Majority back Scottish independence

by **Ivan** Sat Oct 15, 2011 9:11 pm

Exactly what I’ve been predicting for a long time. I said that if the Tories, so hated in Scotland that they have only one MP, came to power at Westminster again, the Scots would decide that they’d rather go it alone. Apparently, Scottish independence now has majority backing north of the border and in the UK as a whole, according to a new poll.

Research by ComRes for ‘The Independent on Sunday’ and ‘The Sunday Mirror’ found that support for the move had risen sharply over recent months. The results are a boost for First Minister Alex Salmond as his Scottish National Party prepares to hold its autumn conference in Inverness.

In the UK overall, 39% of those surveyed agreed that Scotland should be an independent country - an increase of six points since May. The number disagreeing with the statement had fallen four points to 38%.
In Scotland, the proportion supporting independence was up 11 points over the period at 49%. Some 37% disagreed - down by nine points.

The SNP, which won an unprecedented overall majority in May elections, has promised to hold a referendum on independence towards the end of its five-year term.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/majority-back-scottish-independence-193447501.html

by astra Sat Oct 15, 2011 9:45 pm

To my mind, this could have been good news

For years, while this had been mooted, and Robin Day sarcasticly goaded Margo Mac Donald - SNPs FIRST ever MP, in the 1970s, the UK government has had one half of an eye on the Scottish ball. Tory Bliar tried, and took most of the steam out of salmond's tuba! But, since Brown (with his girlfriend "Prudence") all past machinations have gone awry. Cameroon is doing nothing on this front. (We have seen that Cameron treats "His Highlanders" with the same contempt that Pitt did!

Scotland could make a go of things, but I do not - cannot believe that Alec Salmond is the man to lead the country in any mean or manner.

(For a start - name a living Scottish Diplomat!
Second - name a current Scottish 'Dignatory' who could fall into one of the ambassador's roles abroad - Rab C. Nesbitt?

by oftenwrong Sat Oct 15, 2011 10:21 pm

If the Scots vote for Independence, it's hard to see how that could be denied them by Westminster.

by keenobserver1 Sun Oct 16, 2011 9:33 am

It's possibly time to stop and have a serious think about this before any referendum on independence is mooted. With the current situation in the EU, the break up of the United Kingdom could have disastorous consequences for all parts of the union.

There is strength in the union, independence could create another four versions of Greece or worse.

by witchfinder Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:04 pm

There is a portion of the general public who believe that governing should be based on opinion and referenda, similar to Switzerland and in other places, but I for one totaly disagree, it would lead to chaos.

The break up of the United Kingdom would be sheer cultural vandalism, if the nations of the UK went their own seperate ways, then who would we be, what would our heritage be, where would we belong, in my my mind we would be like a lost soul, unable live, unable to rest.

Fortunately for us unionists, this is not the gloomy picture that it seems, firstly - this poll conducted by ComRes for The Independent On Sunday has used a Scottish sample of only 146 people, reading commentary this morning by UK Polling Report, they have not given these findings very much credibility.

by keenobserver1 Sun Oct 16, 2011 1:52 pm

I wasn't one of the 146! study

by witchfinder Mon Nov 21, 2011 12:28 pm

English flags - Saint George - the EDL - the SNP - devolution - a pending referendum on Scottish seperation

And to confirm what many people allready suspected comes todays YouGov poll which indicates a dramatic increase in people choosing "English" over "British", with just 20% of the entire UK population saying they prefered to be regarded as "British".

But are many people getting confused about who they are, and what country we actualy live in and belong to, and do people understand the consequences of what would happen and what changes to our status if the UK was broken up into several independent states. ?

An independent England with English as a true nationality would mean that English people live in a nation of 50 million people instead of a nation of 62 million.

An independent Scotland would be a small insignificant northern European nation similar in population to Norway or Finland, with a voice that would be difficult to hear amongst the bigger boys of Europe and the world.

