once a seperate country does not mean it should dtill be seperate. by your logic punks, christians and goths should all have seperate states as they are different cultures.

Nightspore:
However, note that none of this has anything to do with the current Scottish independence debate

Oh yes it does. Because Scottisch nationalists are busy trying to invent something which is not there.

And non-existant stuff is kind of a bad reason to go do stuff which has plenty of downsides.

Blablahb:

Nightspore:
However, note that none of this has anything to do with the current Scottish independence debate

Oh yes it does. Because Scottisch nationalists are busy trying to invent something which is not there.

And non-existant stuff is kind of a bad reason to go do stuff which has plenty of downsides.

Non-existant stuff? Like democracy and independence and the freedom to choose how your own nation is governed?

Non-existant stuff? My Scottish identity is non-existent? I am imagining my own non-existent culture and identity?

Whatever.

Ooh look an ignore button.

Regards

Nightspore

The union is stronger together than apart, it is as simple as that. I am a child of the union.. my ancestry includes huge lines of Scots, Welsh, Irish and Cornish.

I am however English, and British.

Now, if Scotland wants to have a referendum and declare themselves independent, they should go right ahead. The UK should immediately remove ALL aid, in fracture, finance and military from the region and revoke the passports and citizenship of everyone who decides to be part of Scotland as an independent nation. If you want to be on your own, go right ahead.

Not a slow withdrawal either.. immediate as in the very second the vote passes.

Craorach:
The union is stronger together than apart, it is as simple as that. I am a child of the union.. my ancestry includes huge lines of Scots, Welsh, Irish and Cornish.

I am however English, and British.

Now, if Scotland wants to have a referendum and declare themselves independent, they should go right ahead. The UK should immediately remove ALL aid, in fracture, finance and military from the region and revoke the passports and citizenship of everyone who decides to be part of Scotland as an independent nation. If you want to be on your own, go right ahead.

Not a slow withdrawal either.. immediate as in the very second the vote passes.

You're not very good with diplomacy, are you?

They want to be independent? Fine we will take it out of their hide!!!

And then you wonder why scots aren't that interested in union anymore.

Craorach:

Now, if Scotland wants to have a referendum and declare themselves independent, they should go right ahead. The UK should immediately remove ALL aid, in fracture, finance and military from the region and revoke the passports and citizenship of everyone who decides to be part of Scotland as an independent nation. If you want to be on your own, go right ahead.

Damn, your tough ultimatum style of talking has really convinced me now. Here I was just a petulant child really, testing the fair and decent boundaries that you and the UK had set. But your tough talking has woke me up. Really, I needed that stern talking to.

I'm really deeply sorry for believing in Scottish independence.

Please can we keep all our subsidies and ALL the aid that makes us the country that we are.

Regards

Nightspore

seraphy:

Craorach:
The union is stronger together than apart, it is as simple as that. I am a child of the union.. my ancestry includes huge lines of Scots, Welsh, Irish and Cornish.

I am however English, and British.

Now, if Scotland wants to have a referendum and declare themselves independent, they should go right ahead. The UK should immediately remove ALL aid, in fracture, finance and military from the region and revoke the passports and citizenship of everyone who decides to be part of Scotland as an independent nation. If you want to be on your own, go right ahead.

Not a slow withdrawal either.. immediate as in the very second the vote passes.

You're not very good with diplomacy, are you?

They want to be independent? Fine we will take it out of their hide!!!

And then you wonder why scots aren't that interested in union anymore.

I don't believe people who reject something should get the benefits of it.

The Union is historically proven to be better for the whole group than independence. Working together, each part provides great and important things to all the others. Separately, frankly, none of us would probably have survived and became the world power that the UK is together.

Now, if the Scottish Independence folks want to start providing actual studies and economic models to show that they can function in all aspects of a western society without outside aid, then I'd take them more seriously.

As it is, all I have seen from them is a combination of national rose tinted glasses and romanticism, along with a good measure of stubbornness.

Craorach:

I don't believe people who reject something should get the benefits of it.

The Union is historically proven to be better for the whole group than independence. Working together, each part provides great and important things to all the others. Separately, frankly, none of us would probably have survived and became the world power that the UK is together.

