So, a huge, hilarious fight between the Scottish Government and Parliament has finally kicked off.
The issue is that of who actually gets to declare a referendum that can make Scotland independent: the Scottish government or the one in London. Each claims they themselves have the mandate and the constitutional right to do so. As such, hilarity has ensued.
It's not a simple yes/no question, incidentally. While I favour Scottish independence (I think I have a good claim for a Scottish passport), the "devo max" option of transferring a large amount of powers and financial independence to Scotland, but staying within the Union, is also a very popular position.
I also think the Tories doth protest too much. By having a fight with the SNP, everyone wins except Labour. Scotland will be resentful of English, Tory interference in their affairs and so will cleave to the SNP more tightly, meaning the vote for Labour will drop significantly. Meanwhile, if Cameron's own blundering makes Scottish independence more likely, that also makes Tory dominance of English politics more likely (without Scotland voting Labour MPs, the Conservatives have a "structural majority" in UK politics).
Now, all of this could be a little too Machiavellian for The Most Chaotic Government Ever to actually consider. But I'm not so sure.
Anyway, it's going to be fun to watch in the meantime, even if it eventually dooms England to 20 more years of Our Mate Dave running the place.
That is interesting. I'll like to see it play out as well.
I have to admit, I find the idea of Scottish (and Welsh) independence a little bit silly. Mostly because we're a very small island with highly interconnected economies. I also dislike the idea that all those Scottish people (like you, by the sound of it) who have moved to England might be denied a say in whether or not their place of birth gets to stay within the Union.
I also find it aggravating that it is cheaper for someone from France to go to university in Scotland than someone from England. Because for some reason, Europe-ness only counts when it is from the continent? Bizarre. Stupid.
But both Scotland and England have benefited massively from the Union. It has taken a long time, and seeing it start to break up is causing a rise in ugly rhetoric about 'Englishness'. I've got absolutely no claim to anything other than being 'English' if Britain ceases to exist, and most of the people who claim to represent 'Englishness' are disgusting human beings.
All of that said...
I do have to fall in with the Scottish parliament on this, if only because of practical reasons. If the question needs to be asked, nobody else is going to ask it. I hope that this whole issue goes away, but as it seems to have been gathering more and more steam since Thatcher decided it was a great idea to fuck Scotland sideways, I doubt it is going to. Which means more ignorant yammering from people prodding the 'sleeping lion' and even more dividing lines to draw ourselves up along.
Well, strictly speaking, I'm not Scottish. However, I do have a Scottish family background (my last name is Scottish, a clan name in fact) and I lived there for four years while studying. If I had to choose, I would take Scottish over English citizenship in a heartbeat.
Sure, the Union seems a better economic situation than independence. But this has been building steam for a long time. In addition to Thatcherite stupidity, you have a political and media class who are intensely hostile to Scotland and Scottish independence or even political influence at any level (remember the hilarious conspiracy theorizing about a "Scottish cabal" during the Blair years? Most Scots do), bolstered by a petulant English public whose whining and moaning while holding the majority of power in the Union really infuriates even the most mild-mannered of Scottish nationalists.
The way the Scottish see things, it's been insult upon insult delivered by the the most powerful factions of English society against Scottish claims for autonomy and a greater national identity with political influence. Of course, there is also the idea that the Scottish political elite would gain much greater influence in an independent Scotland, even if it meant a decrease in overall influence for Scotland and England in the world. Better to rule in hell and all that.
Also, there is the issue concerning the North Sea oil deposits, which has, to my knowledge, never been concluded successfully. Scotland claims all of them, England claims half. I wont deny admitting I kinda hope that devolves into a war. I am very willing to off David Cameron in the event of a Scottish-English oil war, just give me a uniform, a rank and a serial number. Quotes from Braveheart while doing so will cost extra.
You are right, of course.
The problem is that the English national character is essentially one of over-inflated self importance. We love to perpetuate this idea of England as the underdog who paradoxically rules the waves. That isn't helped by the media (largely based in London of course) continuously feeding us stories about how life in the UK is so much easier if you are anything other than English. Which is patently false, but popularly believed.
Amusingly, my dad was always very proud of his scottish roots. Then we did some family history digging and it turns out we have absolutely no claim to anything other than Englishness as far back as we can find, excepting one relative in the 1800s who may have been exported to America under dubious circumstances.
The final problem is that Tom Nairn is a bit of a dick and Scottish independence would make him happy, so I have a kneejerk reaction against it.
Oh yeah, it's dicks all the way down on this. But there are just too many incentives for everyone in power to actually go ahead with this. The Lib Dems probably wont even realize how they're being played for chumps, despite a venerable tradition of Scottish leaders, they're currently about as insightful on issues north of the border as a bag of bricks. They're also generally pro-devolution, so the chances are, no matter who claims the final say, devo max or full independence is on the cards.
I do wonder how this will effect the UK's relationship with Europe. Scotland has become very popular in EU because of its successful use of structural funding and emerging green energy expertise. In the short term, control over north sea oil is going to be the big question. I'm not convinced it is actually worth it, though. If I'm reading the figures correctly, the tax collected varies with a high of £12bn in 2010 but a more average £6-9bn. That really isn't a huge amount of money. I can see the argument that maintaining control is useful for our energy security, but I doubt there is anywhere near enough oil coming out of the north sea to form a significant strategic reserve.
Scotland has taken a huge slice of the investment pie, too. Edinburgh and Glasgow have become very attractive as alternatives to London since their regeneration projects kicked off. A lot of people are looking at London and feeling that it really doesn't offer anywhere near as much as it needs to in order to support the ridiculous cost of the place.
I suspect that the EU is another one that will work in favour of Scottish independence, given how royally Cameron just fucked us with his recent attempt to "protect the City".
Should Edinburgh become an alternative to London for companies looking to operate in the British Isles, a very real possibility as you note, then I might even be tempted to move back up that way. Property is much cheaper up there, and Edinburgh also has much more potential for expansion. London...not so much. Plus, getting to London from Edinburgh is insanely easy, especially if you plan ahead. Inexpensive, too.
And yeah, the North Sea oil isn't really that important, though I can imagine some heckling about it from the Tory backbenchers. You never know when they'll decide to make a big issue of it in the Telegraph and hammer Cameron's approval ratings. The Tory right are not noted for their rational forward thinking, and they are exactly the kind of people who would make it a matter of pride or something retarded. As if Scotland's not going to sell England the damn oil anyway. I very much doubt anything would come of such a dispute, but it's fun to think about.
