51% of Scottish people want independence from the UK


Daz_Hockey
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Could you expand on this Daz.

This has me curious now.

If the seats are as Toro says, then how is he wrong?

Or if you like, what is the true make up?

Simply put, England is densely populated...where as about 70% of Scotland is empty, and the bits that are would take up about as much land as the south coast of England, you get my drift?. so it's population related, and for a country with such a small population, they seem to have a great deal of power over great swaithes of the union as a whole.

and as for "foreigner view", what I menat was, I cannot tell you how it annoyes me that people fall into this "evil english" trap, it's tosh, complete claptrap.
 
CDNBear
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by Daz_HockeyView Post

Simply put, England is densely populated...where as about 70% of Scotland is empty, and the bits that are would take up about as much land as the south coast of England, you get my drift?. so it's population related, and for a country with such a small population, they seem to have a great deal of power over great swaithes of the union as a whole.

and as for "foreigner view", what I menat was, I cannot tell you how it annoyes me that people fall into this "evil english" trap, it's tosh, complete claptrap.

Thanx, I was looking for the political stuff though. I know how you are, I know sometimes you get your hackles up. No biggie.
 
Toro
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by Daz_HockeyView Post

Take a look at a map, or perhaps a population statistic.....That amount reflects the populations of each part of great britain. Scottish people do indeed rule this union, have you any proof otherwise, or do you wish to continue with that ignorant foriegn view?

Population of England 49 million, 82% of the population
Population of Scotland 5 million, 8% of the population
Population of the UK 60 million

Parliamentary seats, 646
Parliamentary seats in England, 529, 82% of the seats
Parliamentary seats in Scotland, 59, 9% of the seats.

Google it.

Quote: Originally Posted by Daz_HockeyView Post

Simply put, England is densely populated...where as about 70% of Scotland is empty, and the bits that are would take up about as much land as the south coast of England, you get my drift?. so it's population related, and for a country with such a small population, they seem to have a great deal of power over great swaithes of the union as a whole.

You realize, of course, that Parliamentary seats are based on population, not area.

Quote: Originally Posted by Daz_HockeyView Post

and as for "foreigner view", what I menat was, I cannot tell you how it annoyes me that people fall into this "evil english" trap, it's tosh, complete claptrap.

FFS Daz, my heritage is as WASPish as it gets.

My paternal grandfather emmigrated from England. My maternal grandfather emmigrated from Scotland. My paternal grandmother emmigrated from England. My maternal grandmother emmigrated from Scotland. My last name is as English as it gets. My mother's maiden name is as Scottish as it gets. I have worked in England on a grandparents visa and could get a passport if I moved to Britain and set up shop.

So cut with the self-pitying "evil English" nonsense. I'm proud of my English heritage.

I can only imagine the laughter I would receive if I explained to my Scottish friends that "they rule England."

Its akin to saying that BC, with 10% of the population and 10% of the Parliamentary seats, ruled Canada.
 
Dexter Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#34
It find it hard to take Scottish independence seriously. They're still grieving about the Battle of Culloden Moor for crissake out loud, and that was in 1746, over 250 years ago. Jeez, here's a stepladder, use it to get over yourselves.
 
Blackleaf
#35
By TIM SPANTON
IMAGINE what life would be like in an independent England.

It’s 2012 and England, not Britain, is hosting the Olympics. St George’s flags flutter proudly over the stadiums without a Union Jack in sight as the Games are opened by the Queen and Prince Philip.

They have cut short their annual holiday at Butlins in Bognor Regis — the Sussex seaside resort replaced Balmoral as the Royals’ summer getaway. And their majesties wouldn’t dream of turning up for the ceremony in tartan kilts.

Instead the Queen dons elasticated slacks and sensible pullover from Marks & Spencer while Philip sports dashing gear from Hackett.

Edinburgh-born Tony Blair is no longer PM and Gordon Brown, who was not allowed to succeed him, is now Emperor of Scotland. Down south, Labour are no longer in power — which is no surprise as they have never won a majority of English votes.