Now, if the Scottish Independence folks want to start providing actual studies and economic models to show that they can function in all aspects of a western society without outside aid, then I'd take them more seriously.

As it is, all I have seen from them is a combination of national rose tinted glasses and romanticism, along with a good measure of stubbornness.

Irish disagree, they fought a war for it too, seems like scots are starting to doubt your version of history as well.

Scotland is very different than england you know. You can see it best on how they vote, if I was a scottish citizen I would't get the feeling that westminster is doing its best for my country nor my people. Westminster is and always will be more of a english goverment than uk goverment. At least in my opinion, and I wouldn't stand it.

seraphy:

Irish disagree, they fought a war for it too, seems like scots are starting to doubt your version of history as well.

Scotland is very different than england you know. You can see it best on how they vote, if I was a scottish citizen I would't get the feeling that westminster is doing its best for my country nor my people. Westminster is and always will be more of a english goverment than uk goverment. At least in my opinion, and I wouldn't stand it.

You're right, Westminster has always been more of an English government, I wouldn't argue that.. and it should be rectified. That doesn't mean splitting up the Union.

The Scottish and Irish situations are pretty different however. One of the main driving issues in the Irish situation was religion after all. I grew up in Cornwall, which even has it's own "Cornish Independence" following.. I now live in Western Australia, which has it's own.

All three, Scotland, Cornwall and WA have several things in common.. low population (compared to the area they want to be independant from), resource heavy, and a historical feeling of being "second class citizens".

All three have legitimate concerns about their treatment by central government. However, the brutal reality of the situation is that unless they can function very quickly, without accepting aid from the people they just rejected of any sort, in total independence.. then it is foolish to demand that independence.

"Yay, we're independent.. we have no money, little to no military, almost no infrastructure and a tiny population.. go us!"

Craorach:
[quote="seraphy" post="528.339120.13723265"][quote="Craorach" post="528.339120.13723224"]

Now, if the Scottish Independence folks want to start providing actual studies and economic models to show that they can function in all aspects of a western society without outside aid, then I'd take them more seriously.

As it is, all I have seen from them is a combination of national rose tinted glasses and romanticism, along with a good measure of stubbornness.

Yep. It's true.

The economic case for independence in this debate has been non-existent just like Scottish culture really. I have never heard the Scottish National Party nor their leader (who was a successful economist before entering politics) mention economics in this whole debate. All i heard was some mention of Braveheart and Bannockburn and how we can all get our faces painted blue if we go independent, which sounded nice at the time.

I was caught up in the romance for a while but the hard cold reality of the AID that we are dependent on from England has punctured that feverish dream; an opiate dream that is, of course, barren of "actual studies" and "economic models."

Again, I am profoundly sorry for biting the hand that feeds me. Please don't cut off our aid.

Please don't punish us.

Regards

Nightspore

Craorach:

You're right, Westminster has always been more of an English government, I wouldn't argue that.. and it should be rectified. That doesn't mean splitting up the Union.

The Scottish and Irish situations are pretty different however. One of the main driving issues in the Irish situation was religion after all. I grew up in Cornwall, which even has it's own "Cornish Independence" following.. I now live in Western Australia, which has it's own.

All three, Scotland, Cornwall and WA have several things in common.. low population (compared to the area they want to be independant from), resource heavy, and a historical feeling of being "second class citizens".

All three have legitimate concerns about their treatment by central government. However, the brutal reality of the situation is that unless they can function very quickly, without accepting aid from the people they just rejected of any sort, in total independence.. then it is foolish to demand that independence.

"Yay, we're independent.. we have no money, little to no military, almost no infrastructure and a tiny population.. go us!"

There are around 5 mil people in scotland. Many other European countries don't have any more than that, Ireland for example. And these countries are doing ok being independent.

It is still in my opinion their own decision whether they want independence or not and uk should respect that.

It is bit similar actually, many people in england want to leave EU and want a referendum about it. Well aren't you being bit of a hypocrites if scotland feels same way about union and want their own referendum?