Scotland is also trying to build bigger ties with the Scandanavian countries as well, emphasizing it's own past of socialism, heavy drinking and bouts of depression. Sadly, this will probably work, much to the disappointment of Scandanavian tourism industry workers everywhere.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on January 11, 2012, 09:20:45 AM
I have to admit, I find the idea of Scottish (and Welsh) independence a little bit silly.
Fe godwn ni eto!
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on January 11, 2012, 11:55:03 AM
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on January 11, 2012, 09:20:45 AM
I have to admit, I find the idea of Scottish (and Welsh) independence a little bit silly.
Fe godwn ni eto!
*flashbacks*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shFDtLnsKps
I gotta say, I'm probably in favor of anything that further reduces the size of the vestiges of the British Empire. Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, hell even Cornwall, I'm cool with all of those gaining independence. Don't even care if Northern Irish independence leads to unification. I would also argue against the idea that the Britain is too small of an island to have 3 separate countries on it. Ireland's a much smaller island and has two. Scotland and England separately are still larger than the Republic of Ireland both in area and population. Wales would be significantly smaller but it's not like the Isle of Man is a massive country with a huge population.
Or you know, there's also a long tradition of tiny European countries anyway and they seem to do fine.
Quote from: Billy the Twid on January 11, 2012, 02:11:41 PM
I gotta say, I'm probably in favor of anything that further reduces the size of the vestiges of the British Empire. Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, hell even Cornwall, I'm cool with all of those gaining independence. Don't even care if Northern Irish independence leads to unification. I would also argue against the idea that the Britain is too small of an island to have 3 separate countries on it. Ireland's a much smaller island and has two. Scotland and England separately are still larger than the Republic of Ireland both in area and population. Wales would be significantly smaller but it's not like the Isle of Man is a massive country with a huge population.
Or you know, there's also a long tradition of tiny European countries anyway and they seem to do fine.
You do understand of course that the 'Britain' in 'British empire' is England, Scotland and Wales, right?
This isn't exactly the same as Ireland, which is a unique case largely because it was conquered rather than absorbed peacefully. The unification of England, Scotland and Wales is the result of 300 years of shared history, which is being broken up by a largely manufactured nationalism... or more accurately, racism and entitlement.
I fail to understand how you can seriously think breaking up the country down to the level of 'cornwall' is in the best interests of anyone. There might be an argument for Scotland and Wales purely because in recent history they've been fucked by England, but they are likely to suffer a large setback in their respective qualities of life if they became independent. Cornwall would be unable to sustain itself. And the Isle of Man? Do you know anything about how that 'country' operates? Because it is essentially an appendage of the British state, just saying.
I mean don't get me wrong, I'm not the biggest fan of the British State, but are you seriously arguing we should go to a county level breakdown? Do you have any idea what that would actually look like? The distribution of wealth and natural resources in this country is incredibly disproportionate.
How would that even work with our major institutions? They're already arguing about who is going to be left holding the bag with RBS and BOS, our national debt and national obligations, our military...
It's not just a matter of me being Irish and going haha. It's really just a matter of the people deciding their preferred government. If 70% of Cornish people end up favoring independence, hey, more power to them. I'm sure they would be able to find a way to make it work, otherwise they wouldn't seriously consider the option. And I wouldn't say that Scottish and Welsh nationalism is manufactured. Scots seem to be sufficiently different from English for them to feel a sense of nationalism. And Welsh people are a distinct species of cave gnome.
As far as any major institutions, I imagine that London and whatever capital city(ies) will be forced to negotiate that if and when the time comes. I imagine that London will end up bearing the brunt either way.
Quote from: Billy the Twid on January 11, 2012, 02:34:11 PM
It's not just a matter of me being Irish and going haha. It's really just a matter of the people deciding their preferred government. If 70% of Cornish people end up favoring independence, hey, more power to them. I'm sure they would be able to find a way to make it work, otherwise they wouldn't seriously consider the option. And I wouldn't say that Scottish and Welsh nationalism is manufactured. Scots seem to be sufficiently different from English for them to feel a sense of nationalism. And Welsh people are a distinct species of cave gnome.
As far as any major institutions, I imagine that London and whatever capital city(ies) will be forced to negotiate that if and when the time comes. I imagine that London will end up bearing the brunt either way.
What about if it were a city?
How about a part of a city?
How about a house?
It is nice in theory to think that people should be able to decide where they want to draw the lines of nationality, it really is. In practice, in the situation we live in, it is a fairly stupid and impractical concept beyond a certain point. Scotland might be able to make it work...
maybe, but it is going to cause a lot of problems if England says 'Okay, but you take all the debt accumulated by 'your' banks with you'.
When I talk about nationalism being manufactured, by the way, I mean that a
lot of the support for Scottish independence comes from a history which
does not exist. Most Scots (and English for that matter) do not know
why Britain is Britain. It is an invention of the Scottish far right.
Quote from: Billy the Twid on January 11, 2012, 02:34:11 PMScots seem to be sufficiently different from English for them to feel a sense of nationalism.
It's the accent.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on January 11, 2012, 02:42:49 PM
What about if it were a city?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monaco
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Marino
Quote
How about a part of a city?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City
Quote
How about a house?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Military_Order_of_Malta
Quote from: Billy the Twid on January 11, 2012, 03:03:24 PM
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on January 11, 2012, 02:42:49 PM
What about if it were a city?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monaco
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Marino
Quote
How about a part of a city?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City
Quote
How about a house?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Military_Order_of_Malta
And you think these provide an applicable model for the devolving of power in the modern british state.
Okay.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on January 11, 2012, 03:05:42 PM
Quote from: Billy the Twid on January 11, 2012, 03:03:24 PM
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on January 11, 2012, 02:42:49 PM
What about if it were a city?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monaco
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Marino
Quote
How about a part of a city?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City
Quote
How about a house?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Military_Order_of_Malta
And you think these provide an applicable model for the devolving of power in the modern british state.
Okay.
No, obviously every country is different. Britain will have to figure out for itself whatever models it wants to devolve power. That was merely to show you that there are countries that are cities, parts of cities, and even just a house.
Unfortunately, we have to live in reality. Those are examples which have evolved with their own histories, but the historical development there is the important thing. In reality:
If a county (equivalent to state) decides that it wants to secede, there is going to be a war.
If a city decides that it wants to secede from an existing nation state, it is going to be stomped flat.
If a house decides that it wants to secede, it is going to be ignored (unless it starts messing with taxes, at which point see above).
