Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
 



       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish Politics and Independence
Zed

The One Show and independence

I watched a piece on Scottish independence on the BBC's The ONE Show.
I was expecting the usual unionist slant on it but it was surprisingly well balanced.
The reporter was Kay Adams and they had studio guest Monty Don who is in favour of Scottish independence ! So well done to him.
Shows like this have a large following south of the border so it must have raised a few eyebrows. Some good comments were made also.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00n5nvg/The_One_Show_06_10_2009/
Corby Boy

Thanks for the link. Surprisingly balanced indeed.

Thought the lady in the pub was interesting. Didn't think Scotland could afford to go it alone, but likes the idea! These are the folk that need to be convinced and won round.

This unionism is more about fear of the unknown than wanting to be part of Britain.
Holebender

'twould be nice if the iPlayer worked here. Sad
landg

Corby Boy wrote:

This unionism is more about fear of the unknown than wanting to be part of Britain.



utter speculation.
FACT - i'm not afraid of independence, scotland would be fine as independent but i've yet to hear a good argument for splitting a succesful and profitable union.
landg

and for christs sake don't mention the stuff thats running out.
Shagpile

Holebender wrote:
'twould be nice if the iPlayer worked here. Sad


Know that feling too.
Reluctant Hero

landg wrote:
FACT - i'm not afraid of independence, scotland would be fine as independent but i've yet to hear a good argument for splitting a succesful and profitable union.


Once you define what a successful and profitable union is, maybe someone will reiterate the many good arguments for going it alone.
Holebender

I'll give you a good argument; Scotland's economy consistently underperforms the overall UK economy. That means the UK is not best suited for optimising Scotland's economy. We can do better by ourselves (unless you believe we are innately worse at business than the rest of the UK). Meanwhile, the remainder of the UK will be shot of an underperforming region. Win-win.
landg

Reluctant Hero wrote:
landg wrote:
FACT - i'm not afraid of independence, scotland would be fine as independent but i've yet to hear a good argument for splitting a succesful and profitable union.


Once you define what a successful and profitable union is, maybe someone will reiterate the many good arguments for going it alone.


i'm happy with the union, i have done well being brought up and educated in it, as were my parents and siblings. many millions are in a similar position, in fact i'd say the vast majority live happy, successful, meaningful lives.
landg

Holebender wrote:
I'll give you a good argument; Scotland's economy consistently underperforms the overall UK economy. That means the UK is not best suited for optimising Scotland's economy. We can do better by ourselves (unless you believe we are innately worse at business than the rest of the UK). Meanwhile, the remainder of the UK will be shot of an underperforming region. Win-win.


well, our banks spring to mind. if independant in the next few years how much would holyrood owe westminster to compensate for english, welsh and n. irish taxpayers who bailed our banks out?
or would hollyrood just cut and run and say, sorry, nothing to do woth us?
Stevie

landg wrote:
i'm happy with the union, i have done well being brought up and educated in it, as were my parents and siblings. many millions are in a similar position, in fact i'd say the vast majority live happy, successful, meaningful lives.


You say this because you're a Brit Nat.

Desire for independence is not just about being well educated and living a meaningful life, it's about identity.

I don't identify with your Brit Nat perspective and neither do 38% of the Scottish electorate.

A few years ago, you wouldn't have passed your time talking on this forum to dreamers who favour independence... how things have altered.
Holebender

landg wrote:
Holebender wrote:
I'll give you a good argument; Scotland's economy consistently underperforms the overall UK economy. That means the UK is not best suited for optimising Scotland's economy. We can do better by ourselves (unless you believe we are innately worse at business than the rest of the UK). Meanwhile, the remainder of the UK will be shot of an underperforming region. Win-win.


well, our banks spring to mind. if independant in the next few years how much would holyrood owe westminster to compensate for english, welsh and n. irish taxpayers who bailed our banks out?
or would hollyrood just cut and run and say, sorry, nothing to do woth us?

The UK government took shares in those banks. If they want to offload them at a loss I'm sure independent Scotland could help them out. Maybe trade our share of Trident for them, something like that. The UK government keeps telling us they'll turn a profit from those shares; are you saying that's untrue?

I'm a little confused by your reply. Is this you saying Scots are innately crap at business?
Cymro

Was great to see Aulays Bar on tv, Oban's best bar. I know the guy who was interviewed first who was against Independence. Slevering old bugger, nice guy though. Wait till I get hold of him....
landg

[quote="Bravehand"]
landg wrote:

Desire for independence is not just about being well educated and living a meaningful life, it's about identity.

I don't identify with your Brit Nat perspective and neither do 38% of the Scottish electorate.

.


identity=FREEEEEEEEEEEEEDOM. thankfully i'm comfortable in my own skin.anyway.

that means that 62% (give or take a 1 or 2% who vote for the loony-left and right parties) of the scottish electorate do indetify with being 'brit nat'. if there was poll saying 62% wanted independece you'd be doing freeeedom-victory cartwheels.
Cruachan

It was a good, well-balanced piece, but what is it about BBC programmes about independence?  Do they all have to start with someone giving out free shortbread on the high street (see Brian Taylor's effort a few months ago)  Sad
Ultra

Holebender wrote:
landg wrote:
Holebender wrote:
I'll give you a good argument; Scotland's economy consistently underperforms the overall UK economy. That means the UK is not best suited for optimising Scotland's economy. We can do better by ourselves (unless you believe we are innately worse at business than the rest of the UK). Meanwhile, the remainder of the UK will be shot of an underperforming region. Win-win.


well, our banks spring to mind. if independant in the next few years how much would holyrood owe westminster to compensate for english, welsh and n. irish taxpayers who bailed our banks out?
or would hollyrood just cut and run and say, sorry, nothing to do woth us?

