Deputy Leader of UK calls Scots Extremists

Unless Scotland plan on becoming a Republic, or removing the Queen as their head of state - Then the union crowns will still be in place and unless you can show me this is their intention i fail to see your point (citing this as evidence as why UK.PLC will begin trading under a different name).

reply to post by clanger


I think that might go down quite well in certain parts....

Originally posted by RebellionOutlaw
Unless Scotland plan on becoming a Republic, or removing the Queen as their head of state - Then the union crowns will still be in place and unless you can show me this is their intention i fail to see your point (citing this as evidence as why UK.PLC will begin trading under a different name).

Keep digging, wee man.

Originally posted by jrmcleod

Originally posted by malcr

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!

Scots Law, which is the internationally recognised law sytem of Scotland dictates the waters of Scotland. The oil fields that are producing and have produced oil, 95% of them are in Scottish Waters.

Please read this...

legislation.gov.uk

And see image below...

edit on 10/1/12 by jrmcleod because: (no reason given)

You had better take a look at this:-

royaldutchshellplc.com...

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by caerloyw

 

Northern Ireland isn't a seperate Kingdom, it's a province of the UK. Without Scotland, the name would be the Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland.

As that rodent says, simples.

So im a rodent?

At least you will be please with your new flag and your glorious leader!!

i468.photobucket.com...

Plus why should I include Ireland in this? They never stopped resisting British occupation. and the NI colony was both Scottish and English.

Scotland welcomed Great Britain, and welcomed all of this - Whether you believe they were brought or not, is a matter for debate in it self - But I haven't seen an active rebellion or an unwillingly to co-operate in all the military action, and all the industrial advances. Or the fact Scotland became a center for enlightenment?

reply to post by RebellionOutlaw



Because they would be seperate nations, so at the UN/EU whatever we couldn't call ourselves the UK as we wouldn't be. Nor GB, as we wouldn't be.
It would be like Germany calling itself the Grand Empire of Europe.

I suppose it could, but then it would be laughed at like those countries with "Democratic" in their names....

We would simply be the Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland. Then there would also be the Kingdom of Scotland as well with their own seat at the UN etc...

reply to post by clanger


Are you ignorant of the popular Meerkat on TV.?

The one I was referring to and trying to make a light hearted joke so we didn't all fall out...

EDIT: And god yes, bring Maggie back. She was the only leader we've had for years with balls. Ironic..


EDIT 2: As I realise I have confused two posters so my first part of the reply makes no sense and actually comes across as unprovoked.. My apologies.

Originally posted by RebellionOutlaw
Plus why should I include Ireland in this? They never stopped resisting British occupation. and the NI colony was both Scottish and English.

Scotland welcomed Great Britain, and welcomed all of this - Whether you believe they were brought or not, is a matter for debate in it self - But I haven't seen an active rebellion or an unwillingly to co-operate in all the military action, and all the industrial advances. Or the fact Scotland became a center for enlightenment?

I refuse to give you history lessons as well as Constitutional Law ones.

Re-read whatever you Googled on the Jacobite Rebellions - Ireland was very much part of the plan.

No it wouldn't be like that at all, Wales has a devolved government of its own - Which is represented in Westminster and does Northern Ireland - These three countries along with Scotland make up the United Kingdom, Britain as a word goes back far greater than the union of crowns and would not stop being a term used for this place even after Scottish independence.

This is pathetic, we're arguing over something stupid - We can't prove this, and I fail to see any evidence that suggests in the case of Scottish independence, the United Kingdom or Great Britain would stop being called such.

reply to post by alldaylong


I work in Health and Safety in the oil industry for the worlds largest marine offshore vessel company. You dont need to show me articles on whether the oil and gas industry is safe or not.

That article isn't showing what is being done proactively

I'm talking about the history of Scottish resistance to the idea of Britain, or any form of Scottish independence and at a stretch you could say the Jacobite rebellion was the last time this happened (as it wasn't a call for Scottish independence or autonomy, it was just largely fought in Scotland) - What does this have to do with Ireland? Regardless of whether they were helping or not.