In reality, it may be possible for Scotland and Wales to secede from the Union. They are countries; there is an existing point of division there, even if it is one that is deliberately misrepresented by nationalists on all sides. Doing so is likely to be a tangled and messy situation.
What often gets glossed over in the idea that everyone should be able to determine their own governance is that actually, the effects of deciding you don't want to play by the same rules as your neighbours any more isn't just a matter for you. If Scotland secedes, Scottish business needs to decide what to do about this; so does English business and the English government needs to decide how it is going to relate to this other, smaller state in its borders.
England has a preexisting claim to all the land in England. Britain has a claim to all the land in Britain. We can decide to renege on that and divvy it up again according to those national boundaries, but land doesn't (believe it or not) belong to the people who live on it. Land belongs to the bodies which claim it. In this case it is largely England which 'owns' the land that constitutes the British Isles.
You can't just decide that you're going to declare your 'ownership' of a city or a house more important that England's ownership of it. England has a claim stretching back hundreds of years into the past and with an unspoken pact to continue to protect that land hundreds of years into the future.
Nations are historical constructs, and tend to be created only when other nations cease to exist and can no longer enforce their claim over the land that they define as theirs. I sincerely doubt that 'England' is going anywhere any time soon, even if 'Britain' does, so aside from all the logistical points as to why arguing for devolution down to such small levels is ridiculous, there's the practical point that they will fucking kill you before they let that idea get any traction.
Not every secession leads to war. SO in a hypothetical situation where Cornwall secedes, do you actually see war happening? Or do you see more of a "ok, guys, have fun in your sandbox. Dinner will be on the table when you're tired of playing in it."? And what is the basis of the claim that England owns the land? Does it come down from the Royal Family? If so, how seriously would the English government or the English people take that, if the Queen were to come up and say, "This is my property, where's your rent payment?" I ask because this is the first that I'm hearing about it, and don't know how that concept still works in the modern day where your feudal system is more an excuse for your old money to have fancy titles than anything else.
And yes, I understand that Scottish and English business will have to figure out how they relate to each other and everything. But again, that comes down to what sort of independence that the Scots would get. Are they going to set up a wholly independent republic? Are they going to have a separate parliament but continue to have the Queen as head of state? Is the Scottish pound still going to be pegged to the English pound? Is the UK going to turn into some sort of confederacy, a bunch of Canadas, a collection of Commonwealth states? What? These are all things that effect the how. So, yeah, if they can figure out how to make it work, great. I highly doubt England is about to go to war with anyone over them leaving the Union, regardless of size of that seceding area.
Quote from: Billy the Twid on January 11, 2012, 03:41:05 PM
Not every secession leads to war. SO in a hypothetical situation where Cornwall secedes, do you actually see war happening? Or do you see more of a "ok, guys, have fun in your sandbox. Dinner will be on the table when you're tired of playing in it."? And what is the basis of the claim that England owns the land? Does it come down from the Royal Family? If so, how seriously would the English government or the English people take that, if the Queen were to come up and say, "This is my property, where's your rent payment?" I ask because this is the first that I'm hearing about it, and don't know how that concept still works in the modern day where your feudal system is more an excuse for your old money to have fancy titles than anything else.
And yes, I understand that Scottish and English business will have to figure out how they relate to each other and everything. But again, that comes down to what sort of independence that the Scots would get. Are they going to set up a wholly independent republic? Are they going to have a separate parliament but continue to have the Queen as head of state? Is the Scottish pound still going to be pegged to the English pound? Is the UK going to turn into some sort of confederacy, a bunch of Canadas, a collection of Commonwealth states? What? These are all things that effect the how. So, yeah, if they can figure out how to make it work, great. I highly doubt England is about to go to war with anyone over them leaving the Union, regardless of size of that seceding area.
I don't have access to my textbooks at work and I can't remember the exact acts off the top of my head. I will try and find time to look them up and provide references for 'where England comes from' then.
In the bizarre hypothetical world where Cornwall decides that it is no longer going to recognize the authority of Westminster, will no longer pay taxes and secedes completely... yes, I believe the army would be used to stop that, after all other measures fail. How do you think America would react if Texas decided that they're going to make good on their desire to secede?
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on January 11, 2012, 03:48:22 PM
Quote from: Billy the Twid on January 11, 2012, 03:41:05 PM
Not every secession leads to war. SO in a hypothetical situation where Cornwall secedes, do you actually see war happening? Or do you see more of a "ok, guys, have fun in your sandbox. Dinner will be on the table when you're tired of playing in it."? And what is the basis of the claim that England owns the land? Does it come down from the Royal Family? If so, how seriously would the English government or the English people take that, if the Queen were to come up and say, "This is my property, where's your rent payment?" I ask because this is the first that I'm hearing about it, and don't know how that concept still works in the modern day where your feudal system is more an excuse for your old money to have fancy titles than anything else.
And yes, I understand that Scottish and English business will have to figure out how they relate to each other and everything. But again, that comes down to what sort of independence that the Scots would get. Are they going to set up a wholly independent republic? Are they going to have a separate parliament but continue to have the Queen as head of state? Is the Scottish pound still going to be pegged to the English pound? Is the UK going to turn into some sort of confederacy, a bunch of Canadas, a collection of Commonwealth states? What? These are all things that effect the how. So, yeah, if they can figure out how to make it work, great. I highly doubt England is about to go to war with anyone over them leaving the Union, regardless of size of that seceding area.
I don't have access to my textbooks at work and I can't remember the exact acts off the top of my head. I will try and find time to look them up and provide references for 'where England comes from' then.
In the bizarre hypothetical world where Cornwall decides that it is no longer going to recognize the authority of Westminster, will no longer pay taxes and secedes completely... yes, I believe the army would be used to stop that, after all other measures fail. How do you think America would react if Texas decided that they're going to make good on their desire to secede?
We'd celebrate. Seriously though, we've gone through the secession thing before, and war only broke out because the Confederacy attacked the Union over a military fort on an island off the coast of South Carolina. We weren't going to do anything. Lincoln had already said that while the USA would not recognize the CSA, it wouldn't step in and interfere either.
Yeah.
If you are naive enough to think that any nation state is going to allow a threat to its sovereignty as profound as 'we just don't recognize you any more' coming from within its own borders, I don't really know what to tell you.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on January 11, 2012, 03:56:24 PM
Yeah.
If you are naive enough to think that any nation state is going to allow a threat to its sovereignty as profound as 'we just don't recognize you any more' coming from within its own borders, I don't really know what to tell you.
Which perspective are you taking, that of the Confederacy or the Union?
Because if you're saying that the US would have eventually attacked the CS, I doubt it.
