Hernando's Hideaway. Another Thread "almost certainly not for you."

a reply to: DISRAELI
A "Full English Breakfast" coming right your way,,, and of-course a fresh cup of coffee.

Sure I think maybe you should do a thread, I could use a Explanation of why exactly independence for Scotland would of been a Bad Idea.
I'm from China and the Only Real freedom I've known is here in America and some people will say this is not Freedom!

Let me tell you, It's Much More freedom Than You Have In China!

Edit To Ask, How you want you eggs cooked?

a reply to: guohua
On the Scots, they were free and independent already as part of a free and independent Great Britain.
The "being ruled from England" idea was nonsense.
Cameron's predecessor was a Scotsman placed in office by a majority formed to a large extent by the constituencies which his Labour party held in Scotland. For decades the Labour party have been incapable of taking office on English voting alone. That is not exactly "Scotland suffering under English tyranny".

The full union was a Scottish idea in the first place, you know. The English of the time were quite content with having a common monarch and common foreign policy (to stop inconvenient invasions from the north). The Scottish leaders wanted a fuller union for economic reasons (the same ones that apply now) and twisted English arms with a threat to end the purely dynastic union. Hence the Union of 1707. Then the Scots began flooding south, taking over the London government, and reaping all the benefits. What exactly did they now need freedom from?

a reply to: DISRAELI
And just how did you want your eggs again?
OK, I guess, being from a Government that would Never, Ever Allow another nationality to have a say in their decision making, this as me scratching my head, so, Scotland had their own Government with in the UK but they still answered to the British Government, correct?
I'm tired, it's late and I'm Drunk, it's 03:40 AM here and I want to know,,,

a reply to: guohua

omg that is late! It is only 8.30 pm here and I thought I would stop in for a drink before doing the dishes...
I am procrastinating....

a reply to: Thurisaz
What ya drinking my friend, you got it on the House!!
We'll get you a night cap to help you sleep

a reply to: guohua

a glass of dry white wine thanks

what have you been drinking?

a reply to: Thurisaz

A Dry White Wine it is then,,,, I'm having Whisky Sours with the hubby,,,,, he keeps patting by bottom

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.

Potted history;
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 annoying.
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 whole nation.
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.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I rang a friend of mine and he is gonna be here in about 5 minutes... he is bringing his bagpipes.



that is all I know about Scotland.

a reply to: DISRAELI
Hmmmmmm, OK, My brain is processing this, my husband is nodding his big shaggy head and I'm seeing a picture of, OK, put the Queen, isn't she still receiving some sort of tax from all of the Scottish peoples?

What was this about Thacher killing their industry and shipping jobs, any truth in that? My husband says yes and no, mostly because of economical reasons it just wasn't affordable any more to have all those ship building yards.

a reply to: Thurisaz
OH, Bagpipes!!! OH, Cool!
Thank You,,, Let me Slap my husband, S L A PPPP Turn Up The Sound!!!

a reply to: Thurisaz
I hope you've told him that this is supposed to be a thread for good-natured discussion.

a reply to: guohua
Anything the Queen receives is coming from the whole nation (and voted on by the national Parliament). She is not picking on the Scots.
Ah yes, the Thatcher effect. During the campaign, I saw an interesting poll which analysed responses by age-group. It seems that the "Yes" agitation was coming not from the oldest group of voters, NOR from the youngest groups, but from the middle group. To me, this means "Those who learned their politics in emotional reaction against Maggie". The ATS reaction to her death showed that she too is capable of provoking violent argument. I will confine myselfto saying that I lved through her predecessors, so I think she was a Good Thing.

a reply to: DISRAELI
OK, Yes, See, I didn't understand any of that about her, my husband did in a way.
My specialty was American and Russian.

You know, from what I've read here at ATS from our British members, Their Very Happy the Scottish people voted No.

ETA:
I notice one member from England that wanted a Yes vote, he / she was under the impression that their taxes and world presence may go down and they'd not be dragged into any more wars and the Queen would have to take a pay cut, I think he was living in a Dream World!!!

a reply to: guohua
Yes, I think the opposite result would have damaged everybody, but it would have damaged the Scots themselves worst of all.
Hopefully the subject can now be laid to rest.

*ghosts in .... with bottle sake and cigar.. * .. morning.. afternoon.. night.. something like that .. got bored needed change scenery .. caught train to tokyo .. wandering round harajuku at moment ...

a reply to: guohua
a reply to: charles1952
Though" as in though life stresses me out, i haven't gone completely insane yet

a reply to: EyesOpenMouthShut

Hey EyesOpenMouthShut, I'm glad to hear that you're not insane. Yet. Let me know when you are, because I've never had success with insane friends, and I'd hate to lose you.

Why don't you buy me a dinner, and tell me a joke, it's been a horrendous day.

a reply to: charles1952
Tell me Charles, What Happened?
We don't care for Cliff Hangers here.
Beside you're among friends,,, and people who truly care for you.
So,,,,set down and have a drink.

a reply to: Expat888
You need to Ghost back in here and lets talk to Charles, I think he needs a good Shoulder and a good ear, we have both.