Will Scotland leave the UK after Brexit and be governed by Brussels?

a reply to: midicon

TeWe could just create a new currency and become a tax haven for the corrupt and mega rich.xt

already in existence - called the City Of London - law unto themselves.

LOL

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: TheShippingForecast

Scotland surrendered all sovereignty with the Union with England Act.

Which was at the bequest of the Scots.....another historical fact conveniently forgotten or not mentioned.

Is that why you have a devolved National Assembly?

Not independence but a damn sight greater say on things that affect you than we have.

How do you think this EU bullying and intimidation would play out ?

Not well for ordinary, every day Scots that's for sure....

speaking of historical facts forgotten , the act of union was carried out by lords and the church , not by the people the people didnt get the vote on independence until 1979 , not one citizen voted for the act of Union in 1707 so hardly the peoples choice and in fact it was violently opposed with riots in both Glasgow and Edinburgh

so it was a handful of wealthy powerful people who sought to benefit from the union!

Many people in England were unhappy about the prospect, however. English overseas possessions made England wealthy in comparison to Scotland and had many times the number of Members of Parliament than Scotland, thus able to pass any legislation over Scottish objections. This made unification a markedly unequal relationship, much to England's advantage.

nothing has changed !

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: midicon

TeWe could just create a new currency and become a tax haven for the corrupt and mega rich.xt

already in existence - called the City Of London - law unto themselves.

LOL

True but think of all the opportunities with a new currency! It was a tongue in cheek remark though.

a reply to: midicon

a new currency like the Scottish pound ?

its as much ours as it is anyone elses

hardly the peoples choice is it
mob unrest

and note this

Troops sent in Troops were brought into the city with orders to shoot if necessary, and several regiments were placed at Queensberry's disposal on the Scottish border and in Ireland in the event of trouble. The situation in Edinburgh grew quieter in November. Trouble now broke out elsewhere. But despite ministerial fears of armed insurrection on a national scale, the only disturbances in the period leading up to union were local and short-lived.

This Act was also made part of the Treaty and it was decided, to begin with, to elect members of the Great Britain's Parliament from the membership of the Scottish Parliament. Since Scotland's small electorate would probably have expressed strong dislike of the Union it was decided to avoid a direct election. Not surprisingly, this produced much heated debate.

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: midicon

a new currency like the Scottish pound ?

its as much ours as it is anyone elses

Any sort of new currency would do. That in my opinion would be better than the Euro. Without of course getting into the tired old debate that was never answered during our referendum. Salmond's bluster and waffle surrounding that question put paid to our independence aspiration.

a reply to: sapien82

I fail to see what point you are trying to make here other than that over three hundred years ago some people in Scotland weren't too happy about The Act of Union....oh and the people weren't consulted.

I don't think anyone is contesting any of that.

I'm sure back then some people supported The Act of Union as well but they were hardly going to riot about it were they, just the same as today and independence.....there's people on both sides.

Ordinary people weren't consulted on anything back then.....something not unique to Scotland, it was the same for everyone.

a reply to: sapien82

a new currency like the Scottish pound ?

Do you honestly think that a new independent Scotland in the EU would be allowed to use anything other than the Euro as their currency?

its as much ours as it is anyone elses

No, its Britain's - GBP = Great British Pound.
Not in The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland then not allowed to use GBP as national currency - pretty straight forward.

And why would an alleged independent country want to use the currency of a nation it wanted nothing to do with and a currency it has no control over or say on?

a reply to: Freeborn

"Which was at the bequest of the Scots.....another historical fact conveniently forgotten or not mentioned. "

at the bequest of who ? a handful of people , who already had plans to make a union to solidify their wealth and power from inherited title and privilege and church

Some people werent happy , Some people , you mean the rest of Scotland werent happy ? otherwise why send garrisons of the british army here to prevent riots ?

my point is , it was a union made for a handful of people to benefit from
and you made out like we asked for it when its clearly not the case you criticised me for selectively picking facts, and yet here you are doing the same !

a reply to: Freeborn

I not in favour of jumping out of one union into the arms of another and you know that
and of course if you join the EU you'd use the Euro. Britain was lucky to not let go of the pound! let me guess because if we switched to the Euro , loads of people would have lost money !

Right so we use the Great British Pound
but the pound was made strong by the countries that make up the union
so if the Union dissolves so does the currency surely ?

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: sapien82


Ordinary people weren't consulted on anything back then.....something not unique to Scotland, it was the same for everyone.

Aye you are right

Petitions Petitions, the usual way of bringing local grievances to parliamentary attention, were an interesting feature of the anti-union campaign. During the debates they were drawn up all over Scotland and submitted to the Scottish Parliament. A total of 96 petitions were presented against the union, most in November and December 1706, during the debates on the Articles. They were designed to show to undecided MPs the widespread unpopularity of the proposed terms. It is possible that the petitions and their messages had some influence in the changes made to the Articles. But the Duke of Argyll, one of the leaders of the Scottish Court party, said that petitions were little more than "paper kites" - a revealing insight into how governments of the day regarded public opinion.

a reply to: sapien82

at the bequest of who ? a handful of people ,....