I'm grounding things in the modern day. Where we live. Not being a scholar of the American Civil War, I have no idea what the circumstances were.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on January 11, 2012, 04:04:45 PM
I'm grounding things in the modern day. Where we live. Not being a scholar of the American Civil War, I have no idea what the circumstances were.
You mentioned the possibility of Texas seceding. Since that did in fact happen, the Civil War was going to get mentioned.
And you think the US would allow Texas to secede in the modern day? Okay.
You know who else thought all countries, cities, nations, ethnic groups and indeed political activist groups had the right to secede?
Trotsky, that's who (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1922/red-white/ch09.htm).
I mean really.
We know that the primary purpose of the modern Nation State is to maintain favorable and stable economic conditions. This is why devolution has been a long and torturous process and why Westminster wants to avoid Scotland seceding. The results may not be that destabilizing anyway in the long term, so they might just let it happen anyway. Same goes for Wales, the poorest part of the UK incidentally.
But do you really contest that if random cities and smaller units started to secede, radically shaking up the status quo and causing massive amounts of logistical, regulatory and practical confusion, action wouldn't be taken to stop that?
Throw in things like the military, nuclear power stations, nuclear missile silos and so forth, and you've got all of that to deal with as well as the question of taxation.
Really? You think that this sort of thing would be received with better grace than the Middle East has shown? Really?
I think the EU and the UK as a former colonial power probably have a greater body of expertise to draw upon than most nations when it comes to this sort of thing.
However, it would still be a tortorously long, painful and difficult process which would be rendered mostly pointless by the virtue of all of us still being in the EU anyway.
I fail to see how a seceding city is going to cause more turmoil than a seceding principality or a seceding kingdom.
Also i dont think that because the civil war happened over a hundred years ago makes the example any less valid especially where you brought it up. I gave an example of a split that could have been peaceful.
But heres some splits that were peaceful. Singapore-malaysia austria-hungary norway-sweden czechoslovakia and the ussr.
Quote from: Cain on January 11, 2012, 04:27:14 PM
I think the EU and the UK as a former colonial power probably have a greater body of expertise to draw upon than most nations when it comes to this sort of thing.
However, it would still be a tortorously long, painful and difficult process which would be rendered mostly pointless by the virtue of all of us still being in the EU anyway.
Agreed. Britain has claimed quite a bit of the planet over the years. It doesn't hold them any longer... their claim over Scotland or Wales is no more or less legit than their claims over other areas like India and Hong Kong.
At best, they might claim Wales based on welsh support for the rise of the Tudors and the alliances made then. Though that was mostly a minority and mostly because the welsh had been so poorly treated that having a welsh blood line on the throne was a chance to finally become something other than second-class citizens.
Personally, I believe that any UNION of states should have an option for secession.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on January 11, 2012, 04:40:23 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 11, 2012, 04:27:14 PM
I think the EU and the UK as a former colonial power probably have a greater body of expertise to draw upon than most nations when it comes to this sort of thing.
However, it would still be a tortorously long, painful and difficult process which would be rendered mostly pointless by the virtue of all of us still being in the EU anyway.
Agreed. Britain has claimed quite a bit of the planet over the years. It doesn't hold them any longer... their claim over Scotland or Wales is no more or less legit than their claims over other areas like India and Hong Kong.
At best, they might claim Wales based on welsh support for the rise of the Tudors and the alliances made then. Though that was mostly a minority and mostly because the welsh had been so poorly treated that having a welsh blood line on the throne was a chance to finally become something other than second-class citizens.
Personally, I believe that any UNION of states should have an option for secession.
Well you're wrong there for a start. England and Scotland merged in an act (I can't remember which act) whereby scottish parliament and British parliament became one. It wasn't conquered or enslaved or colonized like other parts of the empire.
I'm less certain on the Welsh history, but to say England dominated Scotland in the same way it dominated Hong Kong and India is just factually incorrect.
Acts of Union, 1707
Britain and ireland had a similar act passed in 1801. Just saying. So it was both conquered militarily and annexed legislatively.
Quote from: Billy the Twid on January 11, 2012, 04:45:56 PM
Britain and ireland had a similar act passed in 1801. Just saying. So it was both conquered militarily and annexed legislatively.
Apart from the whole "having had the same king for 100 years previously" which, incidentally, started with a Scottish King inheriting an English crown, sure.
Apart from that, the two situations are almost exactly the same.
Quote from: Billy the Twid on January 11, 2012, 04:31:41 PM
I fail to see how a seceding city is going to cause more turmoil than a seceding principality or a seceding kingdom.
Also i dont think that because the civil war happened over a hundred years ago makes the example any less valid especially where you brought it up. I gave an example of a split that could have been peaceful.
But heres some splits that were peaceful. Singapore-malaysia austria-hungary norway-sweden czechoslovakia and the ussr.
wait, you really don't think the civil war example is invalid because it happened 150 years ago in a world RADICALLY different from the one we live in now?
OK.
Also, Czechoslovakia was never part of the USSR.
Its an example of secession in the modern period. Also it was supposed to be read as czechoslovakia, and the ussr.
Quote from: TwidSingapore-malaysia austria-hungary norway-sweden czechoslovakia and the ussr.
As I swing through on the way to my game tonight I am informed that Singapore was expelled from Malaysia.
I'm not sure on Austria Hungary. Do you mean the eleven nation split
following world war one? Because I daresay WW1 had something to do with that.
Quote from: Billy the Twid on January 11, 2012, 06:13:03 PM
Its an example of secession in the modern period. Also it was supposed to be read as czechoslovakia, and the ussr.
Really don't see it as 'the modern period'. We've gone through two world wars (one world cup), nuclear weapons, the cold war and post-9/11 paradigms of international relations, all of which have altered the relations nation states have with their populations.
Anyway. Just thought I'd swing back to post the 1707 Acts of Union... but Cain beat me to it!
Alright im willing to concede that the world that birthed the csa was a different one. But you did ask what would happen if texas seceded. Since there was historical precedent for that particular state (which also seceded from mexico) i could say with reasonable certainty what might happen if someone didnt get trigger happy.
There is literally ZERO chance that the USA would allow Texas to secede from the union, even if they had to kill every living motherfucker in Texas to keep it.
it is my understanding that the pentagon has military plans for every conceivable contingency that might arise. i'd be curious what their plans for a TX secession would look like... (as ridiculously unlikely as that eventuality might be)
I think the only state that could ever successfully secede from the union would be Washington. I mean, yeah, it's one of a few states that could survive as a first-world economy on its own but more importantly as soon as US forces tried to mobilize to stop the secession all of their computer systems would mysteriously stop working.
