If Scotland wants to leave, I have no reason to keep them in a loveless marriage - short of some sentimentality for what has gone before and wanting to keep a funky flag.
BUT Scotland needs to take a long hard-nosed look at what that independence would actually deliver. The SNP have ridden a wave of hope, but have been woeful in explaining how that translates into a better life, more jobs, better services. And if Brexit shows anything to the Scots, it's that breaking up is very hard to do.
Also what about parts of Scotland which might still wish to remain within the Union? There is the Ulster precedent should - say - the Border counties prefer such a route. Then there is the question of what would the Shetlanders want to do. At the end of the day, if parts of the UK have the right to break away from the UK, then parts of Scotland have the same right to break away from Scotland. Ditto re- Wales - Would Pembrokeshire, Monmouthshire, Brecon & Radnor and Flintshire wish to remain part of an independent Wales? Would the former Kingdoms within England have the right to reform rather than remain within an independent England?
They'll go off the English after HY's troops arrive.
If Scotland wants to leave, I have no reason to keep them in a loveless marriage - short of some sentimentality for what has gone before and wanting to keep a funky flag.
BUT Scotland needs to take a long hard-nosed look at what that independence would actually deliver. The SNP have ridden a wave of hope, but have been woeful in explaining how that translates into a better life, more jobs, better services. And if Brexit shows anything to the Scots, it's that breaking up is very hard to do.
You think being under the jackboot of the Tories and them deciding what our money is spent on is a great choice. We can be no worse off than we are now , dictated to on almost everything.
We have two countries with nuclear weapons, who have previously gone to war over this territory, with one country supporting armed militants in the disputed territory, with said militants being more than willing to use terrorism - both within the territory and elsewhere - to advance their cause.
And now India does the equivalent of throwing a match on the fire.
Who is advising them? Rajoy?
Modi has HYUFD on speed dial.
Apparently a sub-sample of 18-24 Sikhs are all in favour of this.
ESPNcricinfo have started the day with all 3 results hinted at
7.3 0 Cummins to Burns, no run, outside off, a touch wider of the stumps. Calmly left alone with no concerns whatsoever. It's a bore-draw in prospect! Draw ! 7.2 0 Cummins to Burns, no run, lively riposte! Quicker, tighter to the stumps, zinging past a defensive prod, oh so close to the edge. Sound the retreat! Lose ! 7.1 4 Cummins to Burns, FOUR runs, a half-tracker outside off, Burns leans on a defensive push, and that's scorched through the covers! Sound the bugle, this is on! Win !
What odds on the fourth possible result - the tie?
Since it's correlated with an England win more or less (But less likely) longer than a couple of minutes ago.
Last traded, 600.0 but the 1000.0 available to lay looks more correct.
Am I unique on this board? I did not grow up in this country, and do not feel “English”, though I have been living in England for half my life.
I am 52, was born in Ireland and have lived:
England 26 years (3 separate episodes, a considerable portion of the middle one at sea) Russia 9 years (the wilderness years) USA 6 years (2 years at school, 4 years USN exchange) Belgium 6 years Wales 4 years France 1 year
So, no you are not unique! I have zero English identity.
If Scotland wants to leave, I have no reason to keep them in a loveless marriage - short of some sentimentality for what has gone before and wanting to keep a funky flag.
BUT Scotland needs to take a long hard-nosed look at what that independence would actually deliver. The SNP have ridden a wave of hope, but have been woeful in explaining how that translates into a better life, more jobs, better services. And if Brexit shows anything to the Scots, it's that breaking up is very hard to do.
Also what about parts of Scotland which might still wish to remain within the Union? There is the Ulster precedent should - say - the Border counties prefer such a route. Then there is the question of what would the Shetlanders want to do. At the end of the day, if parts of the UK have the right to break away from the UK, then parts of Scotland have the same right to break away from Scotland. Ditto re- Wales - Would Pembrokeshire, Monmouthshire, Brecon & Radnor and Flintshire wish to remain part of an independent Wales? Would the former Kingdoms within England have the right to reform rather than remain within an independent England?
Utter bollox, Shetland nor any other part of Scotland has ever ever mentioned not wanting to remain part of Scotland.
One argument for the Union is that it allows for these multi-national identities. At its best, the U.K. is an anti-nationalist endeavour (hence our traditional cringe against overt flag-waving etc).
To be British carries no ethnic imperative (so far as I can tell). Those who have left the Commonwealth to make their home here are surely more British than, say, English.
In a globalising world, that seems like a precious inheritance.
You are nearly as nutty as HYFUD. What planet do you live on.
Just to give people an idea of the scale difference between the NI-ROI border and the SCO-ENG border there are more roads crossing the NI-ROI border north of the Foyle alone than there are crossing the SCO-ENG border in total.
However, it isn't just about the length and number of crossings, it's about the amount of traffic and the flow of it. There are roughly 13,000 commercial trips back and forth across the Irish border every day according to the most recent and probably very conservative estimate. (https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-lorries-4469494-Feb2019/)
I would be beyond amazed if that figure isn't exceeded at Gretna alone. Think of he logistical difficulties of putting a border there.
What about this great IT solution and paperwork done elsewhere, why would every lorry need to be searched at this border only. Reality is they would pull over 1 in a thousand if lucky.
If there were an IT solution, there would be no Irish backstop in the WA, we'd be out of the EU, TM would still be PM and the world (well, the UK) would generally be a much better and less divided and bitter place.
If Scotland wants to leave, I have no reason to keep them in a loveless marriage - short of some sentimentality for what has gone before and wanting to keep a funky flag.
BUT Scotland needs to take a long hard-nosed look at what that independence would actually deliver. The SNP have ridden a wave of hope, but have been woeful in explaining how that translates into a better life, more jobs, better services. And if Brexit shows anything to the Scots, it's that breaking up is very hard to do.
Also what about parts of Scotland which might still wish to remain within the Union? There is the Ulster precedent should - say - the Border counties prefer such a route. Then there is the question of what would the Shetlanders want to do. At the end of the day, if parts of the UK have the right to break away from the UK, then parts of Scotland have the same right to break away from Scotland. Ditto re- Wales - Would Pembrokeshire, Monmouthshire, Brecon & Radnor and Flintshire wish to remain part of an independent Wales? Would the former Kingdoms within England have the right to reform rather than remain within an independent England?
Utter bollox, Shetland nor any other part of Scotland has ever ever mentioned not wanting to remain part of Scotland.
Just to give people an idea of the scale difference between the NI-ROI border and the SCO-ENG border there are more roads crossing the NI-ROI border north of the Foyle alone than there are crossing the SCO-ENG border in total.
However, it isn't just about the length and number of crossings, it's about the amount of traffic and the flow of it. There are roughly 13,000 commercial trips back and forth across the Irish border every day according to the most recent and probably very conservative estimate. (https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-lorries-4469494-Feb2019/)
I would be beyond amazed if that figure isn't exceeded at Gretna alone. Think of he logistical difficulties of putting a border there.
Probably count all the roads on two hands, A1, A7 and M74 is about it apart from a handful of minor roads and a few farm tracks.
A68 - although that probably doesn't have too many heavy lorries on it!
And the A697. But that's it, it's all pretty much backroads single trackers over the border. A civilised road between Longtown and Gretna I suppose.
A68 is a better road between Edinburgh and Gala than going down the A7 even if it is longer.
Just to give people an idea of the scale difference between the NI-ROI border and the SCO-ENG border there are more roads crossing the NI-ROI border north of the Foyle alone than there are crossing the SCO-ENG border in total.
However, it isn't just about the length and number of crossings, it's about the amount of traffic and the flow of it. There are roughly 13,000 commercial trips back and forth across the Irish border every day according to the most recent and probably very conservative estimate. (https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-lorries-4469494-Feb2019/)
I would be beyond amazed if that figure isn't exceeded at Gretna alone. Think of he logistical difficulties of putting a border there.
Probably count all the roads on two hands, A1, A7 and M74 is about it apart from a handful of minor roads and a few farm tracks.