The UK government took shares in those banks. If they want to offload them at a loss I'm sure independent Scotland could help them out. Maybe trade our share of Trident for them, something like that. The UK government keeps telling us they'll turn a profit from those shares; are you saying that's untrue?

I'm a little confused by your reply. Is this you saying Scots are innately crap at business?


The too stupid argument again...

The Government has major shareholdings in several of the Scottish banks and guarantees debts on behalf of the banks. So if Scotland became independent they would have to come up with some way of creating a Bank of Scotland just like the Bank of England to handle currency and interest rate decisions.

Say the SNP get their referendum on independence and the Scottish people vote no, they are just going to keep putting forward referendum bills until they get a yes vote.
Fidget

Re: The One Show and independence

Zed wrote:

Shows like this have a large following south of the border so it must have raised a few eyebrows...


I hope that doesn't mean that you think the average person sooth o' the border wants to cling on to Scotland? Given the vote themselves they'd tick the 'bye-bye and best of luck to you' box I think.
Holebender

Ultra wrote:
The too stupid argument again...

You seem to be incapable of distinguishing between someone making an argument and someone rebutting an argument. I am not arguing that Scots are too stupid, I am asking if someone else is saying it because that is how his post reads to me.
Zed

Re: The One Show and independence

Fidget wrote:
Zed wrote:

Shows like this have a large following south of the border so it must have raised a few eyebrows...


I hope that doesn't mean that you think the average person sooth o' the border wants to cling on to Scotland? Given the vote themselves they'd tick the 'bye-bye and best of luck to you' box I think.


No, what I mean is that I find it astonishing that the media outlets in England are not discussing the possible break up of the UK.
Whether you agree or disagree with an independent Scotland, the UK must accept and realise this is a distinct possibility.
There have been many discussions on this issue north of the border especially since the SNP came to power.
But in England and the rest of the UK, it's left to programmes like the One Show !
I remember there was a Newsnight discussion on independence, but quite amazingly it was not shown in all parts of the UK.
Is it arrogance or not facing up to reality ?
Fidget

Re: The One Show and independence

Zed wrote:

No, what I mean is that I find it astonishing that the media outlets in England are not discussing the possible break up of the UK.
Whether you agree or disagree with an independent Scotland, the UK must accept and realise this is a distinct possibility.
There have been many discussions on this issue north of the border especially since the SNP came to power.
But in England and the rest of the UK, it's left to programmes like the One Show !
I remember there was a Newsnight discussion on independence, but quite amazingly it was not shown in all parts of the UK.
Is it arrogance or not facing up to reality ?


The SNP love a good wind-up with their breaking up the UK tosh.  If Scotland becomes independent then it will do so as a secession and the rump UK will continue without it just as when the R.O.I seceded. That'll be why nobody is talking about it south of the border. So, if anything, it's more arrogant for north of the border to think that scotland holds the sway on whether the UK breaks up or not. What a laugh!  Laughing
Cruachan

Re: The One Show and independence

Fidget wrote:
Zed wrote:

No, what I mean is that I find it astonishing that the media outlets in England are not discussing the possible break up of the UK.
Whether you agree or disagree with an independent Scotland, the UK must accept and realise this is a distinct possibility.
There have been many discussions on this issue north of the border especially since the SNP came to power.
But in England and the rest of the UK, it's left to programmes like the One Show !
I remember there was a Newsnight discussion on independence, but quite amazingly it was not shown in all parts of the UK.
Is it arrogance or not facing up to reality ?


The SNP love a good wind-up with their breaking up the UK tosh.  If Scotland becomes independent then it will do so as a secession and the rump UK will continue without it just as when the R.O.I seceded. That'll be why nobody is talking about it south of the border. So, if anything, it's more arrogant for north of the border to think that scotland holds the sway on whether the UK breaks up or not. What a laugh!  Laughing



I agree that (other than the Campaign for an English Parliament and related blogs) there is very little discussion in England on the coming break up of "Great Britain".  And it will be a huge shock when it does happen.  The London based media will have some questions to answer as to how they missed it coming!

But of course it is not that they are unaware, it is that the Unionist controlled media are doing all they can to rubbish the idea of Independence and to pretend/hope that the issue will just go away.

Perhaps, for a while, the rUK of England, Wales and Northern Ireland would continue.  But the idea that after Scottish independence nothing would change to the politics and constitutional arrangements of those three countries is simply not tenable.

Everything would change.


http://loosechange-cruachan.blogspot.com/
Fidget

Re: The One Show and independence

Cruachan wrote:
it is that the Unionist controlled media are doing all they can to rubbish the idea of Independence and to pretend/hope that the issue will just go away.


Where are you getting this idea that the "unionist controlled" media are out to rubbish Scottish independence?  The population of England are so scunnered hearing the wingeing about independence that given a free vote on it would probably be more in favour of it than a free vote north of the border!   Laughing
Holebender

Whether or not the leftovers of the UK choose to continue using the name after Scotland's independence, only some sort of blind fool would argue that the UK we know today would just shrug off the events surrounding the secession and carry on without noticing anything. I realise your intention is to try to convince us all of the total insignificance of Scotland but all you are doing is making me wonder why you bother posting on a site like this.

