Deputy Leader of UK calls Scots Extremists

Originally posted by alldaylong
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

And would the same not apply for the English in Scotland? I guess the figure is around 400,000. Your English passport would no longer be valid as the name would be wrong!

Originally posted by YeshuaPiso

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Provide me with evidence to support your claims, and do not cite the union of crowns as I have already rubbished this.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

In other words there is no evidence and this is purely your opinion.

Originally posted by jrmcleod

Originally posted by alldaylong
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

And would the same not apply for the English in Scotland? I guess the figure is around 400,000. Your English passport would no longer be valid as the name would be wrong!

I think on balance the Scots would come off worst.

Originally posted by stumason
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 on 10/1/12 by stumason because: (no reason given)

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.

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

No probs and i note from your previous post that you understand the eu/un probable consequentness of no uk/gb.

Originally posted by RebellionOutlaw

Originally posted by YeshuaPiso

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.

In other words there is no evidence and this is purely your opinion.

Okay, last time.

The Jacobite Rebellions were not about Scottish resistance to the idea of Britain. Again, you are quite simply incorrect.

They were about reinstating our (ie. Britain's - not Scotland's) rightful royal dynasty on the throne, those being the Stuarts.

As there was a strong religious element at play too - this meant that both sides of the argument had supporters all across these islands. It was not Scotland versus England. An easy mistake to make, but a mistake nonetheless - check this one with any reputable history book.

Originally posted by alldaylong

Originally posted by jrmcleod

Originally posted by alldaylong
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

And would the same not apply for the English in Scotland? I guess the figure is around 400,000. Your English passport would no longer be valid as the name would be wrong!

I think on balance the Scots would come off worst.

Why? Would you suggest internment camps?

SNP policy is that anyone resident in Scotland at the time of independence can claim Scottish citizenship. Even if they didn't want to do this, there would be no repercussions or problems - they could stay or leave regardless of their decision.

So explain why Scots would be worse off in this scenario? What repercussions do you envisage happening?

I'm not asking for evidence of this, I even state myself that at a push you could view the Jacobite rebellion as Scottish resistance as it was an attempt to reinstate a joint English/Scottish monarch to the throne i.e Stuarts.
Please look over my previous posts - I'll quote it for you as you are either just reading my last posts and trying to counter what I say or/and you have no real view of your own.
-
"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. "

I'm asking for evidence that
A) The united kingdom/Great Britain would stop trading under this name
B) They would be removed from the EU because of a break up

reply to post by RebellionOutlaw


A bit of friendly and well intentioned advice......sometimes you just got to take it on the chin and accept that you are wrong;
The United Kingdom is as it says on the tin - the United Kingdoms of England and Scotland and as such if Scotland votes for independance then what remains can not possibly be called the United Kingdom because it isn't!

But at the end of the day that's all semantics and hugely irrelevant.

Originally posted by YeshuaPiso

Originally posted by RebellionOutlaw

Originally posted by YeshuaPiso

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.

In other words there is no evidence and this is purely your opinion.

Okay, last time.

The Jacobite Rebellions were not about Scottish resistance to the idea of Britain. Again, you are quite simply incorrect.

They were about reinstating our (ie. Britain's - not Scotland's) rightful royal dynasty on the throne, those being the Stuarts.

As there was a strong religious element at play too - this meant that both sides of the argument had supporters all across these islands. It was not Scotland versus England. An easy mistake to make, but a mistake nonetheless - check this one with any reputable history book.

Unfortunately history appears not to be taught at schools particularly English schools?
Scottish regiments EG lowlanders who were protestant and did not want a catholic king fought against the Jacobite and vise versa!!

While it is a useless point - I don't see why the UK would change its name, the UK and Great Britain, being British - Welsh, Northern Irish and English we still perceive ourselves as British and I've not seen one shred of evidence that suggests we would stop doing that, and stop calling ourselves Britain - It wouldn't happen, because the identity is greater than England and Scotland.

If you can show me that this is part of the debate, I'd also like evidence of these contingency plans that the home office and defense ministry have set up for the break up.
(The splitting of the armed forces and the sharing of the embassies).

-
Regardless of all this independence would be bad for all parties involved, Independence it self is a kind of silly word, if you're looking at it - England doesn't have independence, we are enslaved to Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish control.

reply to post by LeBombDiggity


Well, hardly unusual to see the surrender monkeys trying to stir trouble up between England and Scotland.
And as usual it'll be no surprise when they go running back with their tails between their legs when the proverbial hits the fan and leave the Scots to carry the can alone.