A68 - although that probably doesn't have too many heavy lorries on it!
Yes there will be two or three bigger minor roads but not many.
If Scotland wants to leave, I have no reason to keep them in a loveless marriage - short of some sentimentality for what has gone before and wanting to keep a funky flag.
BUT Scotland needs to take a long hard-nosed look at what that independence would actually deliver. The SNP have ridden a wave of hope, but have been woeful in explaining how that translates into a better life, more jobs, better services. And if Brexit shows anything to the Scots, it's that breaking up is very hard to do.
Also what about parts of Scotland which might still wish to remain within the Union? There is the Ulster precedent should - say - the Border counties prefer such a route. Then there is the question of what would the Shetlanders want to do. At the end of the day, if parts of the UK have the right to break away from the UK, then parts of Scotland have the same right to break away from Scotland. Ditto re- Wales - Would Pembrokeshire, Monmouthshire, Brecon & Radnor and Flintshire wish to remain part of an independent Wales? Would the former Kingdoms within England have the right to reform rather than remain within an independent England?
Utter bollox, Shetland nor any other part of Scotland has ever ever mentioned not wanting to remain part of Scotland.
There has certainly been talk of Independence for the Shetlands - or was it the Orkneys. Supposedly residents are historically closer to Scandinavia than to Scotland.
Just to give people an idea of the scale difference between the NI-ROI border and the SCO-ENG border there are more roads crossing the NI-ROI border north of the Foyle alone than there are crossing the SCO-ENG border in total.
However, it isn't just about the length and number of crossings, it's about the amount of traffic and the flow of it. There are roughly 13,000 commercial trips back and forth across the Irish border every day according to the most recent and probably very conservative estimate. (https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-lorries-4469494-Feb2019/)
I would be beyond amazed if that figure isn't exceeded at Gretna alone. Think of he logistical difficulties of putting a border there.
What about this great IT solution and paperwork done elsewhere, why would every lorry need to be searched at this border only. Reality is they would pull over 1 in a thousand if lucky.
If there were an IT solution, there would be no Irish backstop in the WA, we'd be out of the EU, TM would still be PM and the world (well, the UK) would generally be a much better and less divided and bitter place.
If Scotland wants to leave, I have no reason to keep them in a loveless marriage - short of some sentimentality for what has gone before and wanting to keep a funky flag.
BUT Scotland needs to take a long hard-nosed look at what that independence would actually deliver. The SNP have ridden a wave of hope, but have been woeful in explaining how that translates into a better life, more jobs, better services. And if Brexit shows anything to the Scots, it's that breaking up is very hard to do.
Also what about parts of Scotland which might still wish to remain within the Union? There is the Ulster precedent should - say - the Border counties prefer such a route. Then there is the question of what would the Shetlanders want to do. At the end of the day, if parts of the UK have the right to break away from the UK, then parts of Scotland have the same right to break away from Scotland. Ditto re- Wales - Would Pembrokeshire, Monmouthshire, Brecon & Radnor and Flintshire wish to remain part of an independent Wales? Would the former Kingdoms within England have the right to reform rather than remain within an independent England?
Utter bollox, Shetland nor any other part of Scotland has ever ever mentioned not wanting to remain part of Scotland.
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
Of course - but there is no reason to refuse one if the Scottish government requests it. That does not apply in most other countries, where national unity is written into the constitution or there is a prescribed way to secure independence.
There is a reason, which is that the last one took place in the widely-accepted context that it was a once-in-a-generation vote.
There is no reason, except for a primitive mistaking of majoritarianism for democracy (albeit all the rage with Brexit), to grant another referendum just because a majority of Scottish MAs want one, or because polling suggests a narrow majority might favour it this week.
It was not widely accepted it was a once in a generation context. You halfwitted Brownshirts think you are still running a colony. If a majority of Scots want it then it is their right to have a vote. The union is a treaty you half wit and we can revoke it just as easily as it was signed by the twelve greedy barstewards involved. We are not some pets that Westminster can decide what we can and cannot do.
Just a question. Would it be easier or harder to disentangle Scotland from the UK than the UK from the EU? As I say, just a question.
Not be simple for sure given how intertwined all our systems are but not impossible if done in a friendly partnership as you would expect it to be done. Be a long time if ever before all systems were separate but doable.
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
Of course - but there is no reason to refuse one if the Scottish government requests it. That does not apply in most other countries, where national unity is written into the constitution or there is a prescribed way to secure independence.
There is a reason, which is that the last one took place in the widely-accepted context that it was a once-in-a-generation vote.
There is no reason, except for a primitive mistaking of majoritarianism for democracy (albeit all the rage with Brexit), to grant another referendum just because a majority of Scottish MAs want one, or because polling suggests a narrow majority might favour it this week.
It was not widely accepted it was a once in a generation context. You halfwitted Brownshirts think you are still running a colony. If a majority of Scots want it then it is their right to have a vote. The union is a treaty you half wit and we can revoke it just as easily as it was signed by the twelve greedy barstewards involved. We are not some pets that Westminster can decide what we can and cannot do.
Just a question. Would it be easier or harder to disentangle Scotland from the UK than the UK from the EU? As I say, just a question.
Not be simple for sure given how intertwined all our systems are but not impossible if done in a friendly partnership as you would expect it to be done. Be a long time if ever before all systems were separate but doable.
If Scotland wants to leave, I have no reason to keep them in a loveless marriage - short of some sentimentality for what has gone before and wanting to keep a funky flag.
BUT Scotland needs to take a long hard-nosed look at what that independence would actually deliver. The SNP have ridden a wave of hope, but have been woeful in explaining how that translates into a better life, more jobs, better services. And if Brexit shows anything to the Scots, it's that breaking up is very hard to do.
Also what about parts of Scotland which might still wish to remain within the Union? There is the Ulster precedent should - say - the Border counties prefer such a route. Then there is the question of what would the Shetlanders want to do. At the end of the day, if parts of the UK have the right to break away from the UK, then parts of Scotland have the same right to break away from Scotland. Ditto re- Wales - Would Pembrokeshire, Monmouthshire, Brecon & Radnor and Flintshire wish to remain part of an independent Wales? Would the former Kingdoms within England have the right to reform rather than remain within an independent England?
Utter bollox, Shetland nor any other part of Scotland has ever ever mentioned not wanting to remain part of Scotland.
That wasn't based on a survey of the people of Orkney/Shetland. That was just a doc thrown together to generate headlines by the islands' MSPs.
The only actual poll of Orkney/Shetland residents had them massively in favour of remaining part of Scotland in the case of Independence.
But people have 'mentioned' it.
Personally, I agree with you that the idea of them splitting from Scotland in the event of independence is one for the Ullapool-Inverness ferry service, but it's been mooted.
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
Of course - but there is no reason to refuse one if the Scottish government requests it. That does not apply in most other countries, where national unity is written into the constitution or there is a prescribed way to secure independence.
There is a reason, which is that the last one took place in the widely-accepted context that it was a once-in-a-generation vote.
There is no reason, except for a primitive mistaking of majoritarianism for democracy (albeit all the rage with Brexit), to grant another referendum just because a majority of Scottish MAs want one, or because polling suggests a narrow majority might favour it this week.
It was not widely accepted it was a once in a generation context. You halfwitted Brownshirts think you are still running a colony. If a majority of Scots want it then it is their right to have a vote. The union is a treaty you half wit and we can revoke it just as easily as it was signed by the twelve greedy barstewards involved. We are not some pets that Westminster can decide what we can and cannot do.
You really don't understand your own history when you refer to colonies. Either that or you wish to whitewash over the reality. As I have said on here a few times already, Scottish people were massively disproportionately represented in the days of Empire. It could be argued that the British Empire was far more a Scottish construct than an English one. Probably because the Scots failed so miserably when they tried to make an Empire on their own that they then threw themselves into the British version with such enthusiasm.
