Deputy Leader of UK calls Scots Extremists

Nobody, absolutely nobody listens to or pays any attention to what Nick Clegg says. He is a man so desperate for a taste of power he jumped into bed with the tories and in doing so has set his political party back by at least 30 years.

reply to post by malcr


Nice post Mal, I agree with most of the points raised excluding the final one.

- You would still be run by a banker controlled society, TPTB are everywhere excluding North Korea and Iran and probably a few other countries.

+ It wasn't Cameron that raised the legal issue, it was a Scottish Lib Dem Mp who I can't remember the name of right now. Micheal Moore his name is Scottish Secretary - he is giving a statement to MPS today don't know what time, live coverage can be found on BBC website.

- The only reason they want a vote sooner rather than later is because everything suggests that if a vote takes place before the SNP have sufficient time to manipulate the populace into voting a certain way, they will vote against independence (this would mean they want Scotland within the UK).

- Politicians are egomaniacs and Cameron wouldn't want his legacy to be the "pm that oversaw the death of great britain"

- Tory dominance isn't assured, they were lucky to get into power - majority of people are turning off politicians due to expenses and other crap.

Originally posted by RebellionOutlaw
reply to post by YeshuaPiso

 

You understand the contradictory statement within your opening lines? It is viable? Yes - You then go on to cite a bunch of countries which suffered major economic hardship and untold over forms of suffering due to these splits.
Also, as far as i'm aware none of them were unified as long as 300+ years? and none of them took part in conquering half the world.

So you will have "your share" of ships, etc etc - I don't thinks this will happen, they are Great British - Meaning they are English,Welsh and North Irish - Your share in that would be minimal there would be third world countries with better defense and armed forces than you would have - Meaning you would be a lot more weaker and open to exploitation than you are now.

So you will be independent but want to continue using our embassies? That isn't independence considering you are still relying on us for this - Ok then, just say this situation does take place - have fun paying our rent for us.

I think it is quite an important issue regarding sport, Great British athletes have fought alongside us for generations, our whole history of sport would have to be rewrote to accommodate these changes.

Of course the borders would change, why would we allow an open border policy to an alien nation? You could let anyone come into this country unopposed. Things would not stay the same if you became independent.

EU issue - the United Kingdom would still exist without Scotland - Scotland would have to gain membership to the EU and I hope if this happens it has to go through the same channels of all other countries that seek membership.

Without the Scottish Mps at westminster, the whole of our parliament set up would have to change drastically it would take ages to draw up plans to do this and the whole face of British politics would be different, what my vote is worth, how we vote etc - Without the Scottish Mps at westminster ( i don't know how many are there) there would x amount of empty seats, do they redistribute and make new constituencies, or do they shrink Parliament?

Okay, clearly you do not understand the meanings of the words 'contradictory' or 'viable'. I suggest you consult a dictionary.

As for the armed forces, trust me, this will happen. This is accepted by all those actively involved in the UK's major political parties and their civil servants. A headache, perhaps but it will happen. As an alternative, you can keep the lot but you can also then retain our share of the National Debt....

As for the size of our forces.... what size and type of armed forces do you believe an independent Scotland should have? Who is going to exploit us as you put it? Do you mean that we wouldn't be able to help in the future equivalents of the glorious invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq? Or the 'liberation' of Libya?

Embassies/consulates - you clearly misunderstand that Scottish taxpayers have already paid our share of these embassies and consulates. Again, whether you believe or not, UK civil servants have already put contingency plans in place for such agreements should Scotland become independent.

The point about sport I'll just ignore. It doesn't merit further discussion.

Your 'alien nation' comment is ridiculous. But you have also confirmed that any changes at the border would be an English move.

EU. The United Kingdom, I'm afraid would not exist without Scotland. Your ridiculous statement is akin to saying that Czechoslovakia would still exist without Slovakia.

Do they shrink Parliament? Yes.

Originally posted by RebellionOutlaw
reply to post by malcr

 

Nice post Mal, I agree with most of the points raised excluding the final one.
.