'European hugs', lol
More like another case of French collaboration with German attempts to overrun Europe.

History does indeed repeat itself.

In fact thinking about it wanting Scotland to break away from Britain is very extreme - Nick Clegg has a point, its a crazy thing to suggest and makes no sense what so ever.

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by LeBombDiggity

 

Well, hardly unusual to see the surrender monkeys trying to stir trouble up between England and Scotland.
And as usual it'll be no surprise when they go running back with their tails between their legs when the proverbial hits the fan and leave the Scots to carry the can alone.

'European hugs', lol
More like another case of French collaboration with German attempts to overrun Europe.

History does indeed repeat itself.

Can you name ONE country that has had its independence whether it be a commonwealth country ex Russian or any other that once given its independence has went running back asking "can you take us back"?

Originally posted by YeshuaPiso

Originally posted by alldaylong

Originally posted by jrmcleod

Originally posted by alldaylong
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

And would the same not apply for the English in Scotland? I guess the figure is around 400,000. Your English passport would no longer be valid as the name would be wrong!

I think on balance the Scots would come off worst.

Why? Would you suggest internment camps?

SNP policy is that anyone resident in Scotland at the time of independence can claim Scottish citizenship. Even if they didn't want to do this, there would be no repercussions or problems - they could stay or leave regardless of their decision.

So explain why Scots would be worse off in this scenario? What repercussions do you envisage happening?

Playing Devils advocate here. So lets say Scotland gets independence. The English government may seek "revenge" by shipping all The Scots back home. I think not many English living in Scotland live in social housing, which in not the fact for The Scots living in England. Scotland would have to then find thousands of news homes for the people sent back home.

Just an imaginary vision that may or may not happen.

reply to post by RebellionOutlaw

In fact thinking about it wanting Scotland to break away from Britain is very extreme - Nick Clegg has a point, its a crazy thing to suggest and makes no sense what so ever.

That may be true - but as has been extensively discussed in this thread previously it is Scotlands inalienable right to self-determination - if they want to be independant it's their choice and their choice alone - for good or bad.

Personally I think it would be detrimental to both Scotland and the rest of what is currently the United Kingdom - but my opinion is ultimately irrelevant.

reply to post by clanger

Can you name ONE country that has had its independence whether it be a commonwealth country ex Russian or any other that once given its independence has went running back asking "can you take us back"?

With all due respect, what has that got to do with my post that you quoted?

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by clanger

 

Can you name ONE country that has had its independence whether it be a commonwealth country ex Russian or any other that once given its independence has went running back asking "can you take us back"?

With all due respect, what has that got to do with my post that you quoted?

your right apologies , quoted the wrong quote, obviously the Scottish education system is crap as well!!

Originally posted by Freeborn
Well, hardly unusual to see the surrender monkeys trying to stir trouble up between England and Scotland.
And as usual it'll be no surprise when they go running back with their tails between their legs when the proverbial hits the fan and leave the Scots to carry the can alone.

More like another case of French collaboration with German attempts to overrun Europe.

History does indeed repeat itself.

While the French could be accused of having a rather inflated opinion of themselves and the Germans could be accrued of being, well German, what have the British done in the last 20 years?

Perhaps the British or rather the English should embrace European collaboration.

After all, they are hardly setting the world alight on their own.

Admittedly, the French are rather impossible to deal with (who could live up to the inflated sense of their own importance they feel they have?). On the other hand, there is some mutual respect between the Germans and the British.

Perhaps the English and the Germans should work together.

Still, while the Americans, Chinese, Germans and Japanese control the world economy, the UK doesn't.

Apart from an inflated sense of their own importance (based on historical rather than current achievements), what exactly are the English bringing to the party?

reply to post by clanger


Lol.
No problem.

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
Those English people here who argue for the union with Scotland seem to be the same ones most adamantly against union with Europe. And the arguments they use for union with one are the same ones they rubbish against union with the other.

Poor little English pushmepullyous ! They argue against everything. They just want their little kingdom to stay the same, with red telephone boxes and the Queen's head on stamps, Twiggy passing by in a Mini Cooper, little cups of tea to break the monotony.

Aww, my poor little rosbifs, time for *European hugs*


Well if it all goes tits you can start raiding our border again.