They have always relied on Scottish and Welsh constituencies to impose their policies on England.

Across England, people are in party mood. Sure, the cost of the Olympics overran by billions as a result of financial mismanagement when England was ruled by Scots.

But no one minds — after all, income tax has been cut by 5p — since we no longer have to subsidise the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish economies.

There was more joy earlier in the year when the English Parliament got round to banning bagpipes.

Of course people are sad that Newsnight host Kirsty Wark was made to pack her bags and head back north of the border.

Sad that it means more of Jeremy Paxman on the box.

thesun.co.uk
 
Blackleaf
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by ToroView Post

Population of England 49 million, 82% of the population
Population of Scotland 5 million, 8% of the population
Population of the UK 60 million

Parliamentary seats, 646
Parliamentary seats in England, 529, 82% of the seats
Parliamentary seats in Scotland, 59, 9% of the seats.

Google it.



You realize, of course, that Parliamentary seats are based on population, not area.



FFS Daz, my heritage is as WASPish as it gets.

My paternal grandfather emmigrated from England. My maternal grandfather emmigrated from Scotland. My paternal grandmother emmigrated from England. My maternal grandmother emmigrated from Scotland. My last name is as English as it gets. My mother's maiden name is as Scottish as it gets. I have worked in England on a grandparents visa and could get a passport if I moved to Britain and set up shop.

So cut with the self-pitying "evil English" nonsense. I'm proud of my English heritage.

I can only imagine the laughter I would receive if I explained to my Scottish friends that "they rule England."

Its akin to saying that BC, with 10% of the population and 10% of the Parliamentary seats, ruled Canada.


Scotland rules England, despite Scotland having only a tenth England's population.

The Prime Minister Tony Blair is Scottish. The Government's No2 - Chancellor of the Exchequer (and soon-to-be-PM) Gordon Brown - is Scottish. The Home Secretary, Defence Secretary and Transport Secretary are Scottish. The Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer is Scottish. The majority of the British Cabinet is Scottish.

Scottish MPs have a say in all England's domestic matters, whereas there are certain Scottish domestic matters that English MPs have no say in.

Therefore, Scotland rules England.
 
Blackleaf
#37
If it's good enough for the Scots it's good enough for the English
By Simon Heffer
The Telegraph
29/11/2006

The weird windows of the ugly Scottish Parliament building - a building paid for courtesy of the English taxpayer.



One of the more astonishing features of our politics is the way in which really quite clever and experienced people fail, from time to time, to see the blindingly obvious. One example is the way in which some of those around Tony Blair — and for all I know Mr Blair himself — have believed, on and off over the past few years, that it might be possible to stop Gordon Brown becoming PM. Another was the even more foolish, and much more widely held, fantasy that granting devolution to Scotland would not, sooner rather than later, lead to a rampant rise of Scottish nationalism. As the more astute among you will immediately realise, these two concerns are inextricably linked.

I begin to suspect that the likely timing of Mr Blair's departure from office — in the late spring or early summer of next year — has been set to cause the most difficulty to his probable successor. For on May 3, the third elections for the Scottish Parliament will be held. Scotland is now governed by a coalition of Labour and the Lib Dems. However, the SNP was five points ahead of Labour in a poll published this week. That this is no flash in the pan can be judged from how the Scottish Labour conference in Oban last weekend was dominated by big beasts of the Cabinet, from the Prime Minister downwards, warning the assembled multitude that waste, devastation and quite probably complete apocalypse would follow for Scotland if it elected the SNP. The SNP reported a further ground-swell of interest as a result of these attacks, and a Labour internal poll revealed yesterday that the SNP's lead had extended to eight per cent.

So: imagine you are Mr Brown, and you have just become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Imagine, too, that the people of Scotland have, a few weeks earlier, elected an SNP government to rule them — a minority government, no doubt, but a government none the less. You, as Prime Minister of a nation that is about 85 per cent English, are yourself Scottish. You sit for a Scottish seat at Westminster. Your fellow Scots have, however, put into power a party committed to calling a referendum on whether Scotland remains part of the United Kingdom. More than two thirds of the 85 per cent of the foreigners over whom you now rule want (according to a poll just published by The Sunday Telegraph) an English parliament. And all concerned have the temerity to do these things despite the fact that you yourself, sensing trouble ahead, have spent much of the past two or three years making regular, cynical and implausible speeches about "Britishness". Oh dear.