Your need to massage your ego my belittling others is rather sad.
Fidget

au contraire my friend. Tis yourself and alike who need to jolt themselves out of the fairytale that consumes you.
Holebender

I am not the one being consumed here.
Fidget

Holebender wrote:
Whether or not the leftovers of the UK choose to continue using the name after Scotland's independence, only some sort of blind fool would argue that the UK we know today would just shrug off the events surrounding the secession and carry on without noticing anything. I realise your intention is to try to convince us all of the total insignificance of Scotland but all you are doing is making me wonder why you bother posting on a site like this.

Your need to massage your ego my belittling others is rather sad.


Holebender wrote:
I am not the one being consumed here.


of course you're not.  Laughing
William_Cleland

Re: The One Show and independence

Fidget wrote:
The SNP love a good wind-up with their breaking up the UK tosh.  If Scotland becomes independent then it will do so as a secession and the rump UK will continue without it just as when the R.O.I seceded. That'll be why nobody is talking about it south of the border. So, if anything, it's more arrogant for north of the border to think that scotland holds the sway on whether the UK breaks up or not. What a laugh!  Laughing


Disagree about there being a parallel with 1921 if it ever were to happen. The emergence of Northern Ireland was what made it possible to carry on much as before (the Union of 1801 was still applicable at least in that context) and to keep the diagonal red bits in the Union Flag. Also perhaps worth noting that the RoI came later in 1948 and that the Irish Free State that initially emerged was at least on paper a Dominion of the British Empire along with Canada, South Africa, Newfoundland, Australia and New Zealand.
Fidget

Clearly, things would be different, but the point I'm making is that the UK will continue to exist.  It will not be dissolved as salmond and his lap dogs would like us to believe.
William_Cleland

The United Kingdom of Great Britain bit of the name refers to the Treaty of Union between the Kingdoms of Scotland and England in 1707. The words "and Ireland" came later in 1801. Remove Scotland from the equation and there would need to be a significant name change because Britain and British would no longer be applicable and the blue bits would have to come out of the flag. In 1921 all that had to be done to carry on business as usual was to insert the word "Northern".
Fidget

No, the "Great Britain" bit refers to the Union. That was the act that united the Kingdom of Scotland, and the Kindom of England, into ONE kingdom - called "Great Britain", not the United Kingdom.  As unsavoury as that might be to your palette, that's how it is.
Ultra

Holebender wrote:
Ultra wrote:
The too stupid argument again...

You seem to be incapable of distinguishing between someone making an argument and someone rebutting an argument. I am not arguing that Scots are too stupid, I am asking if someone else is saying it because that is how his post reads to me.


No I am very capable in understand the different contexts in which 'too stupid' in being used in reference to Scotland.

The comment you are referring to is a straight forward question on how would an independent Scotland would reinburse it's share of the bank bail out to the other countries in the UK.

You ignored this and went straight to the 'too stupid' line of defence.

You commented on this or rather Scottish people being crap at business not Landg as you are suggesting here.
William_Cleland

Fidget wrote:
No, the "Great Britain" bit refers to the Union. That was the act that united the Kingdom of Scotland, and the Kindom of England, into ONE kingdom - called "Great Britain", not the United Kingdom.  As unsavoury as that might be to your palette, that's how it is.


Where the last comment is concerned you should maybe check out my avatar. Where the first bit is concerned you definitely need to check out the text of the Treaty of Union:-

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Act_of_Union_1707

Article 1 (name of the new kingdom)

That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the 1st May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN: And that the Ensigns Armorial of the said United Kingdom be such as Her Majesty shall think fit, and used in all Flags, Banners, Standards and Ensigns both at Sea and Land.

Article 2 (succession to the throne)

That the Succession to the Monarchy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and of the Dominions thereunto belonging after Her Most Sacred Majesty, and in default of Issue of Her Majesty be, remain and continue to the Most Excellent Princess Sophia Electoress and Dutchess Dowager of Hanover, and the Heirs of Her body, being Protestants, upon whom the Crown of England is settled by an Act of Parliament made in England in the twelth year of the Reign of His late Majesty King William the Third entituled An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown and better securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject;

And that all Papists and persons marrying Papists, shall be excluded from and forever incapable to inherit possess or enjoy the Imperial Crown of Great Britain, and the Dominions thereunto belonging or any part thereof; And in every such case the Crown and Government shall from time to time descend to, and be enjoyed by such person being a Protestant as should have inherited and enjoyed the same, in case such Papists or person marrying a Papist was naturally dead, according to the provision for the Descent of the Crown of England, made by another Act of Parliament in England in the first year of the Reign of their late Majesties King William and Queen Mary entituled an Act declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject, and settling the Succession of the Crown.

Article 3 (united parliament)

That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be Represented by one and the same Parliament, to be stiled the Parliament of Great Britain.

Article 4 (equal privileges of subjects)

That the Subjects of the United Kingdom of Great Britain shall from and after the Union have full Freedom and Intercourse of Trade and Navigation to and from any port or place within the said United Kingdom and the Dominions and Plantations thereunto belonging. And that there be a Communication of all other Rights, Privileges and Advantages which do or may belong to the Subjects of either Kingdom except where it is otherwayes expressly agreed in these Articles

....