As for brownshirts, that is much more up your street. There is much in common with brownshirts and aggressive nationalism, but of course the SNP is in denial about its links in the 1930s. Nationalism is based upon division, hatred and often pure racism, in the same way as its close cousin fascism. No doubt your puerile response with aggressive abusive words that only you understand will no doubt prove my point
If Scotland wants to leave, I have no reason to keep them in a loveless marriage - short of some sentimentality for what has gone before and wanting to keep a funky flag.
BUT Scotland needs to take a long hard-nosed look at what that independence would actually deliver. The SNP have ridden a wave of hope, but have been woeful in explaining how that translates into a better life, more jobs, better services. And if Brexit shows anything to the Scots, it's that breaking up is very hard to do.
Also what about parts of Scotland which might still wish to remain within the Union? There is the Ulster precedent should - say - the Border counties prefer such a route. Then there is the question of what would the Shetlanders want to do. At the end of the day, if parts of the UK have the right to break away from the UK, then parts of Scotland have the same right to break away from Scotland. Ditto re- Wales - Would Pembrokeshire, Monmouthshire, Brecon & Radnor and Flintshire wish to remain part of an independent Wales? Would the former Kingdoms within England have the right to reform rather than remain within an independent England?
Utter bollox, Shetland nor any other part of Scotland has ever ever mentioned not wanting to remain part of Scotland.
If Scotland wants to leave, I have no reason to keep them in a loveless marriage - short of some sentimentality for what has gone before and wanting to keep a funky flag.
BUT Scotland needs to take a long hard-nosed look at what that independence would actually deliver. The SNP have ridden a wave of hope, but have been woeful in explaining how that translates into a better life, more jobs, better services. And if Brexit shows anything to the Scots, it's that breaking up is very hard to do.
Also what about parts of Scotland which might still wish to remain within the Union? There is the Ulster precedent should - say - the Border counties prefer such a route. Then there is the question of what would the Shetlanders want to do. At the end of the day, if parts of the UK have the right to break away from the UK, then parts of Scotland have the same right to break away from Scotland. Ditto re- Wales - Would Pembrokeshire, Monmouthshire, Brecon & Radnor and Flintshire wish to remain part of an independent Wales? Would the former Kingdoms within England have the right to reform rather than remain within an independent England?
Utter bollox, Shetland nor any other part of Scotland has ever ever mentioned not wanting to remain part of Scotland.
There has certainly been talk of Independence for the Shetlands - or was it the Orkneys. Supposedly residents are historically closer to Scandinavia than to Scotland.
See other replies , just bollox by LibDem halfwit MSP.
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
Of course - but there is no reason to refuse one if the Scottish government requests it. That does not apply in most other countries, where national unity is written into the constitution or there is a prescribed way to secure independence.
There is a reason, which is that the last one took place in the widely-accepted context that it was a once-in-a-generation vote.
There is no reason, except for a primitive mistaking of majoritarianism for democracy (albeit all the rage with Brexit), to grant another referendum just because a majority of Scottish MAs want one, or because polling suggests a narrow majority might favour it this week.
It was not widely accepted it was a once in a generation context. You halfwitted Brownshirts think you are still running a colony. If a majority of Scots want it then it is their right to have a vote. The union is a treaty you half wit and we can revoke it just as easily as it was signed by the twelve greedy barstewards involved. We are not some pets that Westminster can decide what we can and cannot do.
You really don't understand your own history when you refer to colonies. Either that or you wish to whitewash over the reality. As I have said on here a few times already, Scottish people were massively disproportionately represented in the days of Empire. It could be argued that the British Empire was far more a Scottish construct than an English one. Probably because the Scots failed so miserably when they tried to make an Empire on their own that they then threw themselves into the British version with such enthusiasm.
As for brownshirts, that is much more up your street. There is much in common with brownshirts and aggressive nationalism, but of course the SNP is in denial about its links in the 1930s. Nationalism is based upon division, hatred and often pure racism, in the same way as its close cousin fascism. No doubt your puerile response with aggressive abusive words that only you understand will no doubt prove my point
'Such a parcel of rogues in a nation' wasn't it? And money changed hands.
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
Of course - but there is no reason to refuse one if the Scottish government requests it. That does not apply in most other countries, where national unity is written into the constitution or there is a prescribed way to secure independence.
There is a reason, which is that the last one took place in the widely-accepted context that it was a once-in-a-generation vote.
There is no reason, except for a primitive mistaking of majoritarianism for democracy (albeit all the rage with Brexit), to grant another referendum just because a majority of Scottish MAs want one, or because polling suggests a narrow majority might favour it this week.
It was not widely accepted it was a once in a generation context. You halfwitted Brownshirts think you are still running a colony. If a majority of Scots want it then it is their right to have a vote. The union is a treaty you half wit and we can revoke it just as easily as it was signed by the twelve greedy barstewards involved. We are not some pets that Westminster can decide what we can and cannot do.
You really don't understand your own history when you refer to colonies. Either that or you wish to whitewash over the reality. As I have said on here a few times already, Scottish people were massively disproportionately represented in the days of Empire. It could be argued that the British Empire was far more a Scottish construct than an English one. Probably because the Scots failed so miserably when they tried to make an Empire on their own that they then threw themselves into the British version with such enthusiasm.
As for brownshirts, that is much more up your street. There is much in common with brownshirts and aggressive nationalism, but of course the SNP is in denial about its links in the 1930s. Nationalism is based upon division, hatred and often pure racism, in the same way as its close cousin fascism. No doubt your puerile response with aggressive abusive words that only you understand will no doubt prove my point
'Such a parcel of rogues in a nation' wasn't it? And money changed hands.
The twelve nobles got paid but not Scotland, in fact we got robbed in the end instead of paid.
England 26 years (3 separate episodes, a considerable portion of the middle one at sea) Russia 9 years (the wilderness years) USA 6 years (2 years at school, 4 years USN exchange) Belgium 6 years Wales 4 years France 1 year
So, no you are not unique! I have zero English identity.
Right!
Agewise, I have now 'gone over' but whilst fresh I lived in 5 countries other than this one (4 in Europe + Australia) and I worked in about 30.
All very 'man of the world' and great but the bad news -
I was born not in a crossfire hurricane but on a calm summer's day in a pit village in Yorkshire. My siblings were also born there. So were my parents and all 4 of my grandparents. Or if not there, then in the village next door.
A comb through the records indicates that one has to go back many generations to find a single direct descendant who brings anything different to the party, and that is nothing more exotic than Irish.
Ah well.
I identify as ... really not sure. It's a tricky one. I mainly identify in terms of things other than identity, e.g. as a hard left social democrat.
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
Of course - but there is no reason to refuse one if the Scottish government requests it. That does not apply in most other countries, where national unity is written into the constitution or there is a prescribed way to secure independence.
There is a reason, which is that the last one took place in the widely-accepted context that it was a once-in-a-generation vote.
There is no reason, except for a primitive mistaking of majoritarianism for democracy (albeit all the rage with Brexit), to grant another referendum just because a majority of Scottish MAs want one, or because polling suggests a narrow majority might favour it this week.
It was not widely accepted it was a once in a generation context. You halfwitted Brownshirts think you are still running a colony. If a majority of Scots want it then it is their right to have a vote. The union is a treaty you half wit and we can revoke it just as easily as it was signed by the twelve greedy barstewards involved. We are not some pets that Westminster can decide what we can and cannot do.
You really don't understand your own history when you refer to colonies. Either that or you wish to whitewash over the reality. As I have said on here a few times already, Scottish people were massively disproportionately represented in the days of Empire. It could be argued that the British Empire was far more a Scottish construct than an English one. Probably because the Scots failed so miserably when they tried to make an Empire on their own that they then threw themselves into the British version with such enthusiasm.
As for brownshirts, that is much more up your street. There is much in common with brownshirts and aggressive nationalism, but of course the SNP is in denial about its links in the 1930s. Nationalism is based upon division, hatred and often pure racism, in the same way as its close cousin fascism. No doubt your puerile response with aggressive abusive words that only you understand will no doubt prove my point
'Such a parcel of rogues in a nation' wasn't it? And money changed hands.