I'm entitled to a belief

One thing I missed off. Not all the oil fields are Scottish. The current "splitting" of the North Sea is done by equidistance from coastlines despite the SNP claims it should be horizontal. Simply look at what parts are Danish, norwegian etc and its all equidistanct (EU ruling not G Brown or T Blair). So if Scotland is independant some the southerly fields are actually in English waters (Berwick is very very far north level with South Glasgow !!!!!). This has a significant detrimental impact on the finances of Scotland hence why the SNP getting very agitated about it. Which is quite ironic considering their support of EU membership!

reply to post by YeshuaPiso



viable
5. practicable; workable: a viable alternative.
dictionary.reference.com...

contradictory
www.merriam-webster.com...

You say it is practicable, workable and a viable alternative but then you back this up with genocide, economic hardship and untold suffering as your idea of a "viable alternative". (not suggesting that genocide will come to Scotland, but the latter two will). Which is completely contradictory, how can it be viable if when your examples are of it failing? (not being a workable). You could go out on a whim and say "YEAH BUT THEY GOT THEIR INDEPENDENCE!?"?" And this is true, they did get their independence but look what happened in those countries and then tell me its viable.

The fact is this; Our armed forces has been downsized drastically, dramatically - There just isn't a lot to go around, your share of the Armed Forces would be minimal, tiny because there isn't a lot left. I think if anything they would probably go for a pact like they formed with France to "share" military hardware.

No, I'm talking about World War Three which is pretty much right around the corner/on the cards - Exploitation from powers of Russia, EU even Denmark and Sweden. Scotland would cease to be a global power. Why do you mention the "glorious invasions"? Have i stated I support these actions, if anything the opposite (refering to them as oil wars in previous posts) and you would probably be forced into such actions again through the EU.
Edit; Also forgot to ad d exploitation from the United Kingdom and the American Triumvirate complex.

Whether you have paid for them or not, they're not going to allow you to use them for free - You would be forced to pay rent to use them, or continue paying for them in the same capacity as you do now. That isn't independence, and why would the UK want to share its hub of foreign intelligence with Scotland?

No, I doubt Scotland would want all the "immigrants" that come into England going north of the border either - fact is, it would be an alien nation (read your passport, it uses this term) - You would need a passport and a visa to enter in this country if independence happened which would probably split some families up who don't have these.

No its not the same at all - the United Kingdom is four countries if one of them leaves the other three countries are still the United Kingdom, people in Ireland, Wales and England are not going to stop being British if Scotland leave and people in Scotland would still view themselves as British - That wouldn't stop, the United Kingdom, Great Britain would still be a member state of the EU with or without Scotland, Scotland however would not continue being a member (as it dropped out of UK).

(Can you please provide sources to back up the claims you're making regarding these contingency plans)

Originally posted by YeshuaPiso


EU. The United Kingdom, I'm afraid would not exist without Scotland. Your ridiculous statement is akin to saying that Czechoslovakia would still exist without Slovakia.

Sorry have to call you on your ignorance, the United Kingdom would continue to exist without Scotland as it is made up of more than just Scotland and England/Wales, Im sure that Northern Ireland isnt going to leave at the same time.

Originally posted by caerloyw

Originally posted by YeshuaPiso


EU. The United Kingdom, I'm afraid would not exist without Scotland. Your ridiculous statement is akin to saying that Czechoslovakia would still exist without Slovakia.

Sorry have to call you on your ignorance, the United Kingdom would continue to exist without Scotland as it is made up of more than just Scotland and England/Wales, Im sure that Northern Ireland isnt going to leave at the same time.

I'm sorry but this is not ignorance this is a fact. Our nation currently is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Union in the United part of the name refers to the crowns of Scotland and England (which effectively included Wales).

If Scotland is no longer part of that Union, then the United Kingdom no longer exists as a political entity.

Perhaps painful for you, but true.

Originally posted by RebellionOutlaw
reply to post by YeshuaPiso

 

viable
5. practicable; workable: a viable alternative.
dictionary.reference.com...

contradictory
www.merriam-webster.com...