Who are you to tell them that they are not allowed to vote for it, while at the same time demanding similar referendum about EU?

seraphy:

Craorach:

You're right, Westminster has always been more of an English government, I wouldn't argue that.. and it should be rectified. That doesn't mean splitting up the Union.

The Scottish and Irish situations are pretty different however. One of the main driving issues in the Irish situation was religion after all. I grew up in Cornwall, which even has it's own "Cornish Independence" following.. I now live in Western Australia, which has it's own.

All three, Scotland, Cornwall and WA have several things in common.. low population (compared to the area they want to be independant from), resource heavy, and a historical feeling of being "second class citizens".

All three have legitimate concerns about their treatment by central government. However, the brutal reality of the situation is that unless they can function very quickly, without accepting aid from the people they just rejected of any sort, in total independence.. then it is foolish to demand that independence.

"Yay, we're independent.. we have no money, little to no military, almost no infrastructure and a tiny population.. go us!"

There are around 5 mil people in scotland. Many other European countries don't have any more than that, Ireland for example. And these countries are doing ok being independent.

It is still in my opinion their own decision whether they want independence or not and uk should respect that.

It is bit similar actually, many people in england want to leave EU and want a referendum about it. Well aren't you being bit of a hypocrites if scotland feels same way about union and want their own referendum?

Who are you to tell them that they are not allowed to vote for it, while at the same time demanding similar referendum about EU?

I think it's foolish.

That doesn't mean I'm going to tell them they /can't/ be independent if they have a referendum and the majority accepts it, and of course the UK Government does.

But of course, they also have to promise to accept the other possible outcome as well. That they are just a vocal minority.

I believe it is hypocritical to accept support from a group you are vehemently against and don't want to be part of.

NOTE: I am an American with roots in the British Isles(no specific part, lots of mixing), so take what I say as it is.

I personally rather have the UK stay together because from what I gather a split would weaken everyone involved. A weaker UK is not only bad for them, but bad for her greatest ally; The United States.

seraphy:

Craorach:

You're right, Westminster has always been more of an English government, I wouldn't argue that.. and it should be rectified. That doesn't mean splitting up the Union.

The Scottish and Irish situations are pretty different however. One of the main driving issues in the Irish situation was religion after all. I grew up in Cornwall, which even has it's own "Cornish Independence" following.. I now live in Western Australia, which has it's own.

All three, Scotland, Cornwall and WA have several things in common.. low population (compared to the area they want to be independant from), resource heavy, and a historical feeling of being "second class citizens".

All three have legitimate concerns about their treatment by central government. However, the brutal reality of the situation is that unless they can function very quickly, without accepting aid from the people they just rejected of any sort, in total independence.. then it is foolish to demand that independence.

"Yay, we're independent.. we have no money, little to no military, almost no infrastructure and a tiny population.. go us!"

There are around 5 mil people in scotland. Many other European countries don't have any more than that, Ireland for example. And these countries are doing ok being independent.

It is still in my opinion their own decision whether they want independence or not and uk should respect that.

It is bit similar actually, many people in england want to leave EU and want a referendum about it. Well aren't you being bit of a hypocrites if scotland feels same way about union and want their own referendum?

Who are you to tell them that they are not allowed to vote for it, while at the same time demanding similar referendum about EU?

Now I agree with you in essence, however those many other countries that already have a low population already had that for centuries.
Scotland would most likely heavily rely on the UK, I suspect, not just economically but also diplomatically / military matters.
They would have to switch from relying on the UK on those matters to figuring everything out for themselves, and fast.
(If this is wrong and scotland is in no way, economically or in military matters, relying on the UK, then sorry and please move on :))

I also worry for an independent Scotland as when the resources run out that's a huge amount of money gone (one of the main reasons I can see for going indie is to keep all the money made from the resources). also I wonder how an independent Scotland would be able to stand on the world stage. The danger is that when it entered Europe and probably the euro (that's how its going) it could simply end up being pushed around by the other nations possibly including what's left of Britain.

The other worrying factor for England is that a large amount of the labour vote comes from Scotland. to lose those seats would make it significantly more difficult for any party to compete with the conservatives which is bad considering how our government needs reform and without any strong opposition that wont come.