The twelve nobles got paid but not Scotland, in fact we got robbed in the end instead of paid.
Just like the consequence of the Jacobite Rebellion, eh! The people got sent to Canada, the nobles to Westminster.
Mr. G, seems odd to me to cling so a grudge over such a period of time.
Those alive today were involved on neither side. John's surrender of the Vexin to Philip Augustus was harmful, but it's ancient history. Constantinople falling to the Turks was a tragedy, but it's long since past.
Learning from history is a very good idea, but inheriting grudges doesn't seem at all profitable to me.
If Scotland wants to leave, I have no reason to keep them in a loveless marriage - short of some sentimentality for what has gone before and wanting to keep a funky flag.
BUT Scotland needs to take a long hard-nosed look at what that independence would actually deliver. The SNP have ridden a wave of hope, but have been woeful in explaining how that translates into a better life, more jobs, better services. And if Brexit shows anything to the Scots, it's that breaking up is very hard to do.
Also what about parts of Scotland which might still wish to remain within the Union? There is the Ulster precedent should - say - the Border counties prefer such a route. Then there is the question of what would the Shetlanders want to do. At the end of the day, if parts of the UK have the right to break away from the UK, then parts of Scotland have the same right to break away from Scotland. Ditto re- Wales - Would Pembrokeshire, Monmouthshire, Brecon & Radnor and Flintshire wish to remain part of an independent Wales? Would the former Kingdoms within England have the right to reform rather than remain within an independent England?
Utter bollox, Shetland nor any other part of Scotland has ever ever mentioned not wanting to remain part of Scotland.
That wasn't based on a survey of the people of Orkney/Shetland. That was just a doc thrown together to generate headlines by the islands' MSPs.
The only actual poll of Orkney/Shetland residents had them massively in favour of remaining part of Scotland in the case of Independence.
But people have 'mentioned' it.
Personally, I agree with you that the idea of them splitting from Scotland in the event of independence is one for the Ullapool-Inverness ferry service, but it's been mooted.
An Isle of Man - or Channel Islands - quasi independence might have some appeal there.
Given only 47% of Scots actually want indyref2 I suspect Boris would go down the Spanish route and either block it or impose direct rule, he would not allow Sturgeon to hold one
Good luck with that.
Worked for Spain, they sent in the Civil Guard to Catalonia, blocked a referendum taking place by force, arrested and exiled nationalist leaders and imposed temporary direct rule.
Those who did manage to vote voted for independence but Catalonia is still part of Spain.
China is cracking down even more forcibly on pro independence demonstrators in Hong Kong
Either you have developed a taste for absurdist satire, or you've gone slightly nuts.
It's slightly odd that I, an opponent of the Union, would still find it impossible to think that HMG would go down that route, while HYUFD, a passionate supporter of the Union, thinks this would be a viable outcome.
England 26 years (3 separate episodes, a considerable portion of the middle one at sea) Russia 9 years (the wilderness years) USA 6 years (2 years at school, 4 years USN exchange) Belgium 6 years Wales 4 years France 1 year
So, no you are not unique! I have zero English identity.
Right!
Agewise, I have now 'gone over' but whilst fresh I lived in 5 countries other than this one (4 in Europe + Australia) and I worked in about 30.
All very 'man of the world' and great but the bad news -
I was born not in a crossfire hurricane but on a calm summer's day in a pit village in Yorkshire. My siblings were also born there. So were my parents and all 4 of my grandparents. Or if not there, then in the village next door.
A comb through the records indicates that one has to go back many generations to find a single direct descendant who brings anything different to the party, and that is nothing more exotic than Irish.
Ah well.
I identify as ... really not sure. It's a tricky one. I mainly identify in terms of things other than identity, e.g. as a hard left social democrat.
One set of my grandchildren have a grandfather who is half Welsh, half English, and grandmother who is English, but on the other side the grandfather is Cambodian and the grandmother Thai, although the part of Thailand from which she comes not long ago identified as Lao. Visiting some of their friends recently we met a couple who were, on side, French/Laotian and on the other Australian.
Not be simple for sure given how intertwined all our systems are but not impossible if done in a friendly partnership as you would expect it to be done. Be a long time if ever before all systems were separate but doable.
What on earth makes you think it would be "done in a friendly partnership"? I would expect it to be far more rancorous and divisive than Brexit.
I have given you the answers on here many times before but either through wilful ignorance or mental incapacity you seem to be incapable of understanding them. You are a lost cause fit only for derision.
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
Of course - but there is no reason to refuse one if the Scottish government requests it. That does not apply in most other countries, where national unity is written into the constitution or there is a prescribed way to secure independence.
It was not widely accepted it was a once in a generation context. You halfwitted Brownshirts think you are still running a colony. If a majority of Scots want it then it is their right to have a vote. The union is a treaty you half wit and we can revoke it just as easily as it was signed by the twelve greedy barstewards involved. We are not some pets that Westminster can decide what we can and cannot do.
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
Of course - but there is no reason to refuse one if the Scottish government requests it. That does not apply in most other countries, where national unity is written into the constitution or there is a prescribed way to secure independence.
There is a reason, which is that the last one took place in the widely-accepted context that it was a once-in-a-generation vote.
.
It was not widely accepted it was a once in a generation context. You halfwitted Brownshirts think you are still running a colony. If a majority of Scots want it then it is their right to have a vote. The union is a treaty you half wit and we can revoke it just as easily as it was signed by the twelve greedy barstewards involved. We are not some pets that Westminster can decide what we can and cannot do.
Village idiot puts in an appearance. You cretin it was your English nobility and Royal family that were the fans of Hitler and fascism. Go read up on history you gibbering moron.
I never mentioned local services - they'd be high speed trains that stop, just like the Eurostar stops now and again at Ashford and Ebbsfleet. The schedule of the express train behind shouldn't be affected.
(Snip)
This is a misunderstanding of how high-speed services work. Every stop reduces the capacity of a line: unless you build adjacent lines (i.e. quadruple) to allow for acceleration and deceleration ('slow lines'). Hence a stopping train delays expresses until it can get up to speed - and that is many miles.
Another big issue is capacity at the London end - assuming that the stopping services will be extra to the expresses. Although the core network is double track, some stretches of HS2 are being built as four-track, and AFAICR one stretch even has six tracks at a junction.
As others have said, HS2 will allow many more services to run on the current network - including hopefully stopping services. There's a document about the effects on the wider network - although as we've seen, many of those against HS2 are ill-inclined to read documents that go against their preconcieved stupidity.
If we are talking about the economic benefit figures that Newsnight forced out via an FoI request, service reductions and alterations reduction meant an economic loss in quite a few areas - Sussex, Suffolk, Devon and Cornwall, NE scotland, Cambridge and surrounding counties. It also illustrated a marked difference depending on whether travel time was seen as crucial or not - in the latter, the annual benefit to Scotland was £480 million PA to Sth Lanarkshire (where the main rail freight depot could be expanded) and £165 million PA to the rest of the country - for a notional cost contribution of 4.6 to possibly 7.1 billion.
Mr. G, seems odd to me to cling so a grudge over such a period of time.
Those alive today were involved on neither side. John's surrender of the Vexin to Philip Augustus was harmful, but it's ancient history. Constantinople falling to the Turks was a tragedy, but it's long since past.
Learning from history is a very good idea, but inheriting grudges doesn't seem at all profitable to me.
MD, no grudge, like any intelligent person I realise that the best person to make decisions for me is myself. It is crazy that Westminster decides what and how much is spent in Scotland and how much of our money is spent elsewhere etc. Can you give me any reason why you would ask your neighbour to run your finances and decide what your money is spent on.
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
Of course - but there is no reason to refuse one if the Scottish government requests it. That does not apply in most other countries, where national unity is written into the constitution or there is a prescribed way to secure independence.
There is a reason, which is that the last one took place in the widely-accepted context that it was a once-in-a-generation vote.
There is no reason, except for a primitive mistaking of majoritarianism for democracy (albeit all the rage with Brexit), to grant another referendum just because a majority of Scottish MAs want one, or because polling suggests a narrow majority might favour it this week.
