a reply to: guohua
As long as the eggs are not too raw, I don't mind.
As a child at school, I used to ask for hard-boiled eggs, because my mother was prone to under-cook soft-boiled ones.
England and Scotland were separate countries until 1603. Scots had a habit of invading England whenever the English were at war with France, which was
From 1603, England and Scotland had the same ruler (the Stuarts) but remained distinct countries. James I (or James VI. for the Scots) had ideas about
uniting them more closely, but the English weren't interested. It was enough that invasions from the north had stopped.
Middle of seventeenth century, the Scots rebelled against the Stuarts, the English joined in. In 1660,Charles II was restored by both countries at the
same time. In 1688, James II was rejected by both countries at the same time. So the union remained purely dynastic, the same king operating through
two different governments.
At the beginning of the next century, the initiative for closer union came from the Scottish side, for economic reasons. Lack of access to London
finance was leaving them economically isolated.
The result was the Union of 1707, which brought about a single Parliament for the whole island. Thus the Scots got what they wanted (economic union)
and the English got what they wanted (freedom to fight the French without back-stabbing attacks from the north). Scottish law and the Scottish church
remained separate, because nobody would gain anything from trying to merge them.
In the late twentieth century, Scottish agitation was placated by giving them a local Parliament of their own. This meant they could have the best of
both worlds. They could control their own local affairs as they liked, and they could also continue to share in controlling what happened over the
In short, all the agitation about "we are ruled by England, we need independence" was a somewhat fraudulent representation of the situation, and the
voters have recognised the fact.