Article 24 (the Great Seal, lesser seals and the Scottish crown jewels)

That from and after the Union, there be One Great Seal for the United Kingdom of Great Britain, which shall be different from the Great Seal now used in either Kingdom; And that the Quartering the Arms and the Rank and Precedency of the Lyon King of Arms of the Kingdom of Scotland as may best suit the Union be left to Her Majesty: And that in the mean time the Great Seal of England be used as the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, and that the Great Seal of the United Kingdom be used for Sealing Writs to Elect and Summon the Parliament of Great Britain and for sealing all Treaties with Forreign Princes and States, and all publick Acts Instruments and Orders of State which Concern the whole United Kingdom, and in all other matters relating to England, as the Great Seal of England is now used, and that a Seal in Scotland after the Union be alwayes kept and made use of in all things relating to private Rights or Grants, which have usually passed the Great Seal of Scotland, and which only concern Offices, Grants, Commissions, and private Rights within the Kingdom, And that until such Seal shall be appointed by Her Majesty the present Great Seal of Scotland shall be used for such purposes;

And that the Privy Seal, Signet, Casset, Signet of the Justiciary Court, Quarter Seal, and Seals of Courts now used in Scotland be Continued, but that the said Seals be altered and adapted to the state of the Union as Her Majesty shall think fit; And the said Seals, and all of them, and the Keepers of them, shall be subject to Regulations as the Parliament of Great Britain shall hereafter make:

And that the Crown, Scepter and Sword of State, the Records of Parliament, and all other Records, Rolls and Registers whatsoever, both publick and private generall and particular, and Warrands thereof Continue to be keeped as they are within that part of the United Kingdom now called Scotland, and that they shall so remain in all time coming, notwithstanding of the Union.

....
Stevie

As I've mentioned already, without Scotland there is no second kingdom to unite.

Therefore it's the Kingdom of England and the Principalities (KEP).
William_Cleland

Wales is technically part of the Kingdom of England so the Kingdom of England and Province of Northern Ireland would maybe be more appropriate than Kingdom of England and the Principalities but you are right that Welsh sensibilities would probably have to be accommodated. If Scotland ever left there would be a major identity crisis for the rump state whether Fidget likes it or not. What collective noun would be used if British was off limits after the demise of the UK of GB? Think it's a long shot that it will ever actually happen but wouldn't completely discount it after a decade or so of Tory rule and a major energy crisis about 2015 when a large number of nuclear and coal plants are scheduled to close down.
Holebender

Fidget wrote:
No, the "Great Britain" bit refers to the Union. That was the act that united the Kingdom of Scotland, and the Kindom of England, into ONE kingdom - called "Great Britain", not the United Kingdom.  As unsavoury as that might be to your palette, that's how it is.

I suggest you read articles one and two of the Act of Union. The term "United Kingdom of Great Britain" is right there in black and white. You may try to wish it otherwise, but the United Kingdom was formed when the two kingdoms of England and Scotland merged. Remove one of the only two kingdoms which make up the UK and what is left? One kingdom and a couple of other bits. That is no longer a united kingdom.

However, I acknowledge that sovereign states can call themselves pretty much whatever they like and I'm fairly sure the rump of the UK will want to continue with the name for a bit of continuity. Good luck to them.
Holebender

Ultra wrote:
Holebender wrote:
Ultra wrote:
The too stupid argument again...

You seem to be incapable of distinguishing between someone making an argument and someone rebutting an argument. I am not arguing that Scots are too stupid, I am asking if someone else is saying it because that is how his post reads to me.


No I am very capable in understand the different contexts in which 'too stupid' in being used in reference to Scotland.

The comment you are referring to is a straight forward question on how would an independent Scotland would reinburse it's share of the bank bail out to the other countries in the UK.

You ignored this and went straight to the 'too stupid' line of defence.

You commented on this or rather Scottish people being crap at business not Landg as you are suggesting here.

Not at all. I asked landg if he thought the Scots were innately crap at business and he responded with the stuff about the banks. As his response didn't really match my question I asked him if it was some sort of answer to my question. And I did not ignore the question either, I supplied an answer, so the ignoring of questions isn't coming from this side of the conversation.
Cruachan

Re: The One Show and independence

Fidget wrote:
Cruachan wrote:
it is that the Unionist controlled media are doing all they can to rubbish the idea of Independence and to pretend/hope that the issue will just go away.


Where are you getting this idea that the "unionist controlled" media are out to rubbish Scottish independence?  The population of England are so scunnered hearing the wingeing about independence that given a free vote on it would probably be more in favour of it than a free vote north of the border!   Laughing



You may be surprised that I agree with you on this. Shocked

The majority of the electorate of England would, if given any kind of say in the matter, would probably vote in favour of getting rid of those "whingeing"Scots (or voting for an independent England if the matter was ever put in that way).

However, it is the London controlled media and all those with a vested interest in the continuation of the British State, who are wholly focussed on maintaining the Union.

It is the people of England (and Wales) as well as the people of Scotland that are poorly served by the Unionist media.



http://loosechange-cruachan.blogspot.com/
Stevie

Re: The One Show and independence

Cruachan wrote:
The majority of the electorate of England would, if given any kind of say in the matter, would probably vote in favour of getting rid of those "whingeing"Scots (or voting for an independent England if the matter was ever put in that way).


