Originally posted by skipper2666Lots of Scots move to England and lots of English to Scotland. That's why, in my opinion, it's quite impractical to base eligibility to vote on the mere accident of where individuals happen to be living at the time the referendum is held.
A very large percentage of the Scottish populationn is English and more are moving there every year, it's a real mix of nationalities there. Why do so many English move there....
Originally posted by TeinosukeNot sure how else you can decide who votes. You could make it a whole UK referendum which oddly enough at the moment might well give more support to the independance vote. Otherwise it has to be for the people who live there to decide whether they consider themselves Scottish, British, English, Welsh or Irish or something else.
Lots of Scots move to England and lots of English to Scotland. That's why, in my opinion, it's quite impractical to base eligibility to vote on the mere accident of where individuals happen to be living at the time the referendum is held.
I think there are a lot of myths about indpendance.
1) Scotland will not become a third world country
2) What remains of the UK will not suffer economically, it would be a largely econmically neutral event
3) An independant Scotland would be some sort of bad neighbour for England
4) A majority of Scots want independance
5) A vote for independance would mean independance (as the SNP favour closer EU integration)
Originally posted by TerrierJackThere has not been an "English" monarchy since the 17th century (Elizabeth I). She was succeeded by James VI of Scotland (who was known as James I south of the border).
I read that even if they voted for independence the Scottish would still be subject to the English monarchy. Why? No more Kings across the water?
In the unlikely event Scotland votes for independance they are more likely to retain a monarchy, but this again is their choice.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 32473
Originally posted by deriver69I stand corrected but I figured since the current family was German then they were more English than British but I plead ignorance of local nomenclature. My question was why retain a non-local monarchy?
There has not been an "English" monarchy since the 17th century (Elizabeth I). She was succeeded by James VI of Scotland (who was known as James I south of the border).
In the unlikely event Scotland votes for independance they are more likely to retain a monarchy, but this again is their choice.
Originally posted by TerrierJackThey would still be quite local, the Queen would probably like the idea of spending more time in Balmoral. Maybe they could choose to make Princess Anne queen, she is a fan and patron of scottish rugby after all.
I stand corrected but I figured since the current family was German then they were more English than British but I plead ignorance of local nomenclature. My question was why retain a non-local monarchy?
Originally posted by shavixmirThousands of Irish people fought in the first and secound world wars ,are you saying if Scotland was independant no Scots would have fought ?
You do know that this argument has been debunked as utter garbish, don't you?
Scottish gas, Whiskey (largest UK export), beef, salmon, sheep, water.
Not to mention that the venison can feed the population alone.
Now, let's see what the English have done for the Scots...
- Closed the mining industry
- Outsourced the ship building industry (to Germa ...[text shortened]... sons) a bad name abroad.
Yeah... Scotland has everything to wish for from the bloody union.
The mining industry didnt just close in Scotland and cheap labour in asia killed the ship building indusry up and down the uk .
Are you saying if Scotland was independant it's ship building ,mining etc would be ok now ?
How do you think Scotland would have got it's oil up from the bottom of the north sea bed , swim down and bring it up in buckets ?
If they want to leave the uk good luck to them .
Originally posted by phil3000I'm not talking about the second world war, you tit.
Thousands of Irish people fought in the first and secound world wars ,are you saying if Scotland was independant no Scots would have fought ?
The mining industry didnt just close in Scotland and cheap labour in asia killed the ship building indusry up and down the uk .
Are you saying if Scotland was independant it's ship building ,mining etc would be ok ...[text shortened]... bed , swim down and bring it up in buckets ?
If they want to leave the uk good luck to them .
I'm on about Afghanistan and Iraq.
Originally posted by shavixmirAfghanistan would probably depend on whether they were a member of NATO, there are over 40 countries involved in Afghanistan. The Iraq war was supported by what was at the time the most popular political party in Scotland.
I'm not talking about the second world war, you tit.
I'm on about Afghanistan and Iraq.
I think only in my little corner of England (West Country) did the one party against the Iraq war have significant support.
Originally posted by TerrierJackSome historical background for the non-Brits:
I stand corrected but I figured since the current family was German then they were more English than British but I plead ignorance of local nomenclature. My question was why retain a non-local monarchy?
The Scottish House of Stuart occupied the British throne (ie, were monarchs of both England and Scotland) from 1603 to 1714. The largely Protestant English were disturbed by the fact that the last male Stuart monarch (James II) was a Catholic convert, but were reassured by the fact that his daughters, who would eventually succeed him, were Protestants. Accordingly, when in 1688 he fathered a son (who would take precedence over his sisters in the succession), James was deposed and replaced, at the invitation of parliament, by his daughter Mary and her Dutch Calvinist husband William (they reigned jointly, in a situation unique in British history). This is known as the "Glorious Revolution".
However, neither Mary nor her sister Anne, who was to suceed William, had surviving children, and therefore the Act of Settlement, 1701, specifically excluded Catholics from the throne, and provided for Anne to be succeeded by her nearest Protestant relative, Sophia, who was mother of the Elector (Prince) of Hanover. As it happened, Sophia died before Anne and so her son, George I, became King of England in 1714.
The fact that the Scottish house of Stuart had now been deposed led to some discontent in Scotland, and the Scots mounted two major rebellions (in 1715 and 1745) in favour of James II's son, the so-called "James III". These were not attempts to win Scottish independence, but attempts to restore the House of Stuart to the throne of Britain as a whole. Both were defeated, so the House of Hanover remained on the British throne and are the ancestors of today's royal family.
In the light of all this, it might not be surprising if an independent Scotland sought to repudiate the monarch. But it should be observed that the present Queen's mother was a Scot, and so Elizabeth II is the most Scottish monarch of Britain since Queen Anne.
Originally posted by Trev33Here's one from the latest headlines .
I vote yes. Independence for Scotland... United Ireland for Ireland... Wales continues to suck on the English tit. Everyone's happy.
"Bra tcoon , Scottish lingerie tycoon Michelle Mone has threatened to move her buisness and herself to England if Scotland votes yes in an independance referendum "
I suppose you could say alot of "tits"in Scotland will lose their support !😉
Originally posted by shavixmirWith everything your saying I have to say, sir, that it is you who is the 'Tit'.. never heard such rubbish to include alot of persons in this thread. If they (Our Scottish neighbours) want it then get on with it.... So F****** what....this crap happens every couple of years........ Jocks want to be free etc.......tell the English something we don't already know? Vote, vote , vote, oh and while I rant when they do decide to Naff off can they retreat out of Westminster, Unions, NHS, BAE.............
I'm not talking about the second world war, you tit.
I'm on about Afghanistan and Iraq.