Please forgive a moment of self-regard, which I introduce purely (well, almost purely) because it is relevant. Eight years ago, I wrote a book entitled Nor Shall My Sword: the Reinvention of England. It appeared a couple of months before the first Scottish elections and it made the following points. First, that devolution would lead inevitably to separatism.

Second, that if the Scots wished to separate from England, there was nothing we could, or should, do to stop them (oh, if only Gladstone's Irish Home Rule Bill of 1886 had been passed, etc etc). Third, that this might actually be beneficial to the English taxpayer. And fourth, that in any political system the rulers ignore the rights of majorities at their peril: and that the inevitable consequence of denying the English the same constitutional rights as the Scots — a referendum on their own separateness, and allowing any wish for separateness to be expressed in an independent parliament — would lead to towering resentments.

The way in which this book was received speaks much of the flavour of those less enlightened times. It had a rave review from Alex Salmond, the leader of the SNP. Michael Portillo, then in the middle of reinventing himself as a proto-Cameronian, addressed the work in a tone that suggested the men in white coats would be coming for the author within a matter of hours. When I read in The Sunday Telegraph not just that 68 per cent of my fellow English now want their own parliament, but that 59 per cent would be happy for Scotland to be fully independent, I know we will never be able to build the madhouses fast enough.

It is not hard to see why the English feel these things. First, they have had largely alien rule for the the past 10 years. Serve you right, the Scots would say, recalling the Thatcher years, when they, too, felt occupied. But the Scots sought, and received, a remedy for their alleged sufferings: all the English now want is equal treatment.

Second, the English have been treated to the most preposterous justifications of why Scottish Labour MPs should still vote in the Westminster Parliament on matters that, in Scotland, are dealt with by the Parliament in Edinburgh. Foundation hospitals and top-up fees are only on the statute book because of the help the Government received from Scottish MPs with no interest in the matter. No wonder, with a much smaller majority now than when those measures went through, Labour is desperate to retain this lobby-fodder.

Increasingly, though, in an era when we are all feeling grotesquely overtaxed, there is the question of money. Sixty per cent of those questioned in The Sunday Telegraph poll resented the far higher per capita public spending in Scotland compared with England. The revenue-raising powers of the Scottish Parliament do not have to be used to fund handsome new capital projects in Scotland — not least their extravagant new parliament building — while the English taxpayer is standing by to have his pocket picked. As an article on this subject in this month's Prospect points out, per capita spending is 30 per cent higher in Scotland, but GDP per capita is five per cent LOWER than in England.

Despite this herculean level of bribery of the Scottish voter, growth rates simply do not improve. It is a glowing, and ghastly, example of the evils of the subsidy culture. And, quite clearly, not only is it not doing the English taxpayer any good, it is also not doing the Scots any long-term good either.

Scotland is on its way to sovietisation. The amount of GDP spent in the public sector, at 50 per cent, is 10 per cent higher than in the United Kingdom as a whole. £11 billion more is spent in Scotland than is raised in revenue there. The SNP says this takes no account of the oil revenues. But, should Scotland ever become independent, there will have to be an interesting discussion about the nature of territorial waters, and about the origins of the money used to develop the oilfields. There might also be a debate about whether Shetland, in the event of independence, would want to be part of Scotland, or would prefer to remain a dependency of England, or would even like to revert to being part of Norway (most Shetland Islanders don't even consider themselves to be Scottish. Despite being a part of Scotland and Britain their preferred "nationality" is "Shetland Islander" first and foremost.)

So far, all the decision-making in these matters has been placed on the Scots. That has to stop. The English deserve their referendum, too, on whether they wish to remain in any sort of union with Scotland. If they can have their own Parliament, then why shouldn't England? If they wish to be separate, then why should the English subsidise them? Above all, why should the rights of the English majority be so aggressively denied?