We would lose our permanent seat on the UN security council, we would drop out of the G7 group of nations, the number of votes in the European Parliament would drop significantly giving us a smaller say, less influence and less power.

The size of our economy would shrink dramaticly, the armed forces of the United Kingdom would cease to exist and instead there would be a significantly smaller English armed forces, the Union Flag would cease to exist, no more British passports, no Scots guards or bagpipes at great state occassions in London.

Is this realy what people want ?

by astra Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:09 pm

This from virginmedia.com -

British Gas owner Centrica has signed a supply deal that will secure sufficient gas to meet around 5% of the UK's annual demand.

The 10-year, £13 billion agreement with Norway's Statoil involves the supply of 50 billion cubic metres of gas to the UK from 2015.

Centrica said the deal highlighted the importance of the UK's relationship with Norway for the country's energy security. The move takes the value of future gas supplies secured by Centrica for the UK to more than £50 billion.

Centrica is also spending £965 million on buying oil and gas assets from Statoil in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea. The deal will lift Centrica's production by around 25% and means it will have operating facilities in Norway for the first time.
link to story

you seem quite disparraging about Norway, yet we have our BIG STWONG BWITTISH GUBMINT going cap in hand to them for a deal!
The UN and UNESCO and ALL the other international forums, are merely providing junkets for the upper classes to play. If unesco was any good, in their 50 years of existance there should be no more hunger and thirst in Africa!
The money saved if we were NOT in these organisations would be tremendous - France- Sarcozy has recently joined NATO - is it because he feels he is doing something for the North Atlantic nations, or, is it because his Army, his Navy AND his Airforce are each larger than their British counterpart, and therefore he carries "more weight" in discussion than Cameroon?

We are already a second world nation! get used to it. This has been caused by a succession of Politicians and Union leaders in fighting in the dressing rooms before they come out into the ring, and the less of these talking shops the better.

by witchfinder Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:22 pm

astra

The gas supply industry in the UK can shop where it chooses to buy gas, the one thing I would point out is that Centrica or British Gas with a cheque book buying for a nation of 62 million will have considerably more "clout" or buying power than negotiating on behalf of 5 million or 50 million.

Who I am means something to me, if you were born in this country then you are British - you were born British under the Union Flag, the same flag that is displayed on the shoulder of serving British soldiers, the same flag which forms part of the flags of dozens of other nations and territories denoting a heritage from England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales.

I prefer the Union Flag, I like it better than the English flag, I am Yorkshire before I am English, and I have more in common with Aberdeen and Peterhead than I do with Tonbridge Wells or Glastonbury.

So if the BBC became extinct, what would the new signature tune be of the EBC World Service ( English Broadcasting Coporation ) ? - how about some old morris dancing tune or "English Country Garden".

by witchfinder Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:26 pm

If the United Kingdom is vandalised by the likes of Alex Salmon Face then I vow I will join the inevitable boycott of shortbread - Scotch whisky - Iron Bru and even Deuchars IPA ( now that realy hurts ).

by astra Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:52 pm

The gas supply industry in the UK can shop where it chooses to buy gas,

Yes agreed, BUT why is Cameron in on this, for another photo opportunity? Maybe and then Maybe not.

If Thatcher had not squandered all the oil revenues and reserves to pay for her massive dole and incapacity benefit bill, we would be in Norway's position as regard to oil for the future, and now, coal for the future and now, and a vibrant steel industry!
But that is all under the bridge now.

When the IRA blew two little boys out of their boots in Warrington, I stopped consumption and purchase of ALL Irish Goods. Guiness and JD have lost an absolute packet, but I do not hear them complain!

