Scotland, Wales, N.Ireland, and England...it's our Union, let's now fix it together.

a reply to: yuppa

You need to understand this about Scotland.

Scottish history offers proof that even the most failed state can be fixed – by uniting with a richer and more tranquil neighbour. For most of the early modern period, the Scots kingdom was Europe’s Afghanistan.

In the Highlands and the Hebrides, feudal warlords ruled over an utterly impoverished populace in conditions of lawlessness and internecine clan conflict. In the Lowlands, religious zealots who fantasised about a Calvinist theocracy – government by the godly Elect – prohibited dancing, drinking and drama. John Knox and his ilk were the Taliban of the Reformation.

Witches were burnt in large numbers in Scotland, not in England. Being the Scottish monarch was one of Europe’s most dangerous jobs. James I was murdered. James II died besieging Roxburgh Castle. James III also died in battle. So did James IV, at Flodden in 1513.

James V died after yet another defeat at the hands of the English at Solway Moss. Mary I – Mary Queen of Scots – was actually imprisoned and executed by the English. James VI’s reaction on hearing that he had succeeded the woman who had condemned his mother to death was not one of repugnance but relief. As King James I of England, he could not wait to relocate south. ......

The Union of the Parliaments in 1707 turned “Scotlanistan” into the Silicon Valley of 18th-century Europe, with Glasgow University as Stanford. The Union was a success partly because it sublimated these bitter Scottish divisions in a larger United Kingdom, while at the same time launching the country on an extraordinary economic boom that only really ran out of steam in the Sixties. ...............

Source : Daily Telegraph

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Whereismypassword
Aw come on lads the king of the noobs Yuppa has clearly seen brave heart!

SO have alot of the IRA. YEs i know bravehearts not quite accurate but the english did some nastiness as most countries they held and ran can attest. They started the issue but cannot stand the thought of losing a cash cow such as scotland because the deposits of gas and oil. I was going to post up the eagle picture with this caption,"so they have gas aoil deposits eh? sounds liek they could use some FREEDOM."

Again England is a big by and does not need to have territorries such as scotland under the crown. Although the royals are nothing more than placemats these days.

All i would like to say to you is............... FREEDOM FOR NATIVE AMERICAN INDIANS.

GERONIMOoooooooooooooooooo

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Whereismypassword
Aw come on lads the king of the noobs Yuppa has clearly seen brave heart!

SO have alot of the IRA. YEs i know bravehearts not quite accurate but the english did some nastiness as most countries they held and ran can attest. They started the issue but cannot stand the thought of losing a cash cow such as scotland because the deposits of gas and oil. I was going to post up the eagle picture with this caption,"so they have gas aoil deposits eh? sounds liek they could use some FREEDOM."

Again England is a big by and does not need to have territorries such as scotland under the crown. Although the royals are nothing more than placemats these days.

All i would like to say to you is............... FREEDOM FOR NATIVE AMERICAN INDIANS.

GERONIMOoooooooooooooooooo

lol! well IF they actually were here first. They werent though. there was a previous people here before them who they killed off. Archalogical evidence has been found to back up this theory as well if you look it up. SO the native americans are not as native as you think. KArma visited them in the form of spanish,english.

Although do you know most NA land is actually owned by their tribes but in a stewardship handled by th eUS government?

a reply to: grainofsand

You have totally misunderstood me. I don't actually think that NI, Wales or Scotland needs England or vica cersa. I think these areas should be governing themselves and not having to send huge chunks of the money they collect in council tax (as one example) to london to be told what they may keep of it whilst the rest gets syphoned off into things that don't affect their part of the UK whatsoever.

I do believe that were we small countries we would get a closer scrutiny on our government - which is one of the most bent in the world and taught the world a lot through empire-type thinking dirty tricks for robbing resources e.g. gold in south africa put into rothschild's families hands. I also don't want my country sitting in the limelight and interfering in other country's politics. Cameron armed the Libyans before their uprising against gadaffi - no look at the country - its unsafe for the people. I want to see our government looking and focusing on this country with an awareness of what goes on elsewhere. I also object to paying for a commowealth as well as the EU - but that's another source of revenge benefitting the elite only.

I don't and nev er have thought of the peoples of the different part of the UK as enemies but I do recognize a feeling in the world that many of us would like to be in smaller countries rather than a huge faceless federal block. I do think we need much more say in our politics. This like Milliband saying I can't have a vote on whether I want to stay or go from the EU. As a citizen I get narked when the Irish can vote on a very important issue but Milliband dictates no to me.