I know this is horrid for Gordon Brown, who, like Napoleon, or Stalin, or Hitler, aspires to come from a distant province or satellite state and take over the mother country. But he and his friends started this process: it is a shame, given how very brilliant we are always being told he is, that he wasn't clever enough to realise how we might finish what he started.

telegraph.co.uk
Last edited by Blackleaf; Nov 29th, 2006 at 02:43 PM..
 
General James Wolfe
#38
I am a Scot and I am proud to be British as well as Scottish. These Scots who want indpendence from the United Kingdom are traitors of Great Britian and to Scotland. These ignorant Scots tend to forget that it was a Scottish Royal Dynasty that united the Kingdoms of Scotland and England together. I have nothing but contempt for

English Nationalist
Scottish Nationalist
Irish Nationalists
Welsh Nationalists

who want to break up my country. I am a Scottish-British Royalist and dam proud of it. I was always against devolution to Scotland and to Wales because that would be a step towards indpendence. If I have to I will fight my fellow Scots who want indpendence.


I consider my self Scottish and British at the same time.


DEATH TO THE SCOTTISH NATIONALIST PARTY
DEATH TO THE PLAID CRYMRU PARTY
DEATH TO THE ENGLISH DEMOCRATIC PARTY


Scotland like England, Wales and Ireland belongs to the United Kingdom of Great Britain.


GOD SAVE THE QUEEN
 
Blackleaf
#39
We don't want to subsidise idle Scots any more.

The Sun

Kelvin MacKenzie
Thursday 30th November 2006

Quote:

The Scots know that independence would mean poverty, a political backwater, a nation simply ignored.




I agree with the Scots. They should have their own nationhood.

In my heart, I am English, not British. I don't share many personality traits with my chums across the border.

They have three strengths. Parsimony. Canniness (i.e cynicism meets deception). Clannishness.

The English strengths are different. Openness. Generosity (of spirit if nothing else). Wide friendships.

So it came as no surprise to me when a poll in The Sunday telegraph found that 59% of English voters want Scotland to go it alone. This compares with only 52% of Scots wanting independence.

The English are fed up to the back teeth with sending £30 billion annually to prop up the Scottish economy.

They're further fed up with giving, for some inexplicable reason, 20% more per head in benefits of all kinds to Scots than anywhere else in the United Kingdom.

More than Ulster. Why? More than Wales. Why? More than the wasteland caleld the London Borough of Newham. Why?

I think I know why these alleged bravehearts get such a good deal from us mugs in England.

The Scots may no longer produce great engineers, great academics, great explorers or great bankers but they do produce some great and devious politicians. This is the turning point. The English don't want to subsidise the idle Scots any more.

I read an astonishing fact recently. There are only 169,000 net taxpayers in all of Scotland, a nation of 5 million people. It's the English who create the wealth.

Of course, there are Scottish MPs who want to keep us united entirely out of self-interest. They would all be thrown out of a job if the place broke up.

So I'm pleased that at least the English are fighting back against these ungrateful wretches.

I fear we are not going to get our way. The Scots know that independence would mean poverty, a political backwater, a nation simply ignored.

So they are never going to vote for independence. More's the shame.

Unfortunately, we are lumbered with the tartan tosspots.

thesun.co.uk
Last edited by Blackleaf; Nov 30th, 2006 at 01:51 PM..
 
Blackleaf
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by General James WolfeView Post

I am a Scot and I am proud to be British as well as Scottish. These Scots who want indpendence from the United Kingdom are traitors of Great Britian and to Scotland.



Is this the reason why you don't want independence..........


Quote:

The Scots know that independence would mean poverty, a political backwater, a nation simply ignored.

 
I think not
#41
I don't know who's worse, Blackleaf or the wannabe General.
 
Blackleaf
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by I think notView Post

I don't know who's worse

You are.
 
cortex
#43
This bickering is all part of post colonlial decline

In 100 years the UK will be a weak fragmented backwater with only a dim memory of its brutal, cruel, spurious empirial past.

