heh heh. That reminds me whilst on a ski lift in Lake Tahoe I was sitting beside a guy, who was a third generation of Scots immigrants to USA,and on my telling him I was from Scotland, asked if I knew his cousin.

Scotland's only got 5 million people, but that's a lot of people to know personally.

Here's a suggestion:

If we Scots wish to be separate, rather than trying to argue with us, why not let us go?

Whta's in it for the English? Basically, if we, as a nation, decide to be separate, the English have no right to keep us.

It is a simple fact that England made a lot of use of Scottish oil. For a long time, Scotland was the only nation in history not to become rich after discovering oil. Thanks. I think we should be paid back in full, and sent on our merry way.

Someone earlier on brought up the "West Lothian Question", pointing out that it was a bit unfair that some Scottish MP's get to vote on exclusively English issues. It's annoying isn't it? Two reasons why I'm not overly sympathetic:

Number 1: The vast number of MPs are not Scottish, and the most important areas of governance are NOT devolved (eg. defence/tax/drugs policy). This means that non-Scots have a huge influence over ALL of the important laws affecting Scotland, not just the odd one or two.

Number 2: Westminster spent the better part of 300 years ruling us, without giving us much of a say in anything. The amount of time given over to Scottish legislation in Westminster was startlingly small, and consequently laws that required to take proper account of Scottish issues (due to our different legal system, or just because in many cases there are concerns that are important but uniquley Scottish) were constantly pushed onto the back burner.

I think that England is a wonderful country, and I have had almost exclusively good experiences there. However, it is not my country, and I do not wish for my nation to be a half forgotten annexe of someone else's state.

Who was it in this thread who tried to counter an argument by (proudly?) saying that the English are "indifferent" to the Scots? This speaks volumes to me, as a Scot. The English don't give a fuck, so let us go, thanks.

And you can keep your economic arguments too; if you want to help us, then give us our oil money, and if you don't, then just let us go and try it on our own. Our politicians are just as shit as yours. That isn't a reason to keep the pathetic "union" together.

Oh, and we don't have a British football team cos it would be a political nightmare--about 2 non English would get in the entire squad. Fuck that.

ps. the English aren't a race, and therefore it isn't racist to hate them. I don't hate the English, but I'm just saying.

You have some fair points there, Mr. Binary.

Okay, you can leave. But we get to keep the cross of St Andrew.

Or we'll have to put that bloody dragon on the flag

Mr. Binary wrote:If we Scots wish to be separate, rather than trying to argue with us, why not let us go?

I don't think anyone here has said England shouldn't let it go. As far as I am aware the majority of English people are for Scottish Independence.

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/sc ... 1753002006

Mr. Binary wrote:It is a simple fact that England made a lot of use of Scottish oil. For a long time, Scotland was the only nation in history not to become rich after discovering oil. Thanks. I think we should be paid back in full, and sent on our merry way.

I'd like to see a table on this. I wonder how the oil wealth since the sixties compares to the total in subsidy given to Scotland over the decades including the decades before oil was found.
If England pays Scotland their oil wealth back can we have all the subsidy back?

Mr. Binary wrote:Who was it in this thread who tried to counter an argument by (proudly?) saying that the English are "indifferent" to the Scots? This speaks volumes to me, as a Scot. The English don't give a fuck, so let us go, thanks.

I think that's me you're referring to. If I remember rightly I was saying the the majority of English are indifferent if not warm toward the Scottish.
Should your inability to read that bit properly speak volumes to me as an Englishman?
My point was that the English feel that way toward the Scots but the Scots largely (I think) hold us in contempt - which, I presume you'd agree, is worse than indifference.

Mr. Binary wrote:Our politicians are just as shit as yours. That isn't a reason to keep the pathetic "union" together.

I was saying that just to illustrate why I believe Scottish independence wouldn't be good for the Scots. If Scotland wanted to try it then I don't have a problem with that. I personally think we should get out of Europe at the same time so we wouldn't end up subsidising Scotland still, but with no oil bonus, but either way I'm fine. I just think it would be a costly disaster but if that's where your jingoism leads you, fair dos.
If it all worked out for Scotland great. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with that.

Mr. Binary wrote:Oh, and we don't have a British football team cos it would be a political nightmare--about 2 non English would get in the entire squad. Fuck that.

Are you saying Scots are rubbish at footy?

Mr. Binary wrote:ps. the English aren't a race, and therefore it isn't racist to hate them. I don't hate the English, but I'm just saying.

This is pedantry and you know it you cheeky jock.

Earwicker wrote:

Mr. Binary wrote:ps. the English aren't a race, and therefore it isn't racist to hate them. I don't hate the English, but I'm just saying.

This is pedantry and you know it you cheeky jock.

It's not pedantry, it's fucking bang on. As is the whole of Mr Binary's post.

You're providing the best evidence possible of why there is a grudge against the English, Earwicker. In fact you're probably increasing it. I know if I was Scottish I'd be thinking you were a cunt by now.

Chapter Two wrote:It's not pedantry, it's fucking bang on.

So shall we point it out to anyone who accuses someone of being racist toward a Muslim?
I mean most Muslims in this country aren't technically, racially different but it's still reasonable to accuse the Daily Mail say of racism because of their stance on immigration.