I don't know... people don't like losing land territory.
Fidget

Re: The One Show and independence

Cruachan wrote:
Fidget wrote:
Cruachan wrote:
it is that the Unionist controlled media are doing all they can to rubbish the idea of Independence and to pretend/hope that the issue will just go away.


Where are you getting this idea that the "unionist controlled" media are out to rubbish Scottish independence?  The population of England are so scunnered hearing the wingeing about independence that given a free vote on it would probably be more in favour of it than a free vote north of the border!   Laughing



You may be surprised that I agree with you on this. Shocked

The majority of the electorate of England would, if given any kind of say in the matter, would probably vote in favour of getting rid of those "whingeing"Scots (or voting for an independent England if the matter was ever put in that way).

However, it is the London controlled media and all those with a vested interest in the continuation of the British State, who are wholly focussed on maintaining the Union.

It is the people of England (and Wales) as well as the people of Scotland that are poorly served by the Unionist media.



http://loosechange-cruachan.blogspot.com/


I think you're wrong with your "Unionist" media concept. If anything the media likes to inflame - sells papers, you see.
Stevie

Fidget wrote:
Clearly, things would be different, but the point I'm making is that the UK will continue to exist.  It will not be dissolved as salmond and his lap dogs would like us to believe.


Clearly you gave up on the UK thing but refering to Alec Salmond's fellow politicians as lap dogs is frankly prejudiced tosh my friend.  Every one of the SNP politicians is in the political arena because they believe in a cause.

None of the Labour politicians seem to have any ideals left (with the exception of that fellow who stood up in parliament asking for trade union rights to be restored and was ignored by the leader of a party started by trade unionist ideals, I think his name is McKintosh, I like him).

You can call them names but the Scottish electorate know much better than that and have less and less faith in the Brit Labour party.  The Tories have ideals that can all be summed up in one word : money.

Incidentally, you don't honestly think Alec Salmond wanted K McKaskill to free Magrahi... hardly a lap dog or sicophant or lackie or... whatever

You are desperately reaching dear Fidget, desperately.

Fidget my boy, drop your six gun and join the movement for independence.  

You might just get the left wing republic you wish for.
Aventinian

Holebender wrote:
I'll give you a good argument; Scotland's economy consistently underperforms the overall UK economy. That means the UK is not best suited for optimising Scotland's economy. We can do better by ourselves (unless you believe we are innately worse at business than the rest of the UK). Meanwhile, the remainder of the UK will be shot of an underperforming region. Win-win.


I'm sorry, but you cannot simply ascribe the economic circumstances of a given area to the government in power. I would possibly agree with your statement that Scotland probably is innately worse at business that the rest of the UK if it actually meant anything. In reality, these things depend on population movements, immigration, natural resources, industrial history, local planning regulations - not to mention a host of devolved issues such as crime, standard of living, education and so forth.

Was the fact that the Kingdom of Scotland was an economic backwater provide a strong counter-argument against Scottish independence? Of course it f***ing doesn't.
Holebender

By whose reckoning was it an economic backwater? It had strong trading links with much of Europe, something which was lost when forced into union with England.

Don't let the failure of one private enterprise (Darien) fool you into believing Scotland was some sort of sleepy Brigadoon. Just take a look at the continental-inspired architecture all around you and stop believing those historians with an agenda to convince you of the glories of Empire. (I doubt if you read anything more modern.)

Who said anything about the government in power? I'm talking about the national psyche and morale. If you want an idea of what I'm trying to get into your closed off mind, look at Iceland; written off as a basket case a year ago, has taken a few strategic decisions, and is now picking itself up again. What would have happened if it had been some sort of outpost of Denmark? It would have stagnated on the dole and had to wait for Copenhagen to fund some new initiative. Small countries looking after their own affairs are enterprising and self-reliant. Small countries tied to big countries are basket cases. I'd prefer Scotland to stand on its own feet and make its way in the world.
Aventinian

William_Cleland wrote:
The United Kingdom of Great Britain bit of the name refers to the Treaty of Union between the Kingdoms of Scotland and England in 1707. The words "and Ireland" came later in 1801. Remove Scotland from the equation and there would need to be a significant name change because Britain and British would no longer be applicable and the blue bits would have to come out of the flag. In 1921 all that had to be done to carry on business as usual was to insert the word "Northern".


That's not what happened, the name of the UKGBI continued until they finally got around to inserting 'Northern' in 1927.

There is no requirement on the state to change its flag (many nations have flags with historic areas, now departed or in another state, on them) or name. Indeed, in the short term, it almost certainly would not.
Aventinian

William_Cleland wrote:
Wales is technically part of the Kingdom of England so the Kingdom of England


There's no such thing as the Kingdom of England.

Quote:
What collective noun would be used if British was off limits after the demise of the UK of GB?


It wouldn't be 'off limits'.

Fidget wrote:
No, the "Great Britain" bit refers to the Union. That was the act that united the Kingdom of Scotland, and the Kindom of England, into ONE kingdom - called "Great Britain", not the United Kingdom.  As unsavoury as that might be to your palette, that's how it is.


That's factually debatable. The 'United Kingdom' bit was certainly used after the 1707 Union; it is a matter of interpretation as to whether it was part of the name of the state, as such. Ultimately, though, I think this sort of pedantry is an exclusive mark of the modern age: the people of the early 18th century wouldn't have given a toss.
Aventinian

Holebender wrote:
By whose reckoning was it an economic backwater? It had strong trading links with much of Europe, something which was lost when forced into union with England.