Now do you have a fairer understanding of where I am coming from. I have seen politicians once they have got their way on something refusing to honour their promises and scotland is going to be hit like this, just as before the referendum I said on here it won't be allowed to leave. Shall we see if cameron and osborne merely turn their backs, although they have had a rude awakening about the fact that we all see through these very wealthy men clinging to politics to put the right laws in place to benefit their own - fracking and queenie is why that bill got through the back door as she owns everything beneath the ground, so the public won't benefit like the Yanks from fracking and cheap oil prices. I would hope that the scots get what they were promised as a matter of honour, but how man y honourable men/women can you see in westminster? The referendum has already gone cold.

a reply to: yuppa

How could they resist "British" rule when there was no Union? They are also Britons, by the way, the same as the Welsh and Irish - British DOES NOT MEAN ENGLISH!..

Also, you're conveniently overlooking the Union of the Crowns, where a Scottish King ascended the throne of England - James VI - who did try, but failed, to form a political Union which was met with resistance by the English parliament and never followed through, until 1707 when Scotland came knocking....

But, ho hum.... What's actual history in favour of nationalist revisionism?

originally posted by: Shiloh7
Now do you have a fairer understanding of where I am coming from.

Yes, thanks for the considered reply. I understand you want a fairer future for Scotland and you believe that the only way to achieve it is through independence.

I would hope that the scots get what they were promised as a matter of honour, but how many honourable men/women can you see in westminster?

I see too few honourable folk in Westminster but even the dishonourable are forced/committed to keeping their very public promises to Scotland even if they do not wish to. I will be one of the first to shout if I see Scottish voters getting ripped off about that, but so would everyone in Scotland - They have no choice but to deliver on it, although the details will be argued.
If anything, I see the proposal to stop Scots MP's voting on solely English matters being pushed to the back burner by Labour, but greater powers for Scotland will be devolved, of that I am sure.

Either way, the people of Scotland voted for it, even if you don't like it, so it is time to respect the wishes of your countryfolk. I of course support your right to continue campaigning for independence if you wish, but it is also time for you and other yes voters to campaign for a fairer union for all of us. Your country chose to remain in union with N.Ireland, Wales, and England, so now is the time to work towards improving that union.

a reply to: amkia
The Scots voted to stay in union with N.Ireland, Wales, and England. How many slaves get a democratic vote?

originally posted by: LeBombDiggity
Serfs, that's what we are. Modern day slaves. Except we're so used to this sh*t that we don't even know how oppressed we are.

Again, 'Serfs' with a democratic vote. The Scots chose to remain in union with N.Ireland, Wales, and England.
If you hate being a serf in Scotland so much why don't you move back to your native France? Just curious as you seem to have no intention of supporting a strong, fair and just union for the nation the Scots voted to remain citizens of...the UK.

a reply to: yuppa
The Scots made the decision, not the Welsh, Northern Irish, or English, just the Scots.
It is now time to respect that decision and work together to improve the union for all of us.

originally posted by: mirageman
We can't go back in time and change some of the unsavoury moments of our history. But we can learn from them to make a fairer and better modern Britain.

We are also at a time when we can seize the moment and seek real change to our stale outdated political system. With a General Election next year it is up to ALL of us to keep this momentum going and seek real change.

Or we can slump back into disenchantment and the status quo will prevail.

It's up to all of us what happens next.

My sentiments exactly

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: yuppa

British DOES NOT MEAN ENGLISH!

I'm actually sick of explaining that to people on ATS, it is exactly why the thread title says 'Scotland, Wales, N.Ireland, and England'.
If anything, I hope the more rabid Braveheart loving US citizens of Scottish ancestry will have actually learned something from this whole independence debate - They are descendents of Scotland AND Britain., even if they don't like it.

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: yuppa

British DOES NOT MEAN ENGLISH!

I'm actually sick of explaining that to people on ATS, it is exactly why the thread title says 'Scotland, Wales, N.Ireland, and England'.
If anything, I hope the more rabid Braveheart loving US citizens of Scottish ancestry will have actually learned something from this whole independence debate - They are descendents of Scotland AND Britain., even if they don't like it.

You speak english correct? Brits speak english corect? The rest of the world refeers to members of the UK as English when they are discussing the entire UK right? So why get angry at the designation? The british used to be called that before the scotts joined em too im quite sure correct?

originally posted by: yuppa
he rest of the world refeers to members of the UK as English when they are discussing the entire UK right?

No, not correct - most I have encountered know the difference. It seems to be prevalent amongst mainly American people to confuse the two.

originally posted by: yuppa
The british used to be called that before the scotts joined em too im quite sure correct?

No, not correct. The English used to be called English prior to the Union. In fact, you will find little reference to "British" people prior to the 18th century. The term Britons may have been used back in the Roman times to describe people from the island of Britain, but that fell out of use with the collapse of the Empire.