It's meaning has broadened I'd say, though, yes, literally its not correct. Pointing that fact out is I think unneccessary and pedantic.
Pointing it out twice, as you seem to have done, is even more so.
Off the top of my head I can't think of a word to describe someone who would irrationally discriminate against an entire nation of people on account of the side of a border they are born on.
Maybe you could help me out? Perhaps I should just stick to ignorant bigot?

And if someone is becoming more hateful of the English because of this thread then they are total fucking arseholes. Become more hateful of me, fine, but all Englishmen on account of what I'm saying here? That suggests to me a bigoted twat.

I'm not really interested if anyone is thinking I'm a cunt on this thread but I don't really see why they would. In my head I'm being perfectly reasonable but just winding the easily wound up a little with the odd choice phrase.

Ok, maybe that's the definition of a cunt but as all I'm really arguing against is bigotry. I don't say why someone of your political persuasion is getting their knickers in a twist. So far all I've heard from you on this thread is that's it's okay to be a bigot depending on the circumstances.
I say it isn't.

On a related note Mr Two why is it you are against nations and against nationalism for some nationalists but not for others?

Earwicker wrote:

Chapter Two wrote:It's not pedantry, it's fucking bang on.

So shall we point it out to anyone who accuses someone of being racist toward a Muslim?
I mean most Muslims in this country aren't technically, racially different but it's still reasonable to accuse the Daily Mail say of racism because of their stance on immigration.

It's meaning has broadened I'd say, though, yes, literally its not correct. Pointing that fact out is I think unneccessary and pedantic.
Pointing it out twice, as you seem to have done, is even more so.
Off the top of my head I can't think of a word to describe someone who would irrationally discriminate against an entire nation of people on account of the side of a border they are born on.
Maybe you could help me out? Perhaps I should just stick to ignorant bigot?

And if someone is becoming more hateful of the English because of this thread then they are total fucking arseholes. Become more hateful of me, fine, but all Englishmen on account of what I'm saying here? That suggests to me a bigoted twat.

I'm not really interested if anyone is thinking I'm a cunt on this thread but I don't really see why they would. In my head I'm being perfectly reasonable but just winding the easily wound up a little with the odd choice phrase.

Ok, maybe that's the definition of a cunt but as all I'm really arguing against is bigotry. I don't say why someone of your political persuasion is getting their knickers in a twist. So far all I've heard from you on this thread is that's it's okay to be a bigot depending on the circumstances.
I say it isn't.

On a related note Mr Two why is it you are against nations and against nationalism for some nationalists but not for others?

Cos one of me nackers is bigger than the other.

Nothing I have said has been in favour of nationalism. But carry on quaffing if you like.

Pip pip, what what?

It's a bit weak to accuse someone of pedantry when they are a) trying to defend themselves/others from a very serious accusation, and b) are correct.

As I have said (although I noticed you had no comment on this one )I think England is a wonderful country. It's a shame that I feel I have to say this, but perhaps I really ought to have added that I have got on with English people no bother at all. Several Scots seemed to have mentioned this in the thread - there are definitely Scots who have a shit knee-jerk negative reaction to the English, but these people are just dickheads. I have no intention of defending them.

I resent any faux-concerned arguments from English people that Scotland really ought not to try going alone, because it would be an economic failure. If it's our decision to make, then I'd really rather you told us your concerns once and then forgot all about it.

I also resent the whole 'subsidy' argument. The other parts of England are in thrall to London and the cash it generates just as much as Scotland is. In fact, givent the population difference, it seems fair to suggest that given how successful Edinburgh and Aberdeen have been (Finance/Law and Oil) that poor parts of England need London more than Scotland needs England. Anyway, if you had let us go in 1979 instead of rigging the 'referendum', then that would have been the end of any subsidy then (60% turnout, majority voted for a devolved parliament, but we didn't get it, cos it was undemocraticly organised).

Tbh, i suspect that this thread is going to tail off pretty soon, but, well, at least I said my bit.

ps. I love you England

Mr. Binary wrote:there are definitely Scots who have a shit knee-jerk negative reaction to the English, but these people are just dickheads. I have no intention of defending them.

This is really all I was saying. We have reached agreement
Hooray!

Mr. Binary wrote:I resent any faux-concerned arguments from English people that Scotland really ought not to try going alone, because it would be an economic failure. If it's our decision to make, then I'd really rather you told us your concerns once and then forgot all about it.

Oh, don't get me wrong I'm not concerned. That's just my opinion but fair do's, consider it forgotten.

Mr. Binary wrote:I also resent the whole 'subsidy' argument. The other parts of England are in thrall to London and the cash it generates just as much as Scotland is. In fact, givent the population difference, it seems fair to suggest that given how successful Edinburgh and Aberdeen have been (Finance/Law and Oil) that poor parts of England need London more than Scotland needs England.

Not sure how this relates but I'd personally be all for devolved local areas (or even independent local areas) if I didn't think it would just be a costly disaster given the current structure of the country. In theory though, to my mind, smaller relatively independant units are preferable to massive overstretched 'Unions'.

Mr. Binary wrote:ps. I love you England

You're just saying that cause you don't want a lashing from your superiors.

*joke*