Quote from: Cain on January 11, 2012, 09:39:27 AMI wont deny admitting I kinda hope that devolves into a war. I am very willing to off David Cameron in the event of a Scottish-English oil war, just give me a uniform, a rank and a serial number. Quotes from Braveheart while doing so will cost extra.
:lulz:
Interesting thread btw.
Never realized that Scotland is in fact also generally popular in the EU, for me it's just that a lot of awesome people I know from the UK also happen to be Scottish.
Plus everybody knows the Scottish make whiskey and really what has England ever done for us? ;-) It's given us Dr Who but what else?
The Magna Carta?
I love Scotland, and want to move there. However from the point of view of being a lefty in England, I selfishly hope that they DON'T get independence, because we need them to not vote Tory as they are apt to do, to keep the country from falling into a right wing wasteland, politically. SNP and Labour to a lesser extent are left wing.
At least until I move there, anyway.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on January 11, 2012, 04:42:26 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on January 11, 2012, 04:40:23 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 11, 2012, 04:27:14 PM
I think the EU and the UK as a former colonial power probably have a greater body of expertise to draw upon than most nations when it comes to this sort of thing.
However, it would still be a tortorously long, painful and difficult process which would be rendered mostly pointless by the virtue of all of us still being in the EU anyway.
Agreed. Britain has claimed quite a bit of the planet over the years. It doesn't hold them any longer... their claim over Scotland or Wales is no more or less legit than their claims over other areas like India and Hong Kong.
At best, they might claim Wales based on welsh support for the rise of the Tudors and the alliances made then. Though that was mostly a minority and mostly because the welsh had been so poorly treated that having a welsh blood line on the throne was a chance to finally become something other than second-class citizens.
Personally, I believe that any UNION of states should have an option for secession.
Well you're wrong there for a start. England and Scotland merged in an act (I can't remember which act) whereby scottish parliament and British parliament became one. It wasn't conquered or enslaved or colonized like other parts of the empire.
I'm less certain on the Welsh history, but to say England dominated Scotland in the same way it dominated Hong Kong and India is just factually incorrect.
You are correct. Scotland did sign itself away as did Wales. In the case of Wales, the act of union was sort of a "join us or remain under our control anyway". I haven't read as much about Scotland, but I thought the options were similar. I could well be wrong.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on January 11, 2012, 08:57:07 PM
I think the only state that could ever successfully secede from the union would be Washington. I mean, yeah, it's one of a few states that could survive as a first-world economy on its own but more importantly as soon as US forces tried to mobilize to stop the secession all of their computer systems would mysteriously stop working.
:lulz: Thats what they get for using closed source!!
The circumstances were totally different for Scotland.
Scottish kings ruled England for a century preceeding the Acts of Union. Steps were taken to preserve the Scottish legal code and otherwise put Scotland on an entirely equal legal footing with England, especially in regards to trade.
Given there had been a back and forth trade war between England and Scotland, not to mention disagreements about the succession after the death of Queen Anne, the Act of Union was actually a huge compromise for both sides, and dealt effectively with many of the issues arising from personal union, such as the Scottish Parliament doing one thing, the English Parliament doing the exact opposite, and the monarch having to try and get them on the same page.
Quote from: Cain on January 12, 2012, 03:50:49 PM
The circumstances were totally different for Scotland.
Scottish kings ruled England for a century preceeding the Acts of Union. Steps were taken to preserve the Scottish legal code and otherwise put Scotland on an entirely equal legal footing with England, especially in regards to trade.
Given there had been a back and forth trade war between England and Scotland, not to mention disagreements about the succession after the death of Queen Anne, the Act of Union was actually a huge compromise for both sides, and dealt effectively with many of the issues arising from personal union, such as the Scottish Parliament doing one thing, the English Parliament doing the exact opposite, and the monarch having to try and get them on the same page.
Thanks Cain!
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 12, 2012, 01:06:00 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 11, 2012, 09:39:27 AMI wont deny admitting I kinda hope that devolves into a war. I am very willing to off David Cameron in the event of a Scottish-English oil war, just give me a uniform, a rank and a serial number. Quotes from Braveheart while doing so will cost extra.
:lulz:
Interesting thread btw.
Never realized that Scotland is in fact also generally popular in the EU, for me it's just that a lot of awesome people I know from the UK also happen to be Scottish.
Plus everybody knows the Scottish make whiskey and really what has England ever done for us? ;-) It's given us Dr Who but what else?
New Wave of British Heavy Metal. Gin. Bass Ale. Patrick Stewart.
I counter with:
The Beatles. Pimm's. Bass Ale. Russell Brand.
ahem ...
Quote from: WikipediaThe Dutch physician Franciscus Sylvius is credited with the invention of gin.[7][8] By the mid 17th century, numerous small Dutch and Belgian distillers (some 400 in Amsterdam alone by 1663) had popularized the redistillation of malt spirit or wine with juniper, anise, caraway, coriander, etc.,[9] which were sold in pharmacies and used to treat such medical problems as kidney ailments, lumbago, stomach ailments, gallstones, and gout. It was found in Holland by English troops who were fighting against the Spanish in the Eighty Years War who noticed its calming effects before battle, which is the origin of the term Dutch courage.[citation needed] Gin emerged in England in varying forms as of the early 17th century, and at the time of the Restoration, enjoyed a brief resurgence. When William of Orange, ruler of the Dutch Republic, occupied the British throne with his wife Mary in what has become known as the Glorious Revolution, gin became vastly more popular,[10] particularly in crude, inferior forms, where it was more likely to be flavored with turpentine[citation needed].
So that leaves ... Patrick Stewart?
Oh and of course
IRN BRU !!
Isn't Irn Bru Scottish?
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 12, 2012, 06:12:04 PM
ahem ...
Quote from: WikipediaThe Dutch physician Franciscus Sylvius is credited with the invention of gin.[7][8] By the mid 17th century, numerous small Dutch and Belgian distillers (some 400 in Amsterdam alone by 1663) had popularized the redistillation of malt spirit or wine with juniper, anise, caraway, coriander, etc.,[9] which were sold in pharmacies and used to treat such medical problems as kidney ailments, lumbago, stomach ailments, gallstones, and gout. It was found in Holland by English troops who were fighting against the Spanish in the Eighty Years War who noticed its calming effects before battle, which is the origin of the term Dutch courage.[citation needed] Gin emerged in England in varying forms as of the early 17th century, and at the time of the Restoration, enjoyed a brief resurgence. When William of Orange, ruler of the Dutch Republic, occupied the British throne with his wife Mary in what has become known as the Glorious Revolution, gin became vastly more popular,[10] particularly in crude, inferior forms, where it was more likely to be flavored with turpentine[citation needed].