You say it is practicable, workable and a viable alternative but then you back this up with genocide, economic hardship and untold suffering as your idea of a "viable alternative". (not suggesting that genocide will come to Scotland, but the latter two will). Which is completely contradictory, how can it be viable if when your examples are of it failing? (not being a workable). You could go out on a whim and say "YEAH BUT THEY GOT THEIR INDEPENDENCE!?"?" And this is true, they did get their independence but look what happened in those countries and then tell me its viable.

The fact is this; Our armed forces has been downsized drastically, dramatically - There just isn't a lot to go around, your share of the Armed Forces would be minimal, tiny because there isn't a lot left. I think if anything they would probably go for a pact like they formed with France to "share" military hardware.

No, I'm talking about World War Three which is pretty much right around the corner/on the cards - Exploitation from powers of Russia, EU even Denmark and Sweden. Scotland would cease to be a global power. Why do you mention the "glorious invasions"? Have i stated I support these actions, if anything the opposite (refering to them as oil wars in previous posts) and you would probably be forced into such actions again through the EU.
Edit; Also forgot to ad d exploitation from the United Kingdom and the American Triumvirate complex.

Whether you have paid for them or not, they're not going to allow you to use them for free - You would be forced to pay rent to use them, or continue paying for them in the same capacity as you do now. That isn't independence, and why would the UK want to share its hub of foreign intelligence with Scotland?

No, I doubt Scotland would want all the "immigrants" that come into England going north of the border either - fact is, it would be an alien nation (read your passport, it uses this term) - You would need a passport and a visa to enter in this country if independence happened which would probably split some families up who don't have these.

No its not the same at all - the United Kingdom is four countries if one of them leaves the other three countries are still the United Kingdom, people in Ireland, Wales and England are not going to stop being British if Scotland leave and people in Scotland would still view themselves as British - That wouldn't stop, the United Kingdom, Great Britain would still be a member state of the EU with or without Scotland, Scotland however would not continue being a member (as it dropped out of UK).

(Can you please provide sources to back up the claims you're making regarding these contingency plans)

edit on 10-1-2012 by RebellionOutlaw because: Missed

Okay, I understand from your previous posts that you are a young man but don't make me become a teacher.

Your original statement referred to our inter-connectedness as a nation and whether it was viable to separate, which means is it possible to separate those areas in which we currently work together. Clearly, it is a viable proposition to do so and I quoted some examples of countries which had done so.

Regardless of the economic hardships you feel these countries had, it was still clearly viable for them to separate - as evidenced by the fact that they did so. That is not contradictory.

In any case, I'd like you to demonstrate how Croatia and Slovenia have been economically damaged by their independence....

Originally posted by YeshuaPiso

Originally posted by caerloyw

Originally posted by YeshuaPiso


EU. The United Kingdom, I'm afraid would not exist without Scotland. Your ridiculous statement is akin to saying that Czechoslovakia would still exist without Slovakia.

Sorry have to call you on your ignorance, the United Kingdom would continue to exist without Scotland as it is made up of more than just Scotland and England/Wales, Im sure that Northern Ireland isnt going to leave at the same time.

I'm sorry but this is not ignorance this is a fact. Our nation currently is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Union in the United part of the name refers to the crowns of Scotland and England (which effectively included Wales).

If Scotland is no longer part of that Union, then the United Kingdom no longer exists as a political entity.

Perhaps painful for you, but true.

Perhaps you have difficulty with the English language but it is the UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND ie the UK includes Northern Ireland thus Scotland leaving is irrelevant - good luck becoming a failed state again, which lead to Scotland wanting union with England to start with

The Queen would still be your head of state regardless of Scottish independence, the monarchy has very little to do with these things anymore other than a formality.

Originally posted by caerloyw

Originally posted by YeshuaPiso

Originally posted by caerloyw

Originally posted by YeshuaPiso


EU. The United Kingdom, I'm afraid would not exist without Scotland. Your ridiculous statement is akin to saying that Czechoslovakia would still exist without Slovakia.

Sorry have to call you on your ignorance, the United Kingdom would continue to exist without Scotland as it is made up of more than just Scotland and England/Wales, Im sure that Northern Ireland isnt going to leave at the same time.