The term Briton/British is used to describe someone from the islands and isn't nation specific.

a reply to: stumason

You are being trolled.

Can't you see that?

Go back and re-read. The topic doesn't matter. Only the argument does.

a reply to: neformore

Just denying ignorance, nef, just denying ignorance. If someone wishes to waste their own time posting nonsense, that's their life. I, on the other hand, am getting paid good money to sit here so while it is quiet at work, I may as well fight idiocy were I find it.

That said, it isn't uncommon for our American friends to mix up the term English/British, much the annoyance of some of our Scottish members I might add.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: yuppa

British DOES NOT MEAN ENGLISH!

I'm actually sick of explaining that to people on ATS, it is exactly why the thread title says 'Scotland, Wales, N.Ireland, and England'.
If anything, I hope the more rabid Braveheart loving US citizens of Scottish ancestry will have actually learned something from this whole independence debate - They are descendents of Scotland AND Britain., even if they don't like it.

You speak english correct? Brits speak english corect? The rest of the world refeers to members of the UK as English when they are discussing the entire UK right? So why get angry at the designation? The british used to be called that before the scotts joined em too im quite sure correct?

(Waves at troll)

Well, I'm Welsh and the last time someone called me English they wondered why I was rolling my eyes and glaring at them. Toodles!

originally posted by: neformore
a reply to: stumason

You are being trolled.

Can't you see that?

Go back and re-read. The topic doesn't matter. Only the argument does.

No nefer i wasnt trolling him. I actually was confused and did not know the diffrence. Stumason thank you for the clarification on the diffrence.

a reply to: yuppa

Brits do speak English. They also speak Scots, Cymraeg, Gaidhlig some even speak Gaeilge. Then you have Urdu, Hindi, Polish, Cantonese, Pashto, Gujarati, Brummie, Cockney, Scouse, Brizzle, Geordie and many many others. Difficult for the hard of thinking who show little interest in others outside of their own borders but there you go.

Well, now that the excellent geography/nomenclature lesson has finished it's time to pack our book bags for the politics class in the main hall...cheers folks.


I thought this was interesting today:
www.independent.co.uk... 6.html

"Don't let us believe there are irreconcilable differences...let us be part of one united family."
Calling the timetable for devolution "absolutely clear", Mr Brown said the main agreements between parties would be completed by St Andrew's Day in November and by Burns Night as the Scotland Act enabling new powers by the end of January.

Now I'm no fan of Gordon Brown but it seems that the pre-vote 'pledge' to Scotland is a sure thing now, and to be fair, how could they even dream of breaking it, when it has been so public. I myself would protest about such a sly tactic and support another vote for Scotland if those slippery bastards ripped the Scots off now.
The devil is always in the detail, but I am hopeful that this vote will be a game changer for the UK and we will look back in a few years and be pleased with how it turns out for all of us.

We can't undo Thursdays vote, and if we all get a better deal out of it while working together as a union then that will make me happy. I love living on our island, and I love that I can walk to my beach, turn left or right, and keep walking the coast until I get back home without leaving my country. A long walk I'll admit but those are my romantic thoughts of our island.

a reply to: grainofsand

I listened to Gordon Brown, all he did was waffle...no detail, job creating powers etc, Did you see Milbands reaction to devolution for England? I hope they get it but I wouldn't hold my breath. The new powers for Scotland will get lost in the whole devolution question for England. It is an important thing for the English people but it was not what our referendum was about. I think we will all get done over really.

Who put Brown in charge of anything? The English people would have more of a chance if Sturgeon was at the negotiating table. Labour won't favour devolution in England.

a reply to: midicon
I understand your concern, absolutely, but it's all we've got on the table right now so let's see how it pans out with the details. As a Welsh bloke who lives in England I genuinely support Scotland with this 'devo debate' right now. If the slippery politicians try to rip you guys off now I will be as angry as any Scot. It is a point of principle because the vote was clearly influenced by that 'pledge'.

The wider governance of the UK is of course an issue I'm passionate about myself, but the questions about the pledge being delivered actually comes before anything else in this current debate. I want that pledge to be honoured, above and before anything which affects me in England is thrashed out in Westminster.

We are a union again now, if we like it or not, so if we all work together watching our common enemy in Westminster then maybe, just maybe, we have the chance to make a better union for all of us.

a reply to: yuppa

Is the USA the rest of the world?

No, only Americans get confused with simple geography. And no, the English were called 'The English' before the Scots joined.

Americans, stop embarrisng yourselves with your lack of knowledge of the rest of the world.