So that leaves ... Patrick Stewart?
Oh and of course IRN BRU !!
And New Wave of British Heavy Metal, unless you guys invented that too.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on January 12, 2012, 06:16:41 PM
Isn't Irn Bru Scottish?
Dunno actually. Had it first time in Edinburgh (got hooked immediately), but it's sold all over the UK.
Quote from: Billy the Twid on January 12, 2012, 06:17:19 PM
And New Wave of British Heavy Metal, unless you guys invented that too.
I suppose. Never heard of the term before, which is when I usually assume the Dutch invented it and I'm usually right.
NWOBHM doesn't make up for The Beatles.
Especially since without NWOBHM we'd all have been spared from ever having to listen to Metallica.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on January 12, 2012, 06:29:12 PM
NWOBHM doesn't make up for The Beatles.
Especially since without NWOBHM we'd all have been spared from ever having to listen to Metallica.
Rock n roll was pretty cool until the British fucked it all up.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on January 12, 2012, 06:29:12 PM
NWOBHM doesn't make up for The Beatles.
Especially since without NWOBHM we'd all have been spared from ever having to listen to Metallica.
Good point.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 12, 2012, 06:26:23 PM
Quote from: Billy the Twid on January 12, 2012, 06:17:19 PM
And New Wave of British Heavy Metal, unless you guys invented that too.
I suppose. Never heard of the term before, which is when I usually assume the Dutch invented it and I'm usually right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Wave_of_British_Heavy_Metal
Iron Maiden is probably the best known NWOBHM band.
Yeah I shoulda guessed the "British" part in the name probably meant it was them, but otherwise, if you don't know, best bet is to assume the Dutch came up with it.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 12, 2012, 06:37:38 PM
Yeah I shoulda guessed the "British" part in the name probably meant it was them, but otherwise, if you don't know, best bet is to assume the Dutch came up with it.
Like how the Belgians invented French Fries and such.
and the microscope and orange carrots and the CD and the ECG and brandy and the words "drill" and "Yankee" (and "apartheid") and ummmm ... I should collect a list or something :P
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 12, 2012, 06:46:52 PM
and the microscope and orange carrots and the CD and the ECG and brandy and the words "drill" and "Yankee" (and "apartheid") and ummmm ... I should collect a list or something :P
You should, and make a clip going, this is what we did for you fuckers besides give tourists hookers, weed, and funny wooden shoes.
and cheese and tulips and windmills and dikes and gay marriage.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 12, 2012, 06:52:12 PM
and cheese and tulips and windmills and dikes and gay marriage.
No need to be nasty about it. What you got against lesbians?
Pixie - I counter the Magna Carta by reminding you the Scots wrote the Declaration of Arbroath
Trip - Pixie. The English are awesome.
Cain - You reckon the Unionists are going to try and run a "Think about the economics of it all!!!!!" campaign? Personally, I reckon that'd be a huge mistake seeing as the Scots are likely to see those self same unionists as causing the apparent lack of any economy right now, while we ARE still part of the union... Also I know by "Scottish Mafia" you don't refer to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown et al, but to Payne P3nT Syn, Davedim and, well, you. The Scottish Empire requires your landmass.
Twid - Haggis. You know what you have to do.
Dem Squids, Dem Squids - Dude, chill. We were only joking.
Roger - You have obviously forgotten about the Bay City Rollers. For shame.
Dictated but not read. I'm too damn busy working my way through thw White Album and a bottle of pimms. Hugs and Kisses, your Absent Messiah.
Quote from: The Payne on January 12, 2012, 07:33:12 PM
Pixie - I counter the Magna Carta by reminding you the Scots wrote the Declaration of Arbroath
Isn't that where they declared that they were gonna make everyone in the UK eat haggis?
Quote from: The Payne on January 12, 2012, 07:33:12 PM
Roger - You have obviously forgotten about the Bay City Rollers. For shame.
I am disgraced. :sad:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 12, 2012, 07:34:25 PM
Quote from: The Payne on January 12, 2012, 07:33:12 PM
Pixie - I counter the Magna Carta by reminding you the Scots wrote the Declaration of Arbroath
Isn't that where they declared that they were gonna make everyone in the UK eat haggis?
[/quote]
Yes. And everyone is forced to enjure the torture of Death by a Thousand Verses of Rabbie Burrrrrrrrrns. Any survivors get to stand at the very highest point of the Scott Monument. The very high and very spiky highest point.
The Magna Carta is just a fucking recipe for soggy fish'n'chips.
Quote
Quote from: The Payne on January 12, 2012, 07:33:12 PM
Roger - You have obviously forgotten about the Bay City Rollers. For shame.
I am disgraced. :sad:
Rectify yobadself. Three Holy Tom Patons and some good deed in the community will absolve your sin.
Quote from: The Payne on January 12, 2012, 07:39:11 PM
QuoteQuote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 12, 2012, 07:34:25 PM
Quote from: The Payne on January 12, 2012, 07:33:12 PM
Pixie - I counter the Magna Carta by reminding you the Scots wrote the Declaration of Arbroath
Isn't that where they declared that they were gonna make everyone in the UK eat haggis?
Yes. And everyone is forced to enjure the torture of Death by a Thousand Verses of Rabbie Burrrrrrrrrns. Any survivors get to stand at the very highest point of the Scott Monument. The very high and very spiky highest point.
The Magna Carta is just a fucking recipe for soggy fish'n'chips.
Quote
Quote from: The Payne on January 12, 2012, 07:33:12 PM
Roger - You have obviously forgotten about the Bay City Rollers. For shame.
I am disgraced. :sad:
Rectify yobadself. Three Holy Tom Patons and some good deed in the community will absolve your sin.
Sorry, Payne. I'm out of the business. There will be no good deeds, by anyone's definition.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 12, 2012, 07:40:27 PM
Quote from: The Payne on January 12, 2012, 07:39:11 PM
QuoteQuote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 12, 2012, 07:34:25 PM
Quote from: The Payne on January 12, 2012, 07:33:12 PM
Pixie - I counter the Magna Carta by reminding you the Scots wrote the Declaration of Arbroath
Isn't that where they declared that they were gonna make everyone in the UK eat haggis?