I'm sorry but this is not ignorance this is a fact. Our nation currently is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Union in the United part of the name refers to the crowns of Scotland and England (which effectively included Wales).

If Scotland is no longer part of that Union, then the United Kingdom no longer exists as a political entity.

Perhaps painful for you, but true.

Perhaps you have difficulty with the English language but it is the UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND ie the UK includes Northern Ireland thus Scotland leaving is irrelevant - good luck becoming a failed state again, which lead to Scotland wanting union with England to start with

Sometimes this is painful.

Perhaps you should seek some instruction from someone you trust on this issue.

If one of the Kingdoms forming the Union is no longer in that Union, then that Union no longer exists in its previously configured state.

Of course England, Wales and Northern Ireland still exist but how do you now describe what's left?

The Solitary Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Originally posted by RebellionOutlaw
The Queen would still be your head of state regardless of Scottish independence, the monarchy has very little to do with these things anymore other than a formality.

The Queen is still Head of State in a number of Commonwealth countries - that doesn't mean Australia is part of your United Kingdom....

I'm afraid both of you gentlemen need to avail yourselves of an education in our constitutional arrangements.

Originally posted by YeshuaPiso

Originally posted by caerloyw

Originally posted by YeshuaPiso

Originally posted by caerloyw

Originally posted by YeshuaPiso


EU. The United Kingdom, I'm afraid would not exist without Scotland. Your ridiculous statement is akin to saying that Czechoslovakia would still exist without Slovakia.

Sorry have to call you on your ignorance, the United Kingdom would continue to exist without Scotland as it is made up of more than just Scotland and England/Wales, Im sure that Northern Ireland isnt going to leave at the same time.

I'm sorry but this is not ignorance this is a fact. Our nation currently is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Union in the United part of the name refers to the crowns of Scotland and England (which effectively included Wales).

If Scotland is no longer part of that Union, then the United Kingdom no longer exists as a political entity.

Perhaps painful for you, but true.

Perhaps you have difficulty with the English language but it is the UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND ie the UK includes Northern Ireland thus Scotland leaving is irrelevant - good luck becoming a failed state again, which lead to Scotland wanting union with England to start with

Sometimes this is painful.

Perhaps you should seek some instruction from someone you trust on this issue.

If one of the Kingdoms forming the Union is no longer in that Union, then that Union no longer exists in its previously configured state.

Of course England, Wales and Northern Ireland still exist but how do you now describe what's left?

The Solitary Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Let me spell it out to you, unless you are simply trolling??

The name "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" was introduced in 1927 by the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act to reflect the granting of independence to the Irish Free State in 1922, which left Northern Ireland as the only part of the island of Ireland still within the UK.[21] Prior to this, the Acts of Union 1800, that led to the uniting the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801, had given the new state the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

link en.wikipedia.org...

So no need to change our country's name, since Scotland doesnt appear in it, the country would still contain the united kingdoms of England/Wales and Northern Ireland, simples init!

Its not painful to me if the increasingly racist/anti English, Scots leave the UK since the main party it will hurt in Westminster are the economically incompetent Labour Party.

reply to post by YeshuaPiso


Something being viable and something being possible are different - yes splitting is not an impossibility but is it viable for Scotland? The answer to this is just plain - No there is little benefit in leaving the United Kingdom. Why do you think the Welsh and the NI aint fighting for it? Because they know its a pretty stupid move which will push their countries out of mediocrity and into insignificance.

"The tensions escalated into the Croatian War of Independence when the Yugoslav National Army and various Serb paramilitaries attacked Croatia.[66] By the end of 1991, a high intensity war fought along a wide front reduced Croatia to control of about two-thirds of its territory.[67][68] On 15 January 1992, Croatia gained diplomatic recognition by the European Economic Community members, and subsequently the United Nations.[69][70] The war effectively ended in 1995 with a decisive victory by Croatia in August 1995.[71] The remaining occupied areas were restored to Croatia pursuant to the Erdut Agreement of November 1995, with the process concluded in January 1998"

- Yeah that was quite viable, war.
- Slovenia was also at war so yes quite viable.