Like I previously stated resistance in Ireland has pretty much never stopped - Why should i include that when i'm talking about Scottish resistance? It makes no sense to my point what so ever - Scotland welcomed the union, Scotland help create the Union, Scotland wanted Britain, and wanted to be linked with Ireland.

Should they have the right to be Independent? Of course they should if that's what they want.
Will this benefit Scotland? No.

Originally posted by RebellionOutlaw
No it wouldn't be like that at all, Wales has a devolved government of its own - Which is represented in Westminster and does Northern Ireland - These three countries along with Scotland make up the United Kingdom, Britain as a word goes back far greater than the union of crowns and would not stop being a term used for this place even after Scottish independence.

This is pathetic, we're arguing over something stupid - We can't prove this, and I fail to see any evidence that suggests in the case of Scottish independence, the United Kingdom or Great Britain would stop being called such.

No, we're not arguing. You're simply mistaken.

I, Clanger and Stumason have told you what the actual position is - not what you want it to be. You simply don't believe us. As I said, check with any politics professor or Constitutional lawyer.

reply to post by RebellionOutlaw


Wales isn't a Kingdom.... Irrelevant whether they have a measure of home rule, they are part of the Kingdom of England. So is NI (well at the moment it is part of the United Kingdom of Scotland and England, but the Scots aren't taking NI)

So, in the event of a split, there would be a Kingdom of England and NI, then a Kingdom of Scotland.

No United Kingdom...

I know it's trivial, but it is an important technicality.

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by jrmcleod

 

Oh come on, not this again....

I showed you a map pages back showing the locations of the fields and there is almost half in clearly English waters, even by your own map!

No, you are clearly not getting it. Please read this link and concentrate on the facts that it presents. There is an image that shows you EXACTLY where the oil fields are and they AINT in English waters, you have Gas fields...a BIG difference.

It also shows you how much oil is produced by each area...Yawn!!!!

Institute of Petroleum

Originally posted by RebellionOutlaw
I'm talking about the history of Scottish resistance to the idea of Britain, or any form of Scottish independence and at a stretch you could say the Jacobite rebellion was the last time this happened (as it wasn't a call for Scottish independence or autonomy, it was just largely fought in Scotland) - What does this have to do with Ireland? Regardless of whether they were helping or not.

Oh, I know what you're talking about. As a Scottish History graduate, I am aware of a 'thing' called the Jacobite Uprising - which incidentally had substantial support in all parts of our island (including England) - in which the rightful Stuart dynasty claimed not only the Scottish and English crowns but that of Ireland too. That's why you should include Ireland.

reply to post by bigyin

fair play to the scots at least they know how to look after their country men , free parking at hospitals , nurses getting higher pay ,students fees lower than england etc .
i think we need the scots government to come down here and show our lot how to care for the electorate that put them in power .

Provide me with evidence to support your claims, and do not cite the union of crowns as I have already rubbished this.


Edit; Did i even include England in it? No - Why? Because i'm trying to explain something to you which you don't quite understand - It could be viewed as, (at a very large stretch) the last time Scotland and England had some form of animosity between each other, which was 300 years ago - While with the EU member states, we have been at war with them all throughout 1800 and with some of them in the 1900.
If i'm talking about Scottish resistance to the idea of britain, why would I talk about Ireland and England and Wales? The Jacobite rebellion was the last time Scottish blades crossed with English ones (even then, a lot of Scots put down the Jacobites).

So before this, Id say when James the V invaded England - Which was in the 1600 was the last time we were not "together" - You think it would be progressive to go back to this time?

reply to post by stumason


It will be interesting how England will view The Scots who are domicile in England. They will not have a UK Passport when and if they get Indedpendence. There are thousands upon thousands of Scots in England (Lateset estimate around 800,000) They could be classed as illegal immigrants

Originally posted by RebellionOutlaw
Provide me with evidence to support your claims, and do not cite the union of crowns as I have already rubbished this.

I'm sorry, I never resort to insults but I fear if David Cameron, The Queen and Jesus H Christ told you this - you still wouldn't accept this.

You have proved yourself a cretin. There is no point continuing this discussion.