I asked "What it was to be English on the MSN boards, and got Lurcher hanging off my throat (he called me a poison dwarf!!! Smile

relating to the Black Watch in full dress) and then the BNP poured in and ended any decent discussion. English National Dress, Music what are they? Where have they gone. It is all very well being "Cosmopolitan" but you should not have prostituted your identity for just that cause!

link to Elizabethan Seranade

Mrs. A. (born in Jarrow) mentions Greensleeves and Jerusalem

by oftenwrong Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:37 pm

Not only all of the above, but through sleeper-trains from London to Fort William may lose their government subsidy (said to be £7,000 for each Departure).

by **Phil Hornby** Mon Nov 21, 2011 6:00 pm

Suddenly, I'm depressed... Crying or Very sad

by oftenwrong Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:23 pm

The Scots were pretty depressed last December, when heavy snowfall in England prevented the arrival of trains which should have continued to Glasgow, Inverness, Aberdeen and Oban.

by witchfinder Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:27 pm

GRRENSLEEVES ? - people would fall asleep, but I think in honour of Mrs A who was born in Jarra, the signature tune of the yet to be invented English Broadcasting Corporation s World Service should be either Bobby Shaftoe or Blaydon Races.

very Geordie and very English

by oftenwrong Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:38 pm

May The Lord preserve us from Little Englanders.

by astra Mon Nov 21, 2011 9:01 pm

and wee jocks like moi!!

by Shirina Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:37 am

To me, everyone who lives in the British Isles will be considered "British." There is no WAY I can remember which poster is from England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or Ireland ... and I'm not even going to try.

by **Phil Hornby** Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:54 am

There may not be an especially long queue of folk from the Irish Republic wishing to be regarded as 'British'... Shocked

by jackthelad Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:16 pm

Shirina wrote:To me, everyone who lives in the British Isles will be considered "British." There is no WAY I can remember which poster is from England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or Ireland ... and I'm not even going to try.

Shirina is spot on with her comment, The British Isles takes in all the islands, Ireland, the Isle of Man, the Isle of White, and all the other little plots of land around the British coasts. The southern Irish call us Brits, they are as much Brits as we are.
Now i am a Brit, an English Brit, also a Yorkshire man, wondering when Yorkshire will get it's independance from the rest of the riff raff. We would have more chance of going it alone than the Scottish nationalists. We have a darn sight more people living in Yorkshire than Scotland does, and we know how to dress too, no wind blowing around our underpants, that is if the Jocks wear underpants.

by **Ivan** Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:34 pm

the Isle of White

Hello jack. I hope you mean 'the Isle of Wight', or have you found out about my luxury hideaway in the Caribbean, next door to Richard Branson? (Do you think the Tories might sell me a bank on the cheap as well?)
Mad

Our terminology must be very confusing to foreigners:-
Great Britain = England, Scotland and Wales
United Kingdom = England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
British Isles = United Kingdom + Southern Ireland (Eire)

by astra Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:59 pm

For MR Hornby -

link to RailNews atricle

I have my views on this, but probably need a new thread.
Seems to me that Messrs. Brunell, Stevenson and Gresley had it sussed, and this present bunch of witch doctors could not present a decent bowl of soup!Link to Railways article #2

by jackthelad Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:35 pm

Ivan wrote:
the Isle of White
Hello jack. I hope you mean 'the Isle of Wight', or have you found out about my luxury hideaway in the Caribbean, next door to Richard Branson? (Do you think the Tories might sell me a bank on the cheap as well?)

Our terminology must be very confusing to foreigners:-
Great Britain = England, Scotland and Wales
United Kingdom = England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
British Isles = United Kingdom + Southern Ireland (Eire)

Ivan, i never ever seem to be able to spell that islands name rite, or should that be right.

Not only does that terminology confuse foreigners, it confuses us as well.

Been reading in the paper about Tory MP's pensions, some will get 43 thousand pounds a year, plus a lump some of 700 hundred thousand pounds. While cutting pensions of the ordinary worker, so much for us all being in it to gether.

by oftenwrong Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:18 pm

Phil Hornby wrote:There may not be an especially long queue of folk from the Irish Republic wishing to be regarded as 'British'...