Economically; these countries are not powerhouses, unity is better than being solo especially if that unity is fair which lets face it Great Britain is pretty fair (post-devolution) - the only powers Westminster actually has over member states is financial regulation.

You also stated former Soviet Bloc countries - just go to google right now and type "economies of countries of the former soviet bloc" - I haven't researched this in over two years but If i remember correctly out of every single former bloc country only one is doing ok economically.

You stated in relation to the two crowns becoming one, then stated that if Scotland gained independence from Westminster the union would be broken - How is this so if the two crowns are still one? With or without Scotland the other three states who are all linked are not going to have to go for re-admittance to the EU as they are already a member of the EU, however an independent Scotland has never been in the EU and more than likely would get fast tracked into it.

Originally posted by caerloyw

Originally posted by YeshuaPiso

Originally posted by caerloyw

Originally posted by YeshuaPiso

Originally posted by caerloyw

Originally posted by YeshuaPiso


EU. The United Kingdom, I'm afraid would not exist without Scotland. Your ridiculous statement is akin to saying that Czechoslovakia would still exist without Slovakia.

Sorry have to call you on your ignorance, the United Kingdom would continue to exist without Scotland as it is made up of more than just Scotland and England/Wales, Im sure that Northern Ireland isnt going to leave at the same time.

I'm sorry but this is not ignorance this is a fact. Our nation currently is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Union in the United part of the name refers to the crowns of Scotland and England (which effectively included Wales).

If Scotland is no longer part of that Union, then the United Kingdom no longer exists as a political entity.

Perhaps painful for you, but true.

Perhaps you have difficulty with the English language but it is the UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND ie the UK includes Northern Ireland thus Scotland leaving is irrelevant - good luck becoming a failed state again, which lead to Scotland wanting union with England to start with

Sometimes this is painful.

Perhaps you should seek some instruction from someone you trust on this issue.

If one of the Kingdoms forming the Union is no longer in that Union, then that Union no longer exists in its previously configured state.

Of course England, Wales and Northern Ireland still exist but how do you now describe what's left?

The Solitary Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Let me spell it out to you, unless you are simply trolling??

The name "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" was introduced in 1927 by the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act to reflect the granting of independence to the Irish Free State in 1922, which left Northern Ireland as the only part of the island of Ireland still within the UK.[21] Prior to this, the Acts of Union 1800, that led to the uniting the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801, had given the new state the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

So no need to change our country's name, since Scotland doesnt appear in it, the country would still contain the united kingdoms of England/Wales and Northern Ireland, simples init!

Its not painful to me if the increasingly racist/anti English, Scots leave the UK since the main party it will hurt in Westminster are the economically incompetent Labour Party.

You are obviously a half wit,perhaps you should have been educated in Scotland.
Great Britain =England and Scotland(Wales are a principality of England)
no Scotland = England no Great Britain
The united Kingdom is Great Britain+Northern Ireland(a Province) aka
The United Kingdom of great Britain and Northern Ireland (check your passport)

simples explanation
www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk...


I

I would also like to add - The SNP if they wanted independence could just declare it.

I would also like to add - The SNP if they wanted independence could just declare it.

aka Wales not on the flag

www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk...

reply to post by caerloyw


Okay, as simply as I can.... and you can check this with a Constitutional lawyer or a politics professor at any University.

There is no Great Britain, or United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland without Scotland as a constituent part.

Unfortunately, that is quite simply a fact. No twisting of facts or logic or turning Northern Ireland into a 'Kingdom' changes that. Please check with a reputable source.

As for the racism charge, I'm not entirely clear where I've ever said anything derogatory about any race - or, for that matter, any nationality (English, Welsh or Irish). As a Scotsman, with two English grandfathers, three English sons, a Welsh great-grandmother and with both grandmothers' families originating in Ireland (North and South), I am as much a child of these islands as anyone.

You will withdraw that characterisation.

Originally posted by RebellionOutlaw
I would also like to add - The SNP if they wanted independence could just declare it.

Once again, you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of not only Constitutional Law but also political reality.