I cant help but feel that the resource money is the only thing keeping the conservatives from giving Scotland independence anyway as that would make them irremovable (at least for the foreseeable future).

I hope Scotland will remain as we are stronger together and the union is mutually beneficial. I've already stated that I don't view Britain as several countries stuck together rather that Britain as a very different, single nation, very different from anything that came before it. To see Scotland go would be like losing an arm rather than a brother.

I also blame new labour for bringing devolution in the first place as it acts as a false conformation that some areas of the country deserve different treatment than others.

I've read many articles from differing sources and done a fair bit of research myself and I've come to the conclusion that Scottish Independence would be bad.......................................................... for the UK.

Scotland itself however, I believe, will prosper and become a better and fairer country for it's citizens. Right now economic policy focuses on the UK as a whole but if Scotland was in control then money could be directed towards the many industries that Scotland has to make them better. Devo-max just seems to be a bit of a sell out. I mean Scotland would do far better but we would still be 'chained' to the UK and perhaps even direct our surpluses elsewhere. Independence would allow our culture to flourish and open up a new relationship with England.

ablac:
No scotland used to be a seperate nation but now they are not. i was not saying they shouldnt be seperate because they are connected to the same piece of land i was saying that just because they live in what was once a seperate country does not mean it should dtill be seperate.

thats the whole point behind having the referendum in the first place, to see whether the public wants to keep with the status quo (remaining part of britian and not a separate nation) or to split and become their own nation again, being part of Britian is not something that is set in stone

by your logic punks, christians and goths should all have seperate states as they are different cultures.

don't be silly those aren't cultures they're social cliques (except for christianity, which is a religion), completely different thing, the only time you could be correct in this instance is if by 'goth' you're referring to the Visigoths and Ostrogoths who decimated the Roman Empire

If the scots wish to steer their own future away from Britain then I see no reason why they should have any less right to decide that than the the people of the Falkland Islands should when they say they want to remain in the union.

I am certain Britain doesn't just want follow this principle when it provides them with more oilfields.

Gypsybob:

perhaps even direct our surpluses elsewhere.

What surpluses would those be?

Edit: Corrected who I was quoting. I'm pro at forums, honest!

Amnestic:

Istvan:

perhaps even direct our surpluses elsewhere.

What surpluses would those be?

Why the surplus of misquotes of course.

Edit: Barring the payment of... five million republic credits this post will stand for all to see for the rest of eternity. *ImperialMarchShort.wav*

Istvan:

Amnestic:

Istvan:

perhaps even direct our surpluses elsewhere.

What surpluses would those be?

Why the surplus of misquotes of course.

Whoops! Sorry about that. I'll go back and edit it.

My golden rule is:
If you get pissed enough to want independence, and WIN IT, you deserve it. No questions asked. Since this kinda thing happened with Ireland (I think), Scotland can do it too.

Part of me wants to see something like this:

Nothing says "pissed off" like a bunch of angry Scottish peasants on horseback.

At the end of the day, independence is their business. No one has the right to tell them they cant be their own country. For better or for worse.

Ultratwinkie:

Nothing says "pissed off" like a bunch of angry Scottish peasants on horseback.

William Wallace was strangled by hanging but released while still alive, castrated, eviscerated, had his bowels burnt before him, was beheaded and then quartered, before having his head stuck on a pike.

Maybe not the best role model to have.

Amnestic:

William Wallace was strangled by hanging but released while still alive, castrated, eviscerated, had his bowels burnt before him, was beheaded and then quartered, before having his head stuck on a pike.

Maybe not the best role model to have.

Being tortured by english makes him bad role model? I don't see how.

Now he obviously wasn't very nice man, but since english were worse he makes a fine icon and role model for scottish people.

seraphy:

Amnestic:

William Wallace was strangled by hanging but released while still alive, castrated, eviscerated, had his bowels burnt before him, was beheaded and then quartered, before having his head stuck on a pike.

Maybe not the best role model to have.

Being tortured by english makes him bad role model? I don't see how.

Now he obviously wasn't very nice man, but since english were worse he makes a fine icon and role model for scottish people.

You might want to pick someone who's a little more successful.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked