Would England be better off without Scotland?

[Wulfhere]

It seems that everything the English want to do, e.g. leave the EU, the Scots try and prevent. And in return, the English are expected to subsidise them. Should we put an end to this fractious union, that neither side really wanted in the first place?

[frankhammer]

Better a thorn in your side than an enemy on the border.

[Wulfhere]

Better a thorn in your side than an enemy on the border.

Unfortunately, we seem to have both.

[frankhammer]

Unfortunately, we seem to have both.

That particular thorn may be painful but they help remind us all who we are, where we are, how we got here and why we don't need another "Norman" invasion".

[Wulfhere]

That particular thorn may be painful but they help remind us all who we are, where we are, how we got here and why we don't need another "Norman" invasion".

Since the EU represents the latest "Norman invasion" and the Scots are very pro-EU, they are the ones facilitating our continued subservience to it.

[Albannach]

It's England forcing us out of the EU against our will not the other way round, whatever England wants England gets no exceptions. As for subsidising us, the UK is £1.78 trillion in debt, it can't even subsidise itself nevermind Scotland.

If you take oil and the Scottish food and drink sector out of UK exports what does England actually have to export that you can't get elsewhere? I mean Scotch whisky alone accounts for over 20% of UK food and drink exports and 98% of the oil is in Scottish waters.

I seriously think England is in for a wake up call come independence day, if Scotland is such a drain on the poor downtrodden English taxpayer then why are your politicians so desperate to keep us in the UK?

http://fortune.com/2014/09/17/scotland-uk-independence/

[GreentheViper]

Better a thorn in your side than an enemy on the border.

+1

[Albannach]

Better a thorn in your side than an enemy on the border.

nonsense, an independent Scotland wouldn't be England's enemy.

[frankhammer]

nonsense, an independent Scotland wouldn't be England's enemy.

An island nation is a fortress. Create a border and who knows when you'll find yourself threatened. No one can foresee the future.

[Albannach]

An island nation is a fortress. Create a border and who knows when you'll find yourself threatened. No one can foresee the future.

No thanks, as far as I am concerned Britain/UK or whatever you want to call it is just a pseudonym for greater England, the UK is not fit for purpose when one nation (England) has all the power, as it stands without independence or even a federal UK democracy is all but dead in Scotland.

And as for all this Island fortress nonsense and threats, I am going to guess that while you are against Scottish independence and creating borders you're all for the borders that will be created by Brexit?

[Smaug]

Wulfhere is back!? Welcome back! Same for Albannach.

[Wulfhere]

nonsense, an independent Scotland wouldn't be England's enemy.

History, sadly, tells us otherwise. Continental empires have always used Scotland as a back door to attempt to invade or otherwise destabilise England (the latest such empire, the EU, is no different), which is the very reason why the English government eventually, and reluctantly, decided that union was the only solution. Annexing Scotland was justified in strategic terms, and keeping it is still justified for the same reasons. However, it has always been, and still is, a financial drain on the English purse.

[Wulfhere]

Wulfhere is back!? Welcome back! Same for Albannach.

Hello!

[frankhammer]

Yes and no. Between the UK and the rest of Europe, the natural borders are in place. Between the UK and Ireland, this needs to be resolved between the two countries. I'm fairly sure Ireland and the UK could resolve this issue easily enough.

[rein]

Would English politicians really allow that to happen?

[Albannach]

History, sadly, tells us otherwise. Continental empires have always used Scotland as a back door to attempt to invade or otherwise destabilise England (the latest such empire, the EU, is no different), which is the very reason why the English government eventually, and reluctantly, decided that union was the only solution. Annexing Scotland was justified in strategic terms, and keeping it is still justified for the same reasons. However, it has always been, and still is, a financial drain on the English purse.

That's the problem with the English, Scotland isn't your colony or your possession, it will be up to us if and when we become independent and we wont be asking for your permission, and neither has it always been a drain to the English purse, we have actually contributed £64bn more to the UK treasury than we have received back over the last 30 years.

And I'll repeat it because you seem to be ignoring it but the fact that the UK national debt is £1.78 trillion would suggest you can't even subsidise your own nation.

[Wulfhere]

That's the problem with the English, Scotland isn't your colony or your possession, it will be up to us if and when we become independent and we wont be asking for your permission, and neither has it always been a drain to the English purse, we have actually contributed £64bn more to the UK treasury than we have received back over the last 30 years.

And I'll repeat it because you seem to be ignoring it but the fact that the UK national debt is £1.78 trillion would suggest you can't even subsidise your own nation.

Actually, at the risk of pointing out the obvious, you do need our permission if you want to be independent.

As for the national debt, you appear to be unsure as to how it works. It is so high precisely because people like Gordon Brown (himself Scotch) decided to subsidise the UK economy, including, disproportionately highly (because it was poorer), Scotland.

[Albannach]

No we don't need your permission, under Scots law the people of Scotland are sovereign not Westminster, if you try and hold us against our will it goes from a union to occupation and we all know how that ended in Ireland ie. England lost, you're talking about the monetary cost but are you willing to pay that price in blood? because that's what will happen.

As for the subsidy myth Scots represent 8.4 per cent of the UK's total population, but they generate 9.4 per cent of its annual revenues in tax. Over the last 30 years we have contributed £64bn more than we have received back, if you can dispute these facts then go ahead.

Anyway I think while we disagree with who subsidises who, it seems we both agree that the UK should end.

[Wulfhere]

No we don't need your permission, under Scots law the people of Scotland are sovereign not Westminster, if you try and hold us against our will it goes from a union to occupation and we all know how that ended in Ireland ie. England lost, you're talking about the monetary cost but are you willing to pay that price in blood? because that's what will happen.

As for the subsidy myth Scots represent 8.4 per cent of the UK's total population, but they generate 9.4 per cent of its annual revenues in tax. Over the last 30 years we have contributed £64bn more than we have received back, if you can dispute these facts then go ahead.

Anyway I think while we disagree with who subsidises who, it seems we both agree that the UK should end.

Under Scotch law the former parliament of Scotland gave all its powers to the Westminster parliament, which is sovereign. In any case, the example of Catalonia should prove a cautionary tale to those who want to declare UDI.

Incidentally, the Shetlands, having a Norse cultural affiliation, should be hived off from Scotland and join England as part of the Frisian Alliance. Which would somewhat scupper your claims to own a lot of sea.

[Albannach]

Under Scotch law the former parliament of Scotland gave all its powers to the Westminster parliament, which is sovereign. In any case, the example of Catalonia should prove a cautionary tale to those who want to declare UDI.

Incidentally, the Shetlands, having a Norse cultural affiliation, should be hived off from Scotland and join England as part of the Frisian Alliance. Which would somewhat scupper your claims to own a lot of sea.

Lol ok mate, actually I know your trolling and I shouldn't bite but Shetland doesn't have any desire to secede from Scotland and even if they did they Would be an island enclave is Scottish waters and only be entitled to territorial waters extending twelve miles from their coastline.

Also the protection of Scots law for all perpetuity was enshrined in the treaty of union, the principle of unlimited parliamentary sovereignty is a distinctly English priciple and has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law, the people of Scotland are sovereign and even Scottish Unionists recognise this fact when they voted to endorse the claim of right in the UK parliament a few weeks ago.

And what the fuck is the Frisian alliance? lol.

[Dandelion]

And what the fuck is the Frisian alliance? lol.

It's weird indeed. I checked the website and it seems to base itself esoterically off a forged manuscript from the 19th century written in a reconstructed Old Frisian with humourous elements by François Haverschmidt (purportedly) also known as Piet Paaltjes. One of the greatest Dutch poets of his era. The man forged it because he was a liberal using it to challenge the conservative mores of his era but his work was too good and ended up getting taken too seriously. :)

He was a Protestant preacher with liberal ideas and wrote it to sent the message that the Bible isn't to be taken literally by writing a parody of it in a Frisian context (absurd on purpose, by claiming Frisians stand at the root of the great ancient civilisations like the Greeks and the Phoenicians using silly word-games). :) Even the Finns and Magyars are mentioned. Finns being rigid and orthodox (fine) and Magyars being superstitious practitioners of magic.

It reminds me of Goropius Becanus (from my city) who claimed that Dutch was the ancestral language of all. The language as spoken by Adam and Eve from which all other languages descent lol.

[Wulfhere]

It's weird indeed. I checked the website and it seems to base itself esoterically off a forged manuscript from the 19th century written in a reconstructed Old Frisian with humourous elements by François Haverschmidt (purportedly) also known as Piet Paaltjes. One of the greatest Dutch poets of his era. The man forged it because he was a liberal using it to challenge the conservative mores of his era but his work was too good and ended up getting taken too seriously. :)

He was a Protestant preacher with liberal ideas and wrote it to sent the message that the Bible isn't to be taken literally by writing a parody of it in a Frisian context (absurd on purpose, by claiming Frisians stand at the root of the great ancient civilisations like the Greeks and the Phoenicians using silly word-games). :) Even the Finns and Magyars are mentioned. Finns being rigid and orthodox (fine) and Magyars being superstitious practitioners of magic.

It reminds me of Goropius Becanus (from my city) who claimed that Dutch was the ancestral language of all. The language as spoken by Adam and Eve from which all other languages descent lol.

There is not a shred of evidence that François Haverschmidt had anything to do with the Oera Linda Book. That's just a theory invented by Goffe Jensma.

[Sikeliot]

I think England and Scotland should split, and everything from Yorkshire north should become part of Scotland. Northern England is culturally far closer to Scotland than to say, Essex or Kent.

[MysteriousWays]

Would be best for both England and Scotland.

[Tooting Carmen]

England won't have access to North Sea oil at all, but other than that yes.

[Gold-Shekel]

The "Scotland should split" people are just bored people who like to see shit they wouldn't expect happen, in reality England needs Scotland because they need the United Kingdom, nobody has gotten stronger by getting smaller.

[Graham]

I think England and Scotland should split, and everything from Yorkshire north should become part of Scotland. Northern England is culturally far closer to Scotland than to say, Essex or Kent.

Northern England is not ours. We have a centuries old established border. The north doesn't even care or fight for devolved rule. It's England through and through.

[Gwydion]

Northern England is not ours. We have a centuries old established border. The north doesn't even care or fight for devolved rule. It's England through and through.

Cumbria was once part of the Kingdom of Strathclyde whose last king died fighting alongside the Kingdom of Scotland after which it was annexed. It was only later with the coming of the Normans I believe that Cumbria was secured for England and I believe it was claimed by the Kingdom of the Scots in the Middle Ages. Then again Lothian was once part of Bernicia/Northumbria so I suppose it works both ways.

Not sure how it is in modern times but I believe I read somewhere that English Border folk felt a closer affinity to Lowland Scots than to Wessex/Southeastern England in the past. If my memory serves me right, genetically I believe they are also closer, with the Midlands of England being closer to the south than to the north. So in a sense North Britain is a genetic and cultural zone differentiated from the south.

[Gwydion]

As to the thread topic, I'm a Yankee so my opinion doesn't matter in the context of modern British politics, but being of Scottish lineage with English ancestry the question does interest me. On the one hand I believe the Union of the Crowns and Acts of Union were negative for Scotland in terms of culture, nationalism, and independence but of course was good for some Scots financially. It was probably something William Wallace, Bruce, and the other heroes of the Wars of Independence would have been firmly against.

On the other hand I think especially today that people of British Isles ancestry are better off working together than against one another.

[Graham]

The closest English place to Scotland politically and mentality is Liverpool and then Manchester or Newcastle in my opinion.

[Grace O'Malley]

I think it all depends in how Britain goes outside the EU. If Britain isn't doing so well or something happens that the Scots don't like then I can see them wanting another referendum. It's always going to be on the cards. If Britain manages to to do all right then the Scots will not care but if things go South they'll start thinking about joining the EU in their own right.

[NSXD60]

Scotland should declare England a 3rd world shithole and build a wall around itself.

[Tooting Carmen]

I think it all depends in how Britain goes outside the EU. If Britain isn't doing so well or something happens that the Scots don't like then I can see them wanting another referendum. It's always going to be on the cards. If Britain manages to to do all right then the Scots will not care but if things go South they'll start thinking about joining the EU in their own right.

But chances are Spain, given the threat of Catalonia in particular, would veto an independent Scotland from joining the EU.

[Grace O'Malley]

But chances are Spain, given the threat of Catalonia in particular, would veto an independent Scotland from joining the EU.

If Scotland decided by a referendum to vote for independence that would be looked on differently. I think the reason re Catalonia is that there was no official referendum agreed to by Spain whereas the situation in Scotland is different. There was an agreement that if the majority of people voted for or against all the UK would abide by this. It is the same situation with Northern Ireland.

[Wulfhere]

If Scotland decided by a referendum to vote for independence that would be looked on differently. I think the reason re Catalonia is that there was no official referendum agreed to by Spain whereas the situation in Scotland is different. There was an agreement that if the majority of people voted for or against all the UK would abide by this. It is the same situation with Northern Ireland.

This is true, and the Scots voted against independence. If the SNP decided to hold another referendum now, it would be in the same position as the Catalans.

[Grace O'Malley]

This is true, and the Scots voted against independence. If the SNP decided to hold another referendum now, it would be in the same position as the Catalans.

The consent of the UK Parliament would have to be given and depending on the situation I think if there was enough impetus they would give it but yes they could refuse. That would go down like a lead balloon though.

[Wulfhere]

The consent of the UK Parliament would have to be given and depending on the situation I think if there was enough impetus they would give it but yes they could refuse. That would go down like a lead balloon though.

It would go down just about as well as it did in Catalonia. Which is still part of Spain.

I do have a question for ScotNats though. Why are all your leaders named after fish?

[Grace O'Malley]

It would go down just about as well as it did in Catalonia. Which is still part of Spain.

I do have a question for ScotNats though. Why are all your leaders named after fish?

I doubt London would have the same issues as Spain has re Catalonia. I don't think Catalonia was ever an independent nation and Scotland joined the UK willingly so I think you would agree the situation might be looked on a bit differently. If Scotland wanted independence I can't see the rest of the UK standing in their way especially if enough people wanted a referendum. Northern Ireland can have a referendum to join the Republic of Ireland if they wanted and this could happen as well if Brexit goes sour. If the UK manages to have a good economy ex Brexit than I don't see things changing as far as the present UK but if things go wrong all hell is going to break lose. I can see both Scotland and Northern Ireland wanting to go back to being in the EU if that happens. We'll see in a few years time.

[renaissance12]

Are Scots attached to their traditions more than English ?

To me Scotland is more British than England...(anybody could be English ... )

[Wulfhere]

Are Scots attached to their traditions more than English ?

To me Scotland is more British than England...(anybody could be English ... )

Don't tell that to a Scot!

British is something of an artificial construct, and pretty much everything that people, especially, I imagine, foreigners, associate with it are actually English characteristics. English, however, is an ethnicity. Non-white people living in England with UK citizenship almost always call themselves British, but never English.

[renaissance12]

Don't tell that to a Scot!

British is something of an artificial construct, and pretty much everything that people, especially, I imagine, foreigners, associate with it are actually English characteristics. English, however, is an ethnicity. Non-white people living in England with UK citizenship almost always call themselves British, but never English.


Thanks for the explanation..

[Finnish Swede]

Scotland should declare England a 3rd world shithole and build a wall around itself.

Scots could move to closer Nordic countries .... Norway, Denmark. Iceland and Sweden.

[Gwydion]

Don't tell that to a Scot!

British is something of an artificial construct, and pretty much everything that people, especially, I imagine, foreigners, associate with it are actually English characteristics. English, however, is an ethnicity. Non-white people living in England with UK citizenship almost always call themselves British, but never English.

Though there is a more primordial meaning of the word "British", namely the Celtic inhabitants of Britain who spoke languages ancestral to Welsh, Cornish, and Breton but which also included the now extinct Cumbric and Pictish. Based on the Irish term for the Picts in old records which was "Cruithin" as well as old Welsh records who refer to them as "Prydyn", both seem to imply the Picts thought of themselves or were thought of by others as British, perhaps par excellence since unlike the Britons/Welsh to the south they were never under Roman dominion and did not undergo any Romanization. Later with the uniting the the Dal Riata and Pictish gens into a single kingdom, the Gaelic world "Alba" was used to denote the new entity, which of course is the old Q-Celtic word for "Britain."