Disregarding the static "travellers" apparently preferring the delights of Essex to those of the Emerald Isle.

by **Phil Hornby** Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:21 pm

Many thanks to Mr Astra for the informative article. Truly, the world is about to implode if some of these changes are actually made... Shocked

by ROB Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:40 pm

Jack,

This helped me, and it helped my geography students.

“The Isle of Wight fits quite nicely into the Great Bight of Australia.

It’s silly, but there it is.

Ivan,

It’s confusing to no end. Isn’t it also true that Jersey and Guernsey, though not a part of the United Kingdom, are protected by the “Queen’s Navy” and the “Queen’s Air Force”, er, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, but not protected by the British Army?

And is the Isle of Wight a part of England or Wales? I’m a student of history, but we’ve only two hundred forty years of actual US history, starting about the time Crispus Attucks was killed in an anti-British (English?) riot in Boston circa 1771, compared to the combined histories of (in alphabetical order, England, Eire, Scotland, and Wales, which, if run concurrently starting with the first to appear, might well be twelve hundred years, and if stacked and added up, night be four thousand years.

Y’all have had a lot more time to create confusing stuff than we have. Outside of Puerto Rico (“the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico”), the US Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa, figuring out political relationships within the jurisdiction of the United States is relatively simple compared to the United Kingdom and the other locations where Elizabeth II reigns.

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot: Exactly what is the status of the Falkland Islands?

by oftenwrong Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:43 pm

British sovereign territory, until Argentina decides to invade again.

by ROB Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:53 pm

As to the question: As an outsider, it baffles me that, even within England, folks from one small area feel what seems to me relatively mild kinship with folks from another small area of England.

Scottish animosity I “get”; contrary to widely held and propagated belief, the US Civil War was not about slavery.

In fact, a Southern gentleman known to me risked his life joining in the early 1960’s voter registration drives in Mississippi, then volunteered to serve in Vietnam, where he flew the Confederate Flag alongside the Stars and Stripes over his living area. No internal conflict or dichotomy, according to his statement to me; he’s a South Carolinian who feels that his sovereign state was unfairly subjugated by the Union.

That being said, I hope in my heart of hearts that your United Kingdom survives and comes out stronger.

by ROB Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:56 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
British sovereign territory, until Argentina decides to invade again.

As opposed to “United Kingdom’s sovereign territory?” Serious question.

by jackthelad Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:07 pm

Well Rock, all i can say, it say's on my passport, UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, (i am not shouting, just writing what it says on my passport) so i think British sovereign territory should suffice. Smile

by ROB Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:47 pm

Jack,

I certainly believe you; your ethical integrity is above reproach. I’m just confused, as I have been since Lord knows when, about the ends and outs of British (United Kingdom) political quirks.

And don’t get me started about Governor-Generals and Governors! I know that, according to the interpretation of international law upon which the Reagan administration relied, the Governor-General of Grenada was perfectly within his legal sphere when he asked the United States to intervene in Grenada. And what in heaven’s name is a “Commonwealth Realm?”

“Grenada is an island country and Commonwealth Realm…”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenada

by oftenwrong Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:37 pm

The contrast between "Empires" is in the way that former Colonial Powers have treated their former Subjects. French possessions such as Guadeloupe are Départements de France. Citizens of former Portuguese colonies are Portuguese passport-holders. The tale of British colonials is somewhat murky by comparison. Originally everyone was "British" while the idea that they might be able to afford the cost of travel to London was risible. Shortly after the end of WW2, however, some colonials became more equal than others and most were issued with a dummy passport that lets them travel but not to stay here.

by jackthelad Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:20 pm

Rock says,
And don’t get me started about Governor-Generals and Governors! I know that, according to the interpretation of international law upon which the Reagan administration relied, the Governor-General of Grenada was perfectly within his legal sphere when he asked the United States to intervene in Grenada. And what in heaven’s name is a “Commonwealth Realm?”