It was. In fact, it was virtually incapable of being taxed at the same level as England after the Union - but of course, the main problem wasn't even the level of tax, it was getting any of it at all: the pre-Union Scottish treasury was completely inefficient and tax evasion was rife.

Quote:
Who said anything about the government in power? I'm talking about the national psyche and morale. If you want an idea of what I'm trying to get into your closed off mind, look at Iceland; written off as a basket case a year ago, has taken a few strategic decisions, and is now picking itself up again. What would have happened if it had been some sort of outpost of Denmark? It would have stagnated on the dole and had to wait for Copenhagen to fund some new initiative.


Scotland is not 'an outpost' of anything, it is an integral part of one country.

Quote:
Small countries looking after their own affairs are enterprising and self-reliant.


No they're not. Some are. Others are absolutely useless. Zimbabwe has a population of some 12 million - are they 'enterprising and self-reliant'; no, they're the basket case in this scenario.

Quote:
Small countries tied to big countries are basket cases.


If you are to define Scotland as a country, then it is only one insofar as it satisfies certain cultural criteria. That does not affect its politicial or economic stance.

Quote:
I'd prefer Scotland to stand on its own feet and make its way in the world.


Scotland cannot, because it is not a sentient human being. Personification may be an interesting literary concept, but it is nothing but loose thinking in a political environment.
William_Cleland

Aventinian wrote:
That's factually debatable. The 'United Kingdom' bit was certainly used after the 1707 Union; it is a matter of interpretation as to whether it was part of the name of the state, as such...


Tell that to the people who run Westminster's website:-

http://www.parliament.uk/actofunion/index.html

The passing of Acts of Union by both the English and Scottish Parliaments led to the creation on 1 May 1707 of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. The Parliament of the United Kingdom met for the first time in October 1707.
Corby Boy

Out of those who have a unionist persuasion on this website, William, you come across the most balanced.

I find extreme nationalism whether British or Scottish quite nauseating.

I like the notion of all the consitituent parts of the current UK becoming independent politically if they so wish, but a continuation of a 'social' type of union will perservere. As this is reality, particularly between Scotland and England due to the number of families living in both countries and social links. To some extent with NI and Wales too.

It is the rigidity of the pro-union/pro-independence argument of some posts that strikes me. Unionist and nationalists alike are somehow 'two headed' monsters to each other.

Should I divorce my missus because she support the continuance of the political UK, whilst I like the concept of Scotland being independent?

Don't think so.
Aventinian

William_Cleland wrote:
Aventinian wrote:
That's factually debatable. The 'United Kingdom' bit was certainly used after the 1707 Union; it is a matter of interpretation as to whether it was part of the name of the state, as such...


Tell that to the people who run Westminster's website:-

http://www.parliament.uk/actofunion/index.html

The passing of Acts of Union by both the English and Scottish Parliaments led to the creation on 1 May 1707 of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. The Parliament of the United Kingdom met for the first time in October 1707.


I cannot be bothered. What they choose to put on their webpages has nothing to do with me.
Alasdair

Corby Boy wrote:
Should I divorce my missus because she support the continuance of the political UK, whilst I like the concept of Scotland being independent?

Don't think so.


Obviously ...


... it'll make it far more difficult to convince her she's wrong if you up and leave her!!! Laughing
Corby Boy

Alasdair,

She's a woman, she always right of course! So, by default the union must be a good thing!! (-:
Stevie

Some things are nothing to do with political and idealogical aspirations.

If the Queen looked like Claudia Schiffer or Cindy Crawford I'd marry her and wouldn't require her to hold my views.

Actually, I wouldn't require anyone to think the way I think and vice versa.
Cymro

William_Cleland wrote:
Wales is technically part of the Kingdom of England so the Kingdom of England and Province of Northern Ireland would maybe be more appropriate than Kingdom of England and the Principalities but you are right that Welsh sensibilities would probably have to be accommodated.


You've said this before and you are unwilling to accept that Wales is no longer a part of England. It was as a result of the 2 Acts of Union in the 1500's, but it has since been undone hence the reference in Acts of Parliament to England AND Wales, to positions as the Lord Chief Justice of England AND Wales.

If you visit www.direct.gov.uk (the UK Government's website) you will find this:

Quote:
'UK' or 'Britain'?
The full title of this country is 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland':

Great Britain is made up of England, Scotland and Wales
the United Kingdom (UK) is made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland


Now, finally will you come into 2009 and accept once and for all Wales is NOT part of England anymore.

Rolling Eyes
William_Cleland

Pointless to get into a tit-for-tat argument on this so I will state the blindingly obvious once and leave it at that. There are three separate legal jurisdictions in the UK of GB and NI based on Scots, English and Northern Ireland Law because some of the key national institutions associated with the three Kingdoms that were involved in the Unions of 1707 and 1801 remained entrenched and a conventional unitary nation state was never created. Should the process of Union go into reverse the Scots and English Law legislation that created the United Kingdom of Great Britain of1707 will be repealed. That 300 year old legislation has never been amended to give Wales a status separate from England so it is factually accurate to state that Wales is technically still part of the Kingdom of England where that legislation is concerned and the fact that England and Wales is the name normally used for that legal jurisdiction in contemporary English Law legislation doesn't make a blind bit of difference to that.
Cymro

No what's pointless is you ignoring a UK Government site which states Wales and England are no longer 1 country. The legal system is not what solely defines a country. Acts now refer to England AND Wales, the law covers both countries. You are wrong - end of, the direct.gov site is no different to the Number 10 site you previously quoted.
jamesieboy

Landg - may I ask where you live ???

