gusmac wrote:
Actually I found your view rather simplistic and rosy coloured.
Oh indeed it was, but recalling events from several hundred years ago and implying that England would start a UK civil war if Scotland seceded from the UK is, er, what?
Er I didn't imply anything of the sort. I said that the English would do whatever was in their interests, as they always have. Quote:
In reality, very few Scots wanted the Union of 1707. There were riots against it all over Scotland at the time.
In 1707, half the Scottish population were Gaelic speakers, with their own culture and traditions.
They, their language and their culture were ethnically cleansed from the Highlands during the 18th and 19th centuries.
Strangely, this was viewed as a crime against humanity by the English, when it was practised elsewhere by foreigners in the 20th Century.
Successful? Maybe. But for whom?
Stable? I doubt it has ever been that. If it was, would we be having this discussion?
A single language? Yes, after the Gaels had been chased, burned and murdered out of their lands.
Given 300 years, I dare say the Nazis could have had the whole of Europe speaking German and the vast majority of the population to be of good ayrian stock.
Strong cultural links? Don't make me laugh. 300 years and the English still haven't managed to impose their religion or legal system here.
The Gaels may have been replaced in the highlands by sheep, but the rest of Scotland has been settled out by all manor of incomers over the years.
Human sheep who endlessly bleat on about how wonderful the UK is.
It must gaul the English that there are still enough Scotsmen left to worry them this much.
Yes, yes, yes, but you'll recall that my remarks were comparing the UK with the EU, rather than defending the UK per se.
Of course you can pick holes in the UK, but compared to Europe? Do you really want me to recount Europe's history in the way you did above regarding the UK?
Why bother? Both are cobbled together artificial unions of people who at heart do not really like each other.Indeed, part of the rationale for the EU was to prevent the recurrence of another WWII.
Sadly, however, the whole EU project has expanded too rapidly, both in terms of membership and sovereignty, which is why the whole creaking edifice is in danger of falling down.
Agreed. Too much, too many and far too soon.Of course, as you say the UK isn't wholly stable either, but there will always be those advocating for regional separation - for example, the campaign for an independent Cornwall - while in the Scottish context the majority are still quite happy with the UK, which is why Alex Salmond is running scared of a referendum, while he tries to drive a wedge between Scotland and the UK - for example, in the aftermath of David Cameron's recent spat with the EU, when Salmond said he wanted Scotland to be at the "heart of Europe".
As for your other points about cultural links etc, why is it that the SNP are so keen to undeline that the 'social Union' would be maintained even after 'independence' and that Scotland would maintain the Queen and the Pound etc?
Answer - because they know that's the only way to sell an 'indepedent' Scotland to the Scottish people.
And of course the reason I use inverted commas to describe 'independence' is that Salmond & Co are waterering it down so much that it's hardly independence in the classic sense, particularly when you consider the European dimension.
Again, agreement. 
Quote:
As for irrelevant, you were the one who chose to bring Hitler into the debate.
Er, wasn't it you harking back 300 years and talking about Scotland being subjugated by England etc, which you consider to be a rationale for Scotland to leave the Union?
No, that was me putting the lie to your rosey statement that the union was Quote:
A successful and stable political and economic union 300 years old, with a single currency, a single language and strong cultural links.
Yet as regards the EU you think that the fact that Hitler only
tried to subjugate the whole of Europe means that's irrelevant?
No, the whole Hitler thing is irrelevant. Still don't see why you brought it in to the debate. 
Also, if you want to revert to how things were in the distant past then shouldn't Scotland be split into several different nations, as indeed England would be?
Now that would be pointless, considering the cultural vandalism which has taken place over the years.
The point was obviously lost on you.
We have a single language because, under English rule, those who didn't speak English were decimated. There is no changing that now.
English rule has, for better or worse, made Scotland into place it is today. Quote:
What exactly does hitler have to do with SNP policy or Scottish independance?
As I said, you used the 'subjugation' of Scotland by England hundreds of years ago to justify splitting the Union, thus why shouldn't Hitler be considered if Salmond wants Scotland at the "heart of Europe"?
You really don't seem to get this, do you? At the risk of repeating myself, it's not a justification for anything. That was me putting the lie to your rosey statement that the union was Quote:
A successful and stable political and economic union 300 years old, with a single currency, a single language and strong cultural links.
Quote:
For the record, I left the SNP over 20 years ago.
The policy of Independence in Europe always struck me as jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
But fear of the fire is no reason to remain in the frying pan.
Well you said you preferred a Scottish currency to either the pound or the euro, so why would you want either the UK or the EU?
I don'tOf course, you did say recently:
Quote:
In Europe or out of it, I don't personally give a toss. Out of Britain will do for me, either way.
As I don't expect the EU to survive, I find the point unimportant.Which of course is based on crude emotionalism rather than anything rational.
In your opinionQuote:
What about you Dusty? Where are you coming from in all this? What is your interest in what Scotland wants or needs?
After all, we don't know who you are or where you live. We have no idea what effect Scottish independence will have on you.
In effect, your views are irrelevent because we can't see your motives.
I suspect you are an English tory, with enough sense to see where all the natural resources of these islands lie.
Resources which will be more important than pounds, dollars or euros in the future.
Well if you think my views are irrelevant then you neither have to read them nor respond to them.
They are irrelevant. How is anyone to judge the validity of your position, when they don't know what it is?
I'm not even asking you to out yourself, just say if you are Scottish, live in Scotland or have any Scottish connection at all.
As I said, I suspect you are just another Little Englander who thinks he knows what's best for the Jocks.But one thing's for sure gus, I doubt if you would articulate your own views in a public forum using your own name either,
Well that's where your wrong 
and what's certain beyond reasonable doubt is that the SNP certainly won't be articulating your own views either,
Why do you think I left, Einstein?so to that extent your opinions are not exactly that relevant either.
Well at least they are my opinions, and not those of an anonymous internet persona hiding behind the booby prize from an 80's game show 
Login
Register
FAQ