Hence it could be said when speaking of British in this sense, at one time the Scots (Picts and Alba) thought of themselves as British, perhaps the most British of British.

[Wulfhere]

Though there is a more primordial meaning of the word "British", namely the Celtic inhabitants of Britain who spoke languages ancestral to Welsh, Cornish, and Breton but which also included the now extinct Cumbric and Pictish. Based on the Irish term for the Picts in old records which was "Cruithin" as well as old Welsh records who refer to them as "Prydyn", both seem to imply the Picts thought of themselves or were thought of by others as British, perhaps par excellence since unlike the Britons/Welsh to the south they were never under Roman dominion and did not undergo any Romanization. Later with the uniting the the Dal Riata and Pictish gens into a single kingdom, the Gaelic world "Alba" was used to denote the new entity, which of course is the old Q-Celtic word for "Britain."

Hence it could be said when speaking of British in this sense, at one time the Scots (Picts and Alba) thought of themselves as British, perhaps the most British of British.

Yes, that's certainly true. Up until the 18th century the term British referred to what we now call Celts, which is supremely ironic, given that many of them now wish to reject the name. The term British was then appropriated by the British state, following the union with Scotland in 1707.

[Gwydion]

Scots could move to closer Nordic countries .... Norway, Denmark. Iceland and Sweden.

Historically at least there was always much interaction and dynastic marriages between the Scots and Norwegians. An interesting historical "what if" is what if Malcolm III's first wife, Ingibiorg Finnsdottir, didn't die allowing him to remarry Margaret of Wessex who is seen as beginning the Anglicizing influences in Scotland. If Ingibiorg didn't die, perhaps there would have been more of a Nordic cultural influence in Scottish history. Precedents for this occurred in the 10th century with two Scottish monarchs bearing Norse names, namely Indolf and Amlaib (Olaf.)

[Finnish Swede]

Historically at least there was always much interaction and dynastic marriages between the Scots and Norwegians. An interesting historical "what if" is what if Malcolm III's first wife, Ingibiorg Finnsdottir, didn't die allowing him to remarry Margaret of Wessex who is seen as beginning the Anglicizing influences in Scotland. If Ingibiorg didn't die, perhaps there would have been more of a Nordic cultural influence in Scottish history. Precedents for this occurred in the 10th century with two Scottish monarchs bearing Norse names, namely Indolf and Amlaib (Olaf.)

Well; one idiot dumped me down here because of my (personal) comment.

He got back (afterwards) ... what he deserved!

[Dandelion]

https://satwcomic.com/art/new-nordic.jpg

[Wulfhere]

Both Scotland and England share close cultural links with Scandinavia.

[Finnish Swede]

...

[renaissance12]

Both Scotland and England share close cultural links with Scandinavia.


Scandinavia culture ? there is no Scandinavia culture...

I don't think ( i hope ) that you ( don't ) consider North saga ( written by Christians monks.. without any historical roots.. but their fantasy ) as culture..

Scandinavia culture was less sophisticated than Borneo tribes culture..Till 1000-1100 A.D. Scandinavians and Vikings were not civilized....
Forget discovery of america... their discovery led to nothing


It is funny: North saga were written by Christians Monks .. and they were 100% based on fantasy...because nobody knew what was scandinavia culture.. because there was no scandinavia culture...

North Saga became popular in the XIX century as a reactions to a inferiority complex of some people living in North germany and scandinavia..( never conquested by romans )

[Wulfhere]

Scandinavia culture ? there is no Scandinavia culture...

I don't think ( i hope ) that you ( don't ) consider North saga ( written by Christians monks.. without any historical roots.. but their fantasy ) as culture..

Scandinavia culture was less sophisticated than Borneo tribes culture..Till 1000 A.D.. Scandinavians and Vikings were not civilized....
Forget discovery of america... their discovery led to nothing


It is funny: North saga were written by Christians Monks .. and they were 100% based on fantasy...because nobody knew what was scandinavia culture.. because there was no scandinavia culture...

North Saga became popular in the XIX century as a reactions to a inferiority complex of some people living in North germany and scandinavia..

Inferior to whom? The Italians?