Yes. And everyone is forced to enjure the torture of Death by a Thousand Verses of Rabbie Burrrrrrrrrns. Any survivors get to stand at the very highest point of the Scott Monument. The very high and very spiky highest point.
The Magna Carta is just a fucking recipe for soggy fish'n'chips.
Quote
Quote from: The Payne on January 12, 2012, 07:33:12 PM
Roger - You have obviously forgotten about the Bay City Rollers. For shame.
I am disgraced. :sad:
Rectify yobadself. Three Holy Tom Patons and some good deed in the community will absolve your sin.
Sorry, Payne. I'm out of the business. There will be no good deeds, by anyone's definition.
:sad:
You make the Babby Payne cry...
Quote from: The Payne on January 12, 2012, 07:41:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 12, 2012, 07:40:27 PM
Quote from: The Payne on January 12, 2012, 07:39:11 PM
QuoteQuote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 12, 2012, 07:34:25 PM
Quote from: The Payne on January 12, 2012, 07:33:12 PM
Pixie - I counter the Magna Carta by reminding you the Scots wrote the Declaration of Arbroath
Isn't that where they declared that they were gonna make everyone in the UK eat haggis?
Yes. And everyone is forced to enjure the torture of Death by a Thousand Verses of Rabbie Burrrrrrrrrns. Any survivors get to stand at the very highest point of the Scott Monument. The very high and very spiky highest point.
The Magna Carta is just a fucking recipe for soggy fish'n'chips.
Quote
Quote from: The Payne on January 12, 2012, 07:33:12 PM
Roger - You have obviously forgotten about the Bay City Rollers. For shame.
I am disgraced. :sad:
Rectify yobadself. Three Holy Tom Patons and some good deed in the community will absolve your sin.
Sorry, Payne. I'm out of the business. There will be no good deeds, by anyone's definition.
:sad:
You make the Babby Payne cry...
Sorry. :(
If this song is not played in support of Scottish Independence (possibly ironically) I shall be most cross.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAHYF8KKkWU
I think the economy will form part of the unionist argument, but I think they will mostly concentrate on the "this is going to make a big fucking mess" part of it.
Wait for the UNSC seat, the nuclear weapons and the division of the military to be talked about.
Quote from: The Payne on January 12, 2012, 07:33:12 PM
Also I know by "Scottish Mafia" you don't refer to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown et al, but to Payne P3nT Syn, Davedim and, well, you. The Scottish Empire requires your landmass.
This^
Not sure whether i am for or against a nuclear scotland. Actually would scotland want to be nuclear or make a habit of military engagements?
Hey, Syn is back! Hi, Syn!
:wave:
Quote from: Billy the Twid on January 12, 2012, 08:15:32 PM
Not sure whether i am for or against a nuclear scotland. Actually would scotland want to be nuclear or make a habit of military engagements?
I am for it. Unequivocally.
Hey syn you may want a gander at wompertainment. I included you a week or so ago.
Scotland requires a nuclear arsenal for self-defense and to deter the imperialist, war-mongering regime to the south, which has already shown its contempt for international law in the toppling of many "rogue regimes" in the recent past, and whose current leader's religious convictions are disturbing in a modern, post-industrial society.
Quote from: Cain on January 12, 2012, 08:20:34 PM
Scotland requires a nuclear arsenal for self-defense and to deter the imperialist, war-mongering regime to the south, which has already shown its contempt for international law in the toppling of many "rogue regimes" in the recent past, and whose current leader's religious convictions are disturbing in a modern, post-industrial society.
Actually, my guess is they'll continue their traditions and use it on themselves.
So long as they do it on a day the wind is blowing southwards, I'm fine with that outcome.
Makes sense to me laddie. If scots can be trusted with faster than light engines i suppose they can be trusted with nukes too.
Quote from: Billy the Twid on January 12, 2012, 06:33:55 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on January 12, 2012, 06:29:12 PM
NWOBHM doesn't make up for The Beatles.
Especially since without NWOBHM we'd all have been spared from ever having to listen to Metallica.
Good point.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 12, 2012, 06:26:23 PM
Quote from: Billy the Twid on January 12, 2012, 06:17:19 PM
And New Wave of British Heavy Metal, unless you guys invented that too.
I suppose. Never heard of the term before, which is when I usually assume the Dutch invented it and I'm usually right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Wave_of_British_Heavy_Metal
Iron Maiden is the best NWOBHM band.
Edited for brevity AND accuracy.
Quote from: Billy the Twid on January 12, 2012, 08:15:32 PM
Not sure whether i am for or against a nuclear scotland. Actually would scotland want to be nuclear or make a habit of military engagements?
If I was surrounded by English, Irish, and Wwwylllscchhh I'd goddamn want nuclear weapons.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on January 13, 2012, 12:07:37 AM
Quote from: Billy the Twid on January 12, 2012, 08:15:32 PM
Not sure whether i am for or against a nuclear scotland. Actually would scotland want to be nuclear or make a habit of military engagements?
If I was surrounded by English, Irish, and Wwwylllscchhh I'd goddamn want nuclear weapons.
:lol:
Ech you just earned yourself two beers for when we meet in person.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on January 13, 2012, 12:07:37 AM
Quote from: Billy the Twid on January 12, 2012, 08:15:32 PM
Not sure whether i am for or against a nuclear scotland. Actually would scotland want to be nuclear or make a habit of military engagements?
If I was surrounded by English, Irish, and Wwwylllscchhh I'd goddamn want nuclear weapons.
I believe this is the best argument I have ever seen for encouraging the development of nuclear weapons. :lulz:
Speaking as a one from Scotland, I find myself in a strange political position here. I really really dislike nationalism (with a passion,) but this will shake up the system and I like that idea.
In all honesty I can't see independence really changing the lives of normal people in any significant way but I'm starting to get bored with the current arrangement, and this could be a good opportunity to shake things up.
Hah, fun times
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/03/propaganda-against-scotland/
The only French MP who could give a statement on Scotland leaving the UK was a former Labour Party reseacher, and the Scottish maritime border, which includes its oil assets, is apparently somewhere north of Dundee.
All I need to know: If Scotland is independent then the border becomes an international one, with checkpoints and passport control and shit, right?
If that's the case then I can make some coin smuggling goods and people across it. I'm all in favour. Otherwise - who gives a shit?
It becomes an EU border. So unlesss you've got some audacious plans for smuggling in Norwegians across the border in that kayak of yours...
Foiled again :argh!:
We could still declare war on the english tho, right?
Oh dear (http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/6885-bbc-scotland-hard-core-on-war-footing-as-the-battle-for-minds-heats-up):
QuoteThe publication of the report that details Scotland's fiscal health has confirmed that Scotland is subsidising the UK. There's really no other way to portray the figures contained in GERS.