Then within england you will have fragmentation---the muslim areas, the hindu areas, the polish sector etc

and within scotland you will have fragmentation---the glasgo dogs at the throat of the edinburough wolves---the catholic versus the prods--oh wait i do believe that is already the case

in any case it will worsen-

from across the channel--the lovely french, the happy Spaniards the serious but effective Germans and the morbidly obese Belgians wont even hate you anymore.

wuf wuf if that a wolf --or no ---its a poodle--how quaint
 
Blackleaf
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by cortexView Post

This bickering is all part of post colonlial decline

In 100 years the UK will be a weak fragmented backwater with only a dim memory of its brutal, cruel, spurious empirial past.

Then within england you will have fragmentation---the muslim areas, the hindu areas, the polish sector etc

and within scotland you will have fragmentation---the glasgo dogs at the throat of the edinburough wolves---the catholic versus the prods--oh wait i do believe that is already the case

in any case it will worsen-

from across the channel--the lovely french, the happy Spaniards the serious but effective Germans and the morbidly obese Belgians wont even hate you anymore.

wuf wuf if that a wolf --or no ---its a poodle--how quaint


Believe me, in ten years' time Britain will still be around. There's less chance of Scotland breaking from the Union than there is California being returned back to Mexico.

And we'll still be a lot more influential and powerful on the world stage than the French, Germans and mighty Belgians.

To be honest, I don't care if the Belgians hate us. They are an insignificant country. The only people who do what the Belgians tell them to do are their poodles France and Germany.
 
Nuggler
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by Daz_HockeyView Post

Nope, we have a very strange situation here, in that Scotland is funded pretty much by English money, foreignerss like to bring up the subject of scottish independence like England are their tyranical rulers, when in fact, there isnt a single englishman or woman in the Scottish parliment....all the leaders of the English parliment are Scots though....

So, I ask, who REALLY being ruled over?

The lights are starting to come on eh Daz??

Annnnnnifitwassint fer Sir John Eh, and his ilk trappin furs, buildin railroads, whuppin the French, now feedin the French, chuckin First Nation people off their lands, startin banks.........et al.........Bonny Kanada wuild nae be wha she be taedae......eh!!

Guid bless the Canny Scott. Wieout him, the whole word wuild be jist a piece a ****e. instead o the wonderful plaece she be taeday.....eh

Angus.
 
cortex
#46
id have to agree

The scots invented the modern world--didnt blackleaf read that book?

The epicenter of the industrial revolution was scotland.
Consider any english taxes redirected to them now as a gesture of thanks from the english--they owe them more though.

What makes the Uk interesting are --the scots, the welsh, the immigants--and the english tooo---yes they are cool---but in my opinion only the center-leftie english---the conservative-monarchist-imperialist-chauvanistic-racist subtype is a disgrace---to be fair they are a disgrace anywhere--but since we are here and have to listen to this incesant anti celtic anti french baloney why not chop up some of our own baloney.
 
Toro
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Scotland rules England, despite Scotland having only a tenth England's population.

The Prime Minister Tony Blair is Scottish. The Government's No2 - Chancellor of the Exchequer (and soon-to-be-PM) Gordon Brown - is Scottish. The Home Secretary, Defence Secretary and Transport Secretary are Scottish. The Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer is Scottish. The majority of the British Cabinet is Scottish.

Scottish MPs have a say in all England's domestic matters, whereas there are certain Scottish domestic matters that English MPs have no say in.

Therefore, Scotland rules England.

This is silly.

Scotland doesn't rule England, but Scottish people are at the top of the Labour Party.

So, using Blackleaf's logic, the only acceptable scenario for England is to have an Englishman/woman ruling the United Kingdom.

No wonder the Scots hate the English so much.
 

Similar Threads

15
Scottish wars of Independence
by Jersay | Feb 16th, 2009
0
First Scottish face on new £20.
by Blackleaf | Oct 30th, 2006
no new posts