Not into all that stuff myself Rock, i leave that to the Queen and politicians. Governor-Generals and Governers act for the Queen in countries where she is head of state, not sure what the limit of their powers are though. Enough power to ask the USA to intercede, if British forces are too far away, if speed is the utmost importance.
I would say, a Commonwealth Realm is a country where Queen Elizabeth is head of state. If i am wrong, then someone will let us know different.
I am not a royalist has such, but while Elizabeth lives she will do for me. Couldn't do with presidents though, it's enough hassel voting for a government ever four or five years without having to have presidential elections as well.

by Jsmythe Tue Nov 22, 2011 8:48 pm

It goes back to self reliance again. We are so focused on believing our world would end when a system collapses. People can live in many systems even without,the only thing that people need to be told is ; We can do things ourselves! It is the systems that are deemed to be doomed not people,but of course not realizing it we fall too! Sad

I say,plant your potatoes,if you can't export goods then keep it here for ourselves,If we can't import then we make it ourselves.If you cant import resources then use alternatives. Thinking outside the box is equally as good as looking outside the system(s). Go Well Smile

by Shirina Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:10 pm

Couldn't do with presidents though, it's enough hassel voting for a government ever four or five years without having to have presidential elections as well.

I could never do with a head of state that achieved the position through an accident of birth. This leads to a decidedly "one-sidedness" when it comes to politics since a single royal family can groom the heir to be very similar to each other. That isn't even mentioning the genetic disorders that can affect an entire dynasty. It just wouldn't do to have an insane king sitting on the throne, or one riddled with Alzheimers, and God forbid if an heir ever turned out to be a sociopath or a psychopath - and that HAS happened before.

by ROB Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:50 pm

Shirina wrote:
It just wouldn't do to have an insane king sitting on the throne, or one riddled with Alzheimers, and God forbid if an heir ever turned out to be a sociopath or a psychopath - and that HAS happened before.

I can never remember his name, but the would-be king who abdicated in the 1930s was a Nazi sympathizer and his wife, not an Anglican, supposedly the reason he abdicated, may have been less than “pure” in more than one way.

I saw something on either The History Channel or The Military Channel which suggested that British intelligence kept an eye on both during WWII.

by **astradt1** Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:14 pm

Roc wrote

I can never remember his name, but the would-be king who abdicated in the 1930s was a Nazi sympathizer and his wife, not an Anglican, supposedly the reason he abdicated, may have been less than “pure” in more than one way.

I saw something on either The History Channel or The Military Channel which suggested that British intelligence kept an eye on both during WWII.

Roc, Edward VII was King, although did not have a coronation and was not as you put it a 'would-be' king........

The woman he married was firstly an American and secondly a Divorcee, it was the fact that she was divorced which caused the abdication....

Yes they did have sympathy with the Nazi cause hence they were sent off to the Bahamas as Governor.......

by **Ivan** Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:18 pm

You're talking about Edward VIII and Mrs Simpson. Ostensibly, Edward abdicated after just a few months as king in 1936 because he intended to marry a divorced woman. A pity that the same doesn't apply to Prince Charles, so that we could be spared from having that gormless idiot as our unelected hereditary Head of State one day.

However brilliant, however popular a British citizen might be, he or she can never rise to be Head of State. That role is reserved for members of the Windsor family, regardless of how useless they are. George III was insane, but he was still our Head of State for sixty years.

by whitbyforklift Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:29 pm

Witchfinder,I think loaded qestions on forms have lead to this issue.
Are you white or black or every other coulour in the sptrum?
Form filling pain in the arse.
We are British and proud of it.
Nothing can change that.
But as Yorkshire men, nationaly we are English.
Nothing can change that.
Dont let it bother you.

by whitbyforklift Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:32 pm

Just like to endorse what Ivan as Just said.

by Sponsored content