It was not widely accepted it was a once in a generation context. You halfwitted Brownshirts think you are still running a colony. If a majority of Scots want it then it is their right to have a vote. The union is a treaty you half wit and we can revoke it just as easily as it was signed by the twelve greedy barstewards involved. We are not some pets that Westminster can decide what we can and cannot do.
Ultimately if the Scots wish to secede, a way will be found.
But countries don’t have independence referendums every five minutes, for very good reason.
Strange that you consider it wrong to have another referendum six or seven years after the first under quite radically changed circumstances yet are in favour of revisiting the EU referendum only 3 years after the last one when nothing has yet changed.
Not be simple for sure given how intertwined all our systems are but not impossible if done in a friendly partnership as you would expect it to be done. Be a long time if ever before all systems were separate but doable.
What on earth makes you think it would be "done in a friendly partnership"? I would expect it to be far more rancorous and divisive than Brexit.
Why would you think that, do you think the English are nasty and vindictive and would want to do down their friends and relatives.
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
Of course - but there is no reason to refuse one if the Scottish government requests it. That does not apply in most other countries, where national unity is written into the constitution or there is a prescribed way to secure independence.
There is a reason, which is that the last one took place in the widely-accepted context that it was a once-in-a-generation vote.
There is no reason, except for a primitive mistaking of majoritarianism for democracy (albeit all the rage with Brexit), to grant another referendum just because a majority of Scottish MAs want one, or because polling suggests a narrow majority might favour it this week.
Yep, I get that, though there is an equally strong argument for saying that No won on the false prospectus of Scotland having a powerful voice inside the Union. Brexit has blown that out of the water. The Scots now know unequivocally that when push comes to shove they have to do as the English want.
That is such bollocks. We still have Scottish MPs voting on English laws, we don't have English MPs voting on Scottish laws.
How many English MPs voted through the 2016 Scotland Act, and how many amendments by Scottish MPs were knocked back?
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
Of course - but there is no reason to refuse one if the Scottish government requests it. That does not apply in most other countries, where national unity is written into the constitution or there is a prescribed way to secure independence.
It was not widely accepted it was a once in a generation context. You halfwitted Brownshirts think you are still running a colony. If a majority of Scots want it then it is their right to have a vote. The union is a treaty you half wit and we can revoke it just as easily as it was signed by the twelve greedy barstewards involved. We are not some pets that Westminster can decide what we can and cannot do.
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
Of course - but there is no reason to refuse one if the Scottish government requests it. That does not apply in most other countries, where national unity is written into the constitution or there is a prescribed way to secure independence.
There is a reason, which is that the last one took place in the widely-accepted context that it was a once-in-a-generation vote.
.
It was not widely accepted it was a once in a generation context. You halfwitted Brownshirts think you are still running a colony. If a majority of Scots want it then it is their right to have a vote. The union is a treaty you half wit and we can revoke it just as easily as it was signed by the twelve greedy barstewards involved. We are not some pets that Westminster can decide what we can and cannot do.
Village idiot puts in an appearance. You cretin it was your English nobility and Royal family that were the fans of Hitler and fascism. Go read up on history you gibbering moron.
Arthur Donaldson was briefly interned during World War 2 - though never charged.
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
Of course - but there is no reason to refuse one if the Scottish government requests it. That does not apply in most other countries, where national unity is written into the constitution or there is a prescribed way to secure independence.
There is a reason, which is that the last one took place in the widely-accepted context that it was a once-in-a-generation vote.
There is no reason, except for a primitive mistaking of majoritarianism for democracy (albeit all the rage with Brexit), to grant another referendum just because a majority of Scottish MAs want one, or because polling suggests a narrow majority might favour it this week.
Yep, I get that, though there is an equally strong argument for saying that No won on the false prospectus of Scotland having a powerful voice inside the Union. Brexit has blown that out of the water. The Scots now know unequivocally that when push comes to shove they have to do as the English want.
That is such bollocks. We still have Scottish MPs voting on English laws, we don't have English MPs voting on Scottish laws.
How many English MPs voted through the 2016 Scotland Act, and how many amendments by Scottish MPs were knocked back?
And in how many votes in Parliament in the last 20 years that affected England only have the votes of Scottish MPs made a difference?
Not be simple for sure given how intertwined all our systems are but not impossible if done in a friendly partnership as you would expect it to be done. Be a long time if ever before all systems were separate but doable.
What on earth makes you think it would be "done in a friendly partnership"? I would expect it to be far more rancorous and divisive than Brexit.
Why would you think that, do you think the English are nasty and vindictive and would want to do down their friends and relatives.
ummm Brexit involves a lot of friends and relatives being thrown under the bus. but yes maybe not "far more" rancorous than Brexit itself.
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
Of course - but there is no reason to refuse one if the Scottish government requests it. That does not apply in most other countries, where national unity is written into the constitution or there is a prescribed way to secure independence.
There is a reason, which is that the last one took place in the widely-accepted context that it was a once-in-a-generation vote.
There is no reason, except for a primitive mistaking of majoritarianism for democracy (albeit all the rage with Brexit), to grant another referendum just because a majority of Scottish MAs want one, or because polling suggests a narrow majority might favour it this week.
It was not widely accepted it was a once in a generation context. You halfwitted Brownshirts think you are still running a colony. If a majority of Scots want it then it is their right to have a vote. The union is a treaty you half wit and we can revoke it just as easily as it was signed by the twelve greedy barstewards involved. We are not some pets that Westminster can decide what we can and cannot do.
Just a question. Would it be easier or harder to disentangle Scotland from the UK than the UK from the EU? As I say, just a question.
Not be simple for sure given how intertwined all our systems are but not impossible if done in a friendly partnership as you would expect it to be done. Be a long time if ever before all systems were separate but doable.
That is the key. Westminster need to learn from the experience of Brexit and be wholeheartedly in support of a successful independence after a Yes vote rather than trying to punish Scotland. In the long run both countries would be miles better off with a positive relationship and the key to that is the attitude of both sides immediately after the result.
Voting against it is meaningless under our current constitutional arrangement. To stop it they need to replace the Government. That is now their only option.
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
Of course - but there is no reason to refuse one if the Scottish government requests it. That does not apply in most other countries, where national unity is written into the constitution or there is a prescribed way to secure independence.
There is a reason, which is that the last one took place in the widely-accepted context that it was a once-in-a-generation vote.
There is no reason, except for a primitive mistaking of majoritarianism for democracy (albeit all the rage with Brexit), to grant another referendum just because a majority of Scottish MAs want one, or because polling suggests a narrow majority might favour it this week.
It was not widely accepted it was a once in a generation context. You halfwitted Brownshirts think you are still running a colony. If a majority of Scots want it then it is their right to have a vote. The union is a treaty you half wit and we can revoke it just as easily as it was signed by the twelve greedy barstewards involved. We are not some pets that Westminster can decide what we can and cannot do.
You really don't understand your own history when you refer to colonies. Either that or you wish to whitewash over the reality. As I have said on here a few times already, Scottish people were massively disproportionately represented in the days of Empire. It could be argued that the British Empire was far more a Scottish construct than an English one. Probably because the Scots failed so miserably when they tried to make an Empire on their own that they then threw themselves into the British version with such enthusiasm.
As for brownshirts, that is much more up your street. There is much in common with brownshirts and aggressive nationalism, but of course the SNP is in denial about its links in the 1930s. Nationalism is based upon division, hatred and often pure racism, in the same way as its close cousin fascism. No doubt your puerile response with aggressive abusive words that only you understand will no doubt prove my point
'Such a parcel of rogues in a nation' wasn't it? And money changed hands.
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
Of course - but there is no reason to refuse one if the Scottish government requests it. That does not apply in most other countries, where national unity is written into the constitution or there is a prescribed way to secure independence.