Well, not unless you are BBC Scotland who yesterday provided yet more evidence to the growing list of incriminatory episodes that are fast leading to the conclusion that there is a corrupt element at Pacific Quay.
In the introduction to last night's News at Ten, Jackie Bird trailed the Scottish slot with the following statement: "The official figures that show how much Scotland relies on oil money to pay the bills if it became an independent country"
Scotland apparently produces nothing at all – save for some oil and gas near our shores that is volatile and running out, it'll be gone the day after we vote for independence.
The late night introduction ended a particularly bruising and brutal day for those of us who longed for the days of honest journalism. It began with a carefully contrived 'leak' of a document that set the tone for how BBC Scotland would approach the release of official figures that demonstrated the relative wealth of those Scots who pay their wages.
The leaked document was timed to deflect attention from the GERS report, as was the 'downgrading' of the Scottish economy by the Fraser of Allander Institute, the Mystic Meg of economic forecasters.
In any war, the propaganda vehicle must diminish the 'gains' of the enemy whilst embellishing positive news for its own side. Thus, BBC Scotland's role yesterday wasn't to report on the GERS report in a factual manner, it was to diminish the effectiveness of the figures and blunt what was certain to be a considerable boost for the Yes campaign.
The Reporting Scotland tea-time news item witnessed former Herald Political Editor Douglas Fraser dispense with any pretence of journalistic integrity as he sought to turn good news about his own nation into bad.
The introduction from Jackie Bird was always expected "Can we afford independence? ... the Government are spending a lot more than Scots are paying in tax".
Fraser's job as the Business and Economy Editor ought to have been restricted to the report itself and an explanation of the figures. Indeed it is acceptable to highlight the deficit if it is clearly explained that this is the norm for countries and that Scotland's deficit as a proportion of GDP is a sign of rude good health.
But alas what we got was a mixture of the BBC 'leak' and a prediction of doom from a think tank that has well documented links to the Labour party. The mixing of three different subjects allowed Fraser to dilute the effectiveness of the GERS figures and introduce all kinds of politically motivated rhetoric. Good news thus sounded bad when all three were mixed and conflated.
So what exactly is Scotland doing to keep their economy so strong?
A very diverse industrial base producing luxury goods, agriculture, electronics, textiles, housing construction and financial services, in addition to oil and gas. Scotland also heavily invests in education.
Tourism brings in a pretty decent amount, too.
No shit? I thought it was a bunch of drunk yahoos punching each other in the face.
Wait, no, that's America. My bad.
No, that's Glasgow.
Glasgow was best summed up by Frankie Boyle, the Scottish comedian, on an episode of Mock The Week. When asked to come up with lines one wouldn't hear in Doctor Who, Boyle said:
"Looks like we've materialised in the 19th century. Oh no, it's Glasgow, 2007."
:lol:
Quote from: Cain on March 08, 2013, 02:55:55 PM
No, that's Glasgow.
Glasgow was best summed up by Frankie Boyle, the Scottish comedian, on an episode of Mock The Week. When asked to come up with lines one wouldn't hear in Doctor Who, Boyle said:
"Looks like we've materialised in the 19th century. Oh no, it's Glasgow, 2007."
This. Everything north of Calander is like fucking paradise. Watch the movie Local Hero, you'll get the picture. Then watch Neds and you'll have Strathclyde and Central in a nutshell.
I live in Central, so I stomp anyone who comes within stomping range on general principle. Soon as I'm north, I'm the nicest guy you ever met.
The propaganda is picking up again (http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/05/bbc-propaganda-hits-new-all-time-low/#rssowlmlink):
QuoteBut what makes this propaganda utterly unforgiveable is that Vote No Borders is not a grassroots campaign at all but a government organized campaign which has mysteriously acquired start-up cash of 400,000 pounds with no declared origin.
The registered office of Vote No Borders, a private limited company, is at 24 Chiswell Street, London, EC2Y 4YX . Which is perhaps surprising for a "Scottish grassroots campaign". The directors are Malcolm Offord and Fiona Gilmore.
Now pay close attention: Fiona Gilmore is chief executive of Acanchi a PR Consultany which specializes in "Country Branding". Its clients include Israel, Dubai, Bahrain and "England". Yes, it actually specifies "England" on the company website. Acanchi also works for DFID – in short, it gets UK taxpayers' money, plus Israeli and Gulf Arab money. Are you familiar with the word fungibility?
Malcolm Offord, it turns out, has donated over 120,000 pounds to the Conservative Party plus made personal donations to Michael Gove. He is the author of the report "Bankrupt Britain" on the Conservative Home website. In his paper Offord suggests that further cuts in UK public spending should continue to be made even after the present debt crisis has been passed[.]
What is it with Tories and Gulf money? I'm noticing that connection popping up a LOT lately.
I've said from the git go - if westminster wants to retain ownership of scotland then the people of scotland will vote "no", regardless of how the people of scotland vote.
Most likely scenario? - this is a huge fucking propaganda exercise to quell dissent, ahead of a massive austery asset stripping exercise
Zombie thread mode - It's hilarious to come back to this thread and see how ACCURATE AND RITE P3nT was (and generally is). :horrormirth:
It's a pretty simple formula really. The truth of the matter is always the exact opposite of what they say on the BBC. That's how I knew all along that boris johnson is actually a woman and thus predicted the "covid infection" story half way through the third trimester, as I just new that a well heeled tart like that was going to take extended (paid) maternity leave upon the arrival of her bouncing baby daughter, pandemic or no pandemic. :lulz:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 18, 2021, 01:46:52 AM
It's a pretty simple formula really. The truth of the matter is always the exact opposite of what they say on the BBC.
:lulz:
Red Lodge Scottish Rite
Drink The Red Stuff
There Is a Man In Scotland Who Can Help You With That
Where Wisdom Grows On Trees
Why Did The Unicorn Cross The Street?
Because The Lion Was Goin To Kick It's Ass.
Quote from: Chaos_Zebra on December 08, 2021, 12:53:31 AM
Red Lodge Scottish Rite
Drink The Red Stuff
There Is a Man In Scotland Who Can Help You With That
Where Wisdom Grows On Trees
Why Did The Unicorn Cross The Street?
Because The Lion Was Goin To Kick It's Ass.
THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A PLANT(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0151/1650/1046/products/Philodendron_Birkin_Indoor_Pot_Plants_New_Zealand_2400x.jpg?v=1563584376)