I have worked in many schools all over west/central Scotland and
this feeling of well-being/comfort/affluence is certainly not something
I have seen much of.

Yes sure, Bearsden and Milngavie, Corstorphine and Morningside, Newton Mearns and Giffnock are areas which could be described as well-heeled and comfortable (or at the majority of people are).

Nevertheless, there are a lot more places where many people, if not exactly living in extreme poverty, are beginning to struggle.

Have you seen the latest youth unemployment figures?
Aventinian

William_Cleland wrote:
Pointless to get into a tit-for-tat argument on this so I will state the blindingly obvious once and leave it at that. There are three separate legal jurisdictions in the UK of GB and NI based on Scots, English and Northern Ireland Law because some of the key national institutions associated with the three Kingdoms that were involved in the Unions of 1707 and 1801 remained entrenched and a conventional unitary nation state was never created.


Well, not conventional perhaps, but a unitary state certainly was created. Britain was, and remains, an excellent example of a unitary state despite the way it was formed and the standing of the Home Nations. As for entrenchment, the Acts of Union didn't really entrench anything.

Quote:
Should the process of Union go into reverse the Scots and English Law legislation that created the United Kingdom of Great Britain of1707 will be repealed.


No it won't be. An Act of the UK Parliament would grant independence. It would be pointless to repeal the Acts of Union or divide the United Kingdom - if you seriously think England, Wales and Northern Ireland are going to have their constitutions dictated to them by a Scottish referendum then you're very wrong.

The UK was founded by a treaty anyway, which created one new Kingdom - it dissolved that which preceded it. They are not just lying dormant, England and Scotland no longer exist as states. The associated Acts of Union simply wound up these states.

Quote:
That 300 year old legislation has never been amended to give Wales a status separate from England so it is factually accurate to state that Wales is technically still part of the Kingdom of England


The Kingdom of England doesn't exist, and hasn't for 300 years.
Fidget

Re: The One Show and independence

Cruachan wrote:

However, it is the London controlled media and all those with a vested interest in the continuation of the British State, who are wholly focussed on maintaining the Union.

It is the people of England (and Wales) as well as the people of Scotland that are poorly served by the Unionist media.



i wouldn't be so sure about that. If anything, the media seem about fuelling a divide.
William_Cleland

Aventinian wrote:
William_Cleland wrote:
That 300 year old legislation has never been amended to give Wales a status separate from England so it is factually accurate to state that Wales is technically still part of the Kingdom of England


The Kingdom of England doesn't exist, and hasn't for 300 years.


A reply to half a sentence taken out of context. Just further evidence that the role of the Aventinian user account on here is to keep threads going.

The complete sentence was:-

William_Cleland wrote:
That 300 year old legislation has never been amended to give Wales a status separate from England so it is factually accurate to state that Wales is technically still part of the Kingdom of England  where that legislation is concerned and the fact that England and Wales is the name normally used for that legal jurisdiction in contemporary English Law legislation doesn't make a blind bit of difference to that.


If somebody actually addresses that in its entirety, there might be something worth discussing.
Aventinian

William_Cleland wrote:
Aventinian wrote:
William_Cleland wrote:
That 300 year old legislation has never been amended to give Wales a status separate from England so it is factually accurate to state that Wales is technically still part of the Kingdom of England


The Kingdom of England doesn't exist, and hasn't for 300 years.


A reply to half a sentence taken out of context. Just further evidence that the role of the Aventinian user account on here is to keep threads going.

The complete sentence was:-

William_Cleland wrote:
That 300 year old legislation has never been amended to give Wales a status separate from England so it is factually accurate to state that Wales is technically still part of the Kingdom of England  where that legislation is concerned and the fact that England and Wales is the name normally used for that legal jurisdiction in contemporary English Law legislation doesn't make a blind bit of difference to that.


If somebody actually addresses that in its entirety, there might be something worth discussing.


It seems you just don't really understand how laws are promulgated. Parliament does not go back and explicitly repeal every bit of legislation that contradicts the present situation: that is done by the doctrine of implied repeal - that more recent statutes implicitly repeal any contradicting terms in previous statutes.

As I said, the Kingdom of England doesn't exist. You seem to have glossed over that.

In law, "England" does not include Wales. "England" is given explicit definition in the Interpretation Act 1978 and, unsurprisingly, does not include Wales under that definition.
William_Cleland

None of that actually addresses the sentence I wrote. If the Acts of Union of 1707 are ever repealed the Interpretation Act 1978 won't make a blind bit of difference to the fact that Wales is part of the legal jurisdiction referred to in that legislation as the "Kingdom of England". There would be a two way split rather than a three way split of Great Britain. I have never disputed that the modern name for one of the three separate legal jurisdictions of the UK is England and Wales. That does not change the fact that Wales does not have the same constitutional status as Scotland and Northern Ireland because English Law applies to Wales but not to Scotland and Northern Ireland, which have separate legal systems from that of England. No more follow ups unless you come up with something that actually addresses this point.
Aventinian

William_Cleland wrote:
None of that actually addresses the sentence I wrote. If the Acts of Union of 1707 are ever repealed the Interpretation Act 1978 won't make a blind bit of difference to the fact that Wales is part of the legal jurisdiction referred to in that legislation as the "Kingdom of England".