It was not widely accepted it was a once in a generation context. You halfwitted Brownshirts think you are still running a colony. If a majority of Scots want it then it is their right to have a vote. The union is a treaty you half wit and we can revoke it just as easily as it was signed by the twelve greedy barstewards involved. We are not some pets that Westminster can decide what we can and cannot do.
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
Of course - but there is no reason to refuse one if the Scottish government requests it. That does not apply in most other countries, where national unity is written into the constitution or there is a prescribed way to secure independence.
There is a reason, which is that the last one took place in the widely-accepted context that it was a once-in-a-generation vote.
.
It was not widely accepted it was a once in a generation context. You halfwitted Brownshirts think you are still running a colony. If a majority of Scots want it then it is their right to have a vote. The union is a treaty you half wit and we can revoke it just as easily as it was signed by the twelve greedy barstewards involved. We are not some pets that Westminster can decide what we can and cannot do.
Village idiot puts in an appearance. You cretin it was your English nobility and Royal family that were the fans of Hitler and fascism. Go read up on history you gibbering moron.
Arthur Donaldson was briefly interned during World War 2 - though never charged.
Wikipedia suggests that was because of Donaldson's attitude too conscription.
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
Of course - but there is no reason to refuse one if the Scottish government requests it. That does not apply in most other countries, where national unity is written into the constitution or there is a prescribed way to secure independence.
There is a reason, which is that the last one took place in the widely-accepted context that it was a once-in-a-generation vote.
There is no reason, except for a primitive mistaking of majoritarianism for democracy (albeit all the rage with Brexit), to grant another referendum just because a majority of Scottish MAs want one, or because polling suggests a narrow majority might favour it this week.
Yep, I get that, though there is an equally strong argument for saying that No won on the false prospectus of Scotland having a powerful voice inside the Union. Brexit has blown that out of the water. The Scots now know unequivocally that when push comes to shove they have to do as the English want.
That is such bollocks. We still have Scottish MPs voting on English laws, we don't have English MPs voting on Scottish laws.
How many English MPs voted through the 2016 Scotland Act, and how many amendments by Scottish MPs were knocked back?
And in how many votes in Parliament in the last 20 years that affected England only have the votes of Scottish MPs made a difference?
As far as I know the main one was the tuition fees vote got over the line by Scottish Labour MPs, for which apologies. Pretty sure most of those lads would have called themselves primarily British MPs, mind.
I was born in England and always lived in England. I select "English" on the census form.
However, as someone from the north-east I feel I have more commonality with Scots than with southerners. Draw a border further south, and I'd happily self-identify as 'North British' or whatever it might be called. (Pieland?)
Second however, on my mother's side I am of Irish descent; I've never been to Ireland and in no way feel Irish - its only impact on me was a Catholic upbringing. Contrast this to Americans whose ancestors left Ireland 200 years ago and still consider themselves to be Irish.
I guess I'm trying to say that for each of us Identity is a personal thing, and cannot be imposed.
Not be simple for sure given how intertwined all our systems are but not impossible if done in a friendly partnership as you would expect it to be done. Be a long time if ever before all systems were separate but doable.
What on earth makes you think it would be "done in a friendly partnership"? I would expect it to be far more rancorous and divisive than Brexit.
Why would you think that, do you think the English are nasty and vindictive and would want to do down their friends and relatives.
I think that the tone of your comment confirms my belief that it would be worse than Brexit.
Slightly surprised that we’re on page 4 of comments and no one has yet mentioned Sarah Wollaston (unless I’ve missed it), who is supposedly the classic case of this issue.
Personally I think the local Lib Dems would be mad to refuse her, but as @NickPalmer alludes, personal ambition is powerful stuff.
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
Of course - but there is no reason to refuse one if the Scottish government requests it. That does not apply in most other countries, where national unity is written into the constitution or there is a prescribed way to secure independence.
There is a reason, which is that the last one took place in the widely-accepted context that it was a once-in-a-generation vote.
There is no reason, except for a primitive mistaking of majoritarianism for democracy (albeit all the rage with Brexit), to grant another referendum just because a majority of Scottish MAs want one, or because polling suggests a narrow majority might favour it this week.
Yep, I get that, though there is an equally strong argument for saying that No won on the false prospectus of Scotland having a powerful voice inside the Union. Brexit has blown that out of the water. The Scots now know unequivocally that when push comes to shove they have to do as the English want.
That is such bollocks. We still have Scottish MPs voting on English laws, we don't have English MPs voting on Scottish laws.
How many English MPs voted through the 2016 Scotland Act, and how many amendments by Scottish MPs were knocked back?
And in how many votes in Parliament in the last 20 years that affected England only have the votes of Scottish MPs made a difference?
From SNP it would be ZERO , not so sure on unionist ( ie NON Scottish Party ) Labour though
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
Of course - but there is no reason to refuse one if the Scottish government requests it. That does not apply in most other countries, where national unity is written into the constitution or there is a prescribed way to secure independence.
There is a reason, which is that the last one took place in the widely-accepted context that it was a once-in-a-generation vote.
There is no reason, except for a primitive mistaking of majoritarianism for democracy (albeit all the rage with Brexit), to grant another referendum just because a majority of Scottish MAs want one, or because polling suggests a narrow majority might favour it this week.
It was not widely accepted it was a once in a generation context. You halfwitted Brownshirts think you are still running a colony. If a majority of Scots want it then it is their right to have a vote. The union is a treaty you half wit and we can revoke it just as easily as it was signed by the twelve greedy barstewards involved. We are not some pets that Westminster can decide what we can and cannot do.
Just a question. Would it be easier or harder to disentangle Scotland from the UK than the UK from the EU? As I say, just a question.
Not be simple for sure given how intertwined all our systems are but not impossible if done in a friendly partnership as you would expect it to be done. Be a long time if ever before all systems were separate but doable.
That is the key. Westminster need to learn from the experience of Brexit and be wholeheartedly in support of a successful independence after a Yes vote rather than trying to punish Scotland. In the long run both countries would be miles better off with a positive relationship and the key to that is the attitude of both sides immediately after the result.
That is how it would seem to me Richard, hard to imagine anyone on either side wanting to cut off their nose to spite their face. For me it is purely a matter of where decisions on how a country should be run are made, nothing to do with disliking or hating anyone in any way shape or form.
MPs need to vote FOR something if they want to effect change - for example, a different government. Simply saying "we don't like it" is not sufficient.
Given only 47% of Scots actually want indyref2 I suspect Boris would go down the Spanish route and either block it or impose direct rule, he would not allow Sturgeon to hold one
Although I would agree with such a decision, you have previously suggested that in response Sturgeon woul declare UDI!
She may well try as Puigdemont tried in Catalonia, the Spanish government ignored him and imposed direct rule temporarily and forced him into exile
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
Of course - but there is no reason to refuse one if the Scottish government requests it. That does not apply in most other countries, where national unity is written into the constitution or there is a prescribed way to secure independence.
It was not widely accepted it was a once in a generation context. You halfwitted Brownshirts think you are still running a colony. If a majority of Scots want it then it is their right to have a vote. The union is a treaty you half wit and we can revoke it just as easily as it was signed by the twelve greedy barstewards involved. We are not some pets that Westminster can decide what we can and cannot do.
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
Of course - but there is no reason to refuse one if the Scottish government requests it. That does not apply in most other countries, where national unity is written into the constitution or there is a prescribed way to secure independence.
There is a reason, which is that the last one took place in the widely-accepted context that it was a once-in-a-generation vote.
.
Village idiot puts in an appearance. You cretin it was your English nobility and Royal family that were the fans of Hitler and fascism. Go read up on history you gibbering moron.
Arthur Donaldson was briefly interned during World War 2 - though never charged.
Wikipedia suggests that was because of Donaldson's attitude too conscription.
There were also suggestions that he might have been prepared to act as a Quisling figure had the Nazis invaded.
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
Of course - but there is no reason to refuse one if the Scottish government requests it. That does not apply in most other countries, where national unity is written into the constitution or there is a prescribed way to secure independence.