Rightly or wrongly that was the way of the world back then.
The FACT remains that a group of Scottish people approached the English Crown and pleaded for full Union.
And that group of people represented the power in Scotland at the time.

.... who already had plans to make a union to solidify their wealth and power from inherited title and privilege and church

They'd lost a shed load of money in The Darien Scheme and saw an opportunity to get some of it, and more, back.

Some people werent happy , Some people , you mean the rest of Scotland werent happy ? otherwise why send garrisons of the british army here to prevent riots ?

How do you KNOW it was the rest?
Of course there was a lot of resentment.....but there's nothing to support your assumption that its everyone.

Some people in England weren't happy about it either, what say did they have in the matter?
None!
Because that was the standard of the day.

You are using todays values and standards to judge the act and deeds of yesterday.

my point is , it was a union made for a handful of people to benefit from

Probably.

..... and you made out like we asked for it ......

The people who had power in Scotland and determined national policy of the day, and who were Scottish, approached the English Crown wanting Union....not the other way round.

Is that the correct interpretation of the FACTS?

....when its clearly not the case you criticised me for selectively picking facts, and yet here you are doing the same !

I've never denied there was opposition to the Union, why would I?
Just pointing out that the request for Union came from Scotland....is that right or wrong?

a reply to: sapien82

Britain was lucky to not let go of the pound! ....

One of the few things we've got to thank The Tories for.

..... but the pound was made strong by the countries that make up the union

Without a shadow of a doubt!

....so if the Union dissolves so does the currency surely ?

But The Union won't have dissolved....England, Wales and Northern Ireland would remain in The Union.
Sadly, Scotland would have chosen to be no longer part of that Union....but the Union would still be intact.

a reply to: sapien82

..... a revealing insight into how governments of the day regarded public opinion.

Nothing much has changed then.

The only difference is they are far more discreet and subtle in their contempt and disregard for public opinion nowadays, then they could be very open about it.

How they must miss 'the good old days'.

a reply to: Freeborn

The point I am making is that nothing has changed in over 300 years , we are still held to ransom by a larger electorate
we are still controlled by a small group of wealthy individuals and that gap increases year in year out thanks to the tories


well there were 92 petitions raised , the population of Scotland at the time was around 1 million people

so its safe to assume the majority were not in favour , otherwise why send garrisons to prevent riots?
the evidence is there it states that many were opposed to the union north and south

remember Scotland had just been through years of jacobite rebellion so its pretty safe to assume that we didnt want a union if the majority were actively engaged in open rebellion

the only reason it went through was because of the Crown , the church and those small few who stood to make money from it

Why bring up the fact that it was Scotland that approached England ?
that was evident in the links I'd provided , I am well aware it was a handful of people who wanted the Union because it secured their faith, the crown and their wealth i've repeated that a few times in my previous posts!

No one is interpreting the facts

a reply to: midicon

It was a tongue in cheek remark though.

Fair enough

True but think of all the opportunities with a new currency!

Well if it has that Lizards, I mean Lizzies face on it - you'll still be paying some sort of tax for the right to "live" as "free subjects"

a reply to: sapien82

Further to that there was the McCrone report - an Independent Scotland could stand on its own feet - classified as "secret"

en.wikipedia.org...

The McCrone report is a document on the Scottish economy written and researched in 1974 on behalf of the British Government. It was composed by Professor Gavin McCrone employed at the Scottish Office. The document gave a highly favourable projection for the economy of an independent Scotland with a "chronic surplus to a quite embarrassing degree and its currency would become the hardest in Europe". This led successive iterations of the British government to classify the McCrone report as "secret". This was so to avoid fuelling independence sentiment in Scotland. The report became public in 2005 when new freedom of information legislation came into effect.[1][2]

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

I thought the McCrone report wasnt classified but just delayed release due to the run up to the general election
because they wanted that to be delayed as they knew it would have affected the outcome

I dont think it was classified just delayed or not overly reported on when it was released

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

I seem to remember talk of huge oil and natural gas reserves offshore. I could be wrong, it was a long time ago. They also have gold in Scotland too, not a lot but a little.

if we are agreed that not much has changed in 300 years then judging the morals and practices of society 300 years ago today , doesnt really make much difference
we werent barbarians raping and pillaging 300 years ago , we had the enlightenment and the renaissance before it
we were supposed to be better people the height of human civilisation yet , we treated each other like commodities for the rich and powerful to use and abuse !

So aye its fair to judge the actions of 300 years ago by the standards of today , because # all has changed !