The legal existence of the Parliament of the United Kingdom is not dependent on the Acts of Union, nor would the Acts of Union be required to be expressly repealed to make Scotland independent - indeed, to do so would be impractical.

But let me get this straight: you admit that the Kingdom of England no longer exists, and you accept that Wales is separate from England in the modern sense of the terms. Exactly what do you think Wales is a part of?

If an Act is repealed, that does not suddenly revert everything back in time and resurrect extinct institutions. Again, this is clarified by the Interpretation Act 1978 s.15-17 on interpretation of statutory repeals.

Quote:
That does not change the fact that Wales does not have the same constitutional status as Scotland and Northern Ireland because English Law applies to Wales but not to Scotland and Northern Ireland, which have separate legal systems from that of England.


Whether one calls it "English law" or "English and Welsh law" is immaterial, the latter is what it effectively is if it covers the England and Wales legal jurisdiction.
William_Cleland

The United Kingdom of Great Britain was formed through an international treaty between two fully sovereign entities.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk...te/history/SPTradition/treaty.htm

Scottish independence would inherently mean the end of that treaty, the shared institutions formed by it and reemergence of two sovereign entities. Wales is technically part of the "Kingdom of England" in the wording of that treaty even if today the legal jurisdiction covered by English Law is now referred to as England and Wales. This isn't rocket science. End of argument and over and out for this thread as far as I am concerned. Arguing with a sockpuppet used to keep otherwise dead threads active is a complete waste of time.
Aventinian

William_Cleland wrote:
The United Kingdom of Great Britain was formed through an international treaty between two fully sovereign entities.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk...te/history/SPTradition/treaty.htm

Scottish independence would inherently mean the end of that treaty


I disagree entirely. The treaty formed these institutions, they are not dependent on it for their authority. The Parliament of Great Britain created by the Act of Union (which, of course, doesn't even exist any more - since 1801) has never required the Act/Treaty to confer power upon it: indeed, it has not only repealed and amended the Act of Union numerous times, but has exceeded the authority it pretends to give.

Quote:
the shared institutions formed by it and reemergence of two sovereign entities. Wales is technically part of the "Kingdom of England" in the wording of that treaty even if today the legal jurisdiction covered by English Law is now referred to as England and Wales. This isn't rocket science.


The Kingdom of England is no more, it has ceased to be, it has gone to meet its maker, bereft of life it rests in peace. It is an ex-country. It is dissolved 'for ever' (Article 1). It is not going to 're-emerge' any more than your great-grandmother is going to re-emerge from her grave and pop round for afternoon tea if you burn her death certificate. It is gone.

Quote:
Arguing with a sockpuppet used to keep otherwise dead threads active is a complete waste of time.


Nice to see we have yet another conspiracy theorist on this forum.
Cymro

William_Cleland wrote:
None of that actually addresses the sentence I wrote. If the Acts of Union of 1707 are ever repealed the Interpretation Act 1978 won't make a blind bit of difference to the fact that Wales is part of the legal jurisdiction referred to in that legislation as the "Kingdom of England". There would be a two way split rather than a three way split of Great Britain. I have never disputed that the modern name for one of the three separate legal jurisdictions of the UK is England and Wales. That does not change the fact that Wales does not have the same constitutional status as Scotland and Northern Ireland because English Law applies to Wales but not to Scotland and Northern Ireland, which have separate legal systems from that of England. No more follow ups unless you come up with something that actually addresses this point.


English law applies to Wales where stipulated, laws which go through parliament which covers both England and Wales refer to England AND Wales. If Wales was a part of England it would merely be England. Of course old laws will refer to just England as a reflection of the annexation of the 1500's, but as Avetinan said, when a law is passed they don't go back and rewrite everysingle law ever passed before it.

In Wales, the devolution settlement leaves the last majority of powers with Westminster, now being an Unionist you should of course realise that Westminster is the British Parliament not the English Parliament. Welsh MPs, Scottish MPs, Northern Irish MPs and yes, English MPs can vote or not on these issues as they see fit. There are some laws amended under devolution to suit Wales, there are some that come from Westminster and exist exclusively for Wales (Government of Wales Act etc) and a small few that can be fully penned in Wales for Wales - which is going to increase because of the new powers given to the Assembly, so while Wales and England share the same legal system it doesn't make it less of a country within the UK as Scotland is, it just reflects the political nature of Wales within the Union as opposed to Scotlands.

Something you refuse to accept despite the facts in front of you.
Shagpile

Cymro wrote:
English law applies to Wales where stipulated, laws which go through parliament which covers both England and Wales refer to England AND Wales. If Wales was a part of England it would merely be England. Of course old laws will refer to just England as a reflection of the annexation of the 1500's,


Not for me to say how Wales is Governed, except to say it is with the wishes and harmony of the Welsh People.

Quote:
but as Avetinan said, when a law is passed they don't go back and rewrite everysingle law ever passed before it.


From acorns grows the mighty Oak; with respect to your now forming (new) legal system. Again (to be) unique to Wales. Good luck.
mairead

Personally I don't give a rats behind what England the remainder of the UK choose to call themselves once Scotland is independent.  That's up to them.

       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish Politics and Independence
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Our Scotland Hit Counter Scottish Top Site - Topsites Our Scotland Forums Critical Acclaim ~ Politically Progressive Top Sites View Site Stats Scottish Politics