It was not widely accepted it was a once in a generation context. You halfwitted Brownshirts think you are still running a colony. If a majority of Scots want it then it is their right to have a vote. The union is a treaty you half wit and we can revoke it just as easily as it was signed by the twelve greedy barstewards involved. We are not some pets that Westminster can decide what we can and cannot do.
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
There is a reason, which is that the last one took place in the widely-accepted context that it was a once-in-a-generation vote.
.
Village idiot puts in an appearance. You cretin it was your English nobility and Royal family that were the fans of Hitler and fascism. Go read up on history you gibbering moron.
Arthur Donaldson was briefly interned during World War 2 - though never charged.
Wikipedia suggests that was because of Donaldson's attitude too conscription.
You will note he does not mention the Queen running about giving the salutes or mention any of the English Aristocracy who were real supporters. Just some trumped up rubbish used to get Donaldson out of the way.
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
Of course - but there is no reason to refuse one if the Scottish government requests it. That does not apply in most other countries, where national unity is written into the constitution or there is a prescribed way to secure independence.
There is a reason, which is that the last one took place in the widely-accepted context that it was a once-in-a-generation vote.
There is no reason, except for a primitive mistaking of majoritarianism for democracy (albeit all the rage with Brexit), to grant another referendum just because a majority of Scottish MAs want one, or because polling suggests a narrow majority might favour it this week.
Yep, I get that, though there is an equally strong argument for saying that No won on the false prospectus of Scotland having a powerful voice inside the Union. Brexit has blown that out of the water. The Scots now know unequivocally that when push comes to shove they have to do as the English want.
That is such bollocks. We still have Scottish MPs voting on English laws, we don't have English MPs voting on Scottish laws.
How many English MPs voted through the 2016 Scotland Act, and how many amendments by Scottish MPs were knocked back?
And in how many votes in Parliament in the last 20 years that affected England only have the votes of Scottish MPs made a difference?
From SNP it would be ZERO , not so sure on unionist ( ie NON Scottish Party ) Labour though
I think the SNP's vote of no confidence in the Labour Government in 1979 had quite an effect on England as it made Margaret Thatcher PM for 11 years.
Given only 47% of Scots actually want indyref2 I suspect Boris would go down the Spanish route and either block it or impose direct rule, he would not allow Sturgeon to hold one
Although I would agree with such a decision, you have previously suggested that in response Sturgeon woul declare UDI!
She may well try as Puigdemont tried in Catalonia, the Spanish government ignored him and imposed direct rule temporarily and forced him into exile
There seems to be an assumption that Wales will always stay with England.
Plaid Cymru currently top Assembly polling. Just as Northern Irish politics “de-unionised” in the 2000s with the rise of DUP/Sinn Féin and the decline of UUP/SDLP, and Scotland did in the 2010s with the collapse of Scottish Labour, it is entirely feasible for Wales to follow in the 2020s.
Once local politics is unaffiliated to national parties and dominated by nationalists, independence is on the horizon.
Plaid are on less than 25% of the vote and would need Tory support in the Assembly to govern.
Mr. G, it's a matter of perspective. The one I don't get is anti-UK, pro-EU types.
Anyway, we'll have to see the manner of the cock up Boris inflicts before seeing how everything pans out.
MD there is a huge difference between being a member of UK and being in the UK. All power is concentrated in Westminster, they decide how my life goes, EU has only minimal impact on day to day life. The Westminster government uses the EU as an excuse to implement what they want and say it is EU rules. We saw that with Boris's lying tirade about kippers recently , nothing to do with EU.
Apparently somebody has been editing Joel Wilson's Wikipedia page: 'Joel Wilson is a BLIND international cricket umpire from Trinidad and Tobago.'
As he makes a TENTH howler.
I think it's the eighth for him, ten for the umpires in total
You're right, only 80% as crap as I thought.
You do have to feel rather sorry for him, but he's clearly out of his depth here.
luckily he's the TV third ump at the next game... what could go wrong there.
Well, that's an easier job. All he's got to do is look at replays. I think he's struggling to react quickly enough to the speed and intensity of the game.
I was born in England and always lived in England. I select "English" on the census form.
However, as someone from the north-east I feel I have more commonality with Scots than with southerners. Draw a border further south, and I'd happily self-identify as 'North British' or whatever it might be called. (Pieland?)
Second however, on my mother's side I am of Irish descent; I've never been to Ireland and in no way feel Irish - its only impact on me was a Catholic upbringing. Contrast this to Americans whose ancestors left Ireland 200 years ago and still consider themselves to be Irish.
I guess I'm trying to say that for each of us Identity is a personal thing, and cannot be imposed.
I agree in regard to having more commonality with Scots than with southerners. I was born in York, I to select English on the census form. If I lived in Scotland would vote SNP for Scotland to gain it's independence.
York Central is a spot of red in a sea of blue that is North Yorkshire.
If the UK leaving the EU is an apparent logistical nightmare then Scotland leaving the UK after 300 years will surely be a bigger one. Small example - I had to contact HMRC Self Assessment the other day - it's based in Glasgow. How many other UK government agencies are based in Scotland? How will that work if suddenly they are in a foreign country? How many jobs lost in Scotland if all the functions move south?
It's not purely a question of numbers - while on a strict pro-rata population basis Scotland has circa 9,000 more civil service jobs than a simple share-out, a lot of these are at lower grades. Having to set up e.g. a Foreign Office would provide attractive opportunities for our best and brightest to stay in Scotland and partially redress any financial disparity. Also, our current contribution to the Foreign Office approx £2.5 billion UK staff budget would then be spent in Scotland, and the tax revenues remain there.
Given only 47% of Scots actually want indyref2 I suspect Boris would go down the Spanish route and either block it or impose direct rule, he would not allow Sturgeon to hold one
Although I would agree with such a decision, you have previously suggested that in response Sturgeon woul declare UDI!
She may well try as Puigdemont tried in Catalonia, the Spanish government ignored him and imposed direct rule temporarily and forced him into exile
I don't think she would be so stupid.
You cannot compare with Catalonia , completely different situation and could never be done the same way in the UK.
Given only 47% of Scots actually want indyref2 I suspect Boris would go down the Spanish route and either block it or impose direct rule, he would not allow Sturgeon to hold one
Good luck with that.
Worked for Spain, they sent in the Civil Guard to Catalonia, blocked a referendum taking place by force, arrested and exiled nationalist leaders and imposed temporary direct rule.
Those who did manage to vote voted for independence but Catalonia is still part of Spain.
China is cracking down even more forcibly on pro independence demonstrators in Hong Kong
Either you have developed a taste for absurdist satire, or you've gone slightly nuts.
It's slightly odd that I, an opponent of the Union, would still find it impossible to think that HMG would go down that route, while HYUFD, a passionate supporter of the Union, thinks this would be a viable outcome.
In the Scottish Tory leadership hustings Jeremy Hunt made quite clear he would block any indyref2 request from Sturgeon and Boris made clear the 2014 referendum decision to stay in the UK must still be respected
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
Of course - but there is no reason to refuse one if the Scottish government requests it. That does not apply in most other countries, where national unity is written into the constitution or there is a prescribed way to secure independence.
It was not widely accepted it was a once in a generation context. You halfwitted Brownshirts think you are still running a colony. If a majority of Scots want it then it is their right to have a vote. The union is a treaty you half wit and we can revoke it just as easily as it was signed by the twelve greedy barstewards involved. We are not some pets that Westminster can decide what we can and cannot do.
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
Of course - but there is no reason to refuse one if the Scottish government requests it. That does not apply in most other countries, where national unity is written into the constitution or there is a prescribed way to secure independence.
There is a reason, which is that the last one took place in the widely-accepted context that it was a once-in-a-generation vote.
.
Village idiot puts in an appearance. You cretin it was your English nobility and Royal family that were the fans of Hitler and fascism. Go read up on history you gibbering moron.
Arthur Donaldson was briefly interned during World War 2 - though never charged.
Wikipedia suggests that was because of Donaldson's attitude too conscription.
There were also suggestions that he might have been prepared to act as a Quisling figure had the Nazis invaded.
LOL, who suggested it Moseley, you halfwitted moron. He would have been at back of the queue behind the Lords and Ladies.
Draw a border further south, and I'd happily self-identify as 'North British' or whatever it might be called. (Pieland?)
Not pies, surely? Deep fried Mars Bars.
An interesting counterfactual would be if Harald Hardrada and Tostig had settled with Harold Godwinson to take over the former kingdom of Northumbria instead of fighting the battle of Stamford Bridge, leaving Godwinson with, probably Lancashire, and the Mercia and all points South.
Or of course if the French had proved reliable allies of Owain Glyndwr and the proposed division of England had taken place.
52% 48% is not much gap really in terms of poll lead and including Don't Knows there is no majority for independence at all.
It shows even with No Deal Brexit there is no guarantee Scots would back independence
the poll excludes the 16-17 year old age group, who were allowed to vote last time.
But in the unlikely event the British government agrees to indyref2 anytime soon they would likely require the franchise to be the same as EUref and general elections ie 18 and over only
Voting against it is meaningless under our current constitutional arrangement. To stop it they need to replace the Government. That is now their only option.
If the government has been VonC'd then presumably the same MPs will be willing temporarily form a GoNU?
Given only 47% of Scots actually want indyref2 I suspect Boris would go down the Spanish route and either block it or impose direct rule, he would not allow Sturgeon to hold one
Although I would agree with such a decision, you have previously suggested that in response Sturgeon woul declare UDI!
She may well try as Puigdemont tried in Catalonia, the Spanish government ignored him and imposed direct rule temporarily and forced him into exile
Please stop. Whatever we might think of Bozo, he is not the heir to the Falange. Remove you black shorts Mr Spode, and return to sensibility.
Mr. Observer, doesn't the law make holding a referendum a Westminster rather than Holyrood power, though? So the SNP can ask for one, but it's up to the UK Parliament to agree or not?
Of course - but there is no reason to refuse one if the Scottish government requests it. That does not apply in most other countries, where national unity is written into the constitution or there is a prescribed way to secure independence.
There is a reason, which is that the last one took place in the widely-accepted context that it was a once-in-a-generation vote.
There is no reason, except for a primitive mistaking of majoritarianism for democracy (albeit all the rage with Brexit), to grant another referendum just because a majority of Scottish MAs want one, or because polling suggests a narrow majority might favour it this week.
Yep, I get that, though there is an equally strong argument for saying that No won on the false prospectus of Scotland having a powerful voice inside the Union. Brexit has blown that out of the water. The Scots now know unequivocally that when push comes to shove they have to do as the English want.
That is such bollocks. We still have Scottish MPs voting on English laws, we don't have English MPs voting on Scottish laws.
How many English MPs voted through the 2016 Scotland Act, and how many amendments by Scottish MPs were knocked back?
And in how many votes in Parliament in the last 20 years that affected England only have the votes of Scottish MPs made a difference?
From SNP it would be ZERO , not so sure on unionist ( ie NON Scottish Party ) Labour though
I think the SNP's vote of no confidence in the Labour Government in 1979 had quite an effect on England as it made Margaret Thatcher PM for 11 years.
You would find that was impacting Scotland if you looked and so has no relevance to the post. Also given they had a handful of votes I hardly think they could have been the only supporters? PS: that was 40 years ago so not relevant either as poster stated 20 years
There seems to be an assumption that Wales will always stay with England.
Plaid Cymru currently top Assembly polling. Just as Northern Irish politics “de-unionised” in the 2000s with the rise of DUP/Sinn Féin and the decline of UUP/SDLP, and Scotland did in the 2010s with the collapse of Scottish Labour, it is entirely feasible for Wales to follow in the 2020s.
Once local politics is unaffiliated to national parties and dominated by nationalists, independence is on the horizon.
Plaid are on less than 25% of the vote and would need Tory support in the Assembly to govern.
Wales also voted Leave
The SNP only got 20% of the vote in Scotland at the 2010 GE, and look at them now.
Comments
Apparently a sub-sample of 18-24 Sikhs are all in favour of this.
It does look dangerous though as you say.
Talking of fires, England got Burnsed there.Match over.
Last traded, 600.0 but the 1000.0 available to lay looks more correct.
England 26 years (3 separate episodes, a considerable portion of the middle one at sea)
Russia 9 years (the wilderness years)
USA 6 years (2 years at school, 4 years USN exchange)
Belgium 6 years
Wales 4 years
France 1 year
So, no you are not unique! I have zero English identity.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/mar/17/scottish-independence-islands-home-rule
A68 is a better road between Edinburgh and Gala than going down the A7 even if it is longer.
The only actual poll of Orkney/Shetland residents had them massively in favour of remaining part of Scotland in the case of Independence.
I went to Kashmir in 1984. Beautiful place and very friendly people.
Be a long time if ever before all systems were separate but doable.
Personally, I agree with you that the idea of them splitting from Scotland in the event of independence is one for the Ullapool-Inverness ferry service, but it's been mooted.
As for brownshirts, that is much more up your street. There is much in common with brownshirts and aggressive nationalism, but of course the SNP is in denial about its links in the 1930s. Nationalism is based upon division, hatred and often pure racism, in the same way as its close cousin fascism. No doubt your puerile response with aggressive abusive words that only you understand will no doubt prove my point
Agewise, I have now 'gone over' but whilst fresh I lived in 5 countries other than this one (4 in Europe + Australia) and I worked in about 30.
All very 'man of the world' and great but the bad news -
I was born not in a crossfire hurricane but on a calm summer's day in a pit village in Yorkshire. My siblings were also born there. So were my parents and all 4 of my grandparents. Or if not there, then in the village next door.
A comb through the records indicates that one has to go back many generations to find a single direct descendant who brings anything different to the party, and that is nothing more exotic than Irish.
Ah well.
I identify as ... really not sure. It's a tricky one. I mainly identify in terms of things other than identity, e.g. as a hard left social democrat.
Those alive today were involved on neither side. John's surrender of the Vexin to Philip Augustus was harmful, but it's ancient history. Constantinople falling to the Turks was a tragedy, but it's long since past.
Learning from history is a very good idea, but inheriting grudges doesn't seem at all profitable to me.
That's nine decisions overturned now, and seven of them have been against Joel Wilson
Visiting some of their friends recently we met a couple who were, on side, French/Laotian and on the other Australian.
Unfortunately the government's interpretation of localism is to impose its will from Westminster and ignore the wishes of the people of Yorkshire.
As he makes a TENTH howler.
Mr. G, it's a matter of perspective. The one I don't get is anti-UK, pro-EU types.
Anyway, we'll have to see the manner of the cock up Boris inflicts before seeing how everything pans out.
but yes maybe not "far more" rancorous than Brexit itself.
*boom tish..coat etc...*
I was born in England and always lived in England. I select "English" on the census form.
However, as someone from the north-east I feel I have more commonality with Scots than with southerners. Draw a border further south, and I'd happily self-identify as 'North British' or whatever it might be called. (Pieland?)
Second however, on my mother's side I am of Irish descent; I've never been to Ireland and in no way feel Irish - its only impact on me was a Catholic upbringing. Contrast this to Americans whose ancestors left Ireland 200 years ago and still consider themselves to be Irish.
I guess I'm trying to say that for each of us Identity is a personal thing, and cannot be imposed.
Personally I think the local Lib Dems would be mad to refuse her, but as @NickPalmer alludes, personal ambition is powerful stuff.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-49231619
You do have to feel rather sorry for him, but he's clearly out of his depth here.
https://twitter.com/JamesDelingpole/status/1158306141950136320?s=20
Good afternoon, everyone.
Wales also voted Leave
I was born in York, I to select English on the census form.
If I lived in Scotland would vote SNP for Scotland to gain it's independence.
York Central is a spot of red in a sea of blue that is North Yorkshire.
Miss JGP, good afternoon.
Or of course if the French had proved reliable allies of Owain Glyndwr and the proposed division of England had taken place.
PS: that was 40 years ago so not relevant either as poster stated 20 years