As in many a family gathering, Scotland is the troublesome, drunk, black-sheep Uncle in the corner, occasionally rousing from it's whisky-soaked slumber, to utter a few choice expletives, then falls back into a coma, at which point, the rest of the family roll their eyes, smile knowingly at each other and then continue business as usual.
Are you aiming to break up our wonderful Union of Nations? If so, you're doing a grand job ;-)
As in many a family gathering, Scotland is the troublesome, drunk, black-sheep Uncle in the corner, occasionally rousing from it's whisky-soaked slumber, to utter a few choice expletives, then falls back into a coma, at which point, the rest of the family roll their eyes, smile knowingly at each other and then continue business as usual.
No.....you get a grip. Very telling that you're calling the vow nonsense.
Maybe the surly lodger description does not apply to most Scots you know but it's certainly the perception that much of the English media propagates. Haven't you noticed how the Scots and Welsh are portrayed?
The vow was a newspaper headline - from the Daily Record.
It has been exposed that the "vow" document pictured on the front page never existed. All that existed was a joint press statement to the effect that the parties would devolve more power to Scotland - which is happening as we type.
How is recognising the vow as a joint press statement and not as some nationalist have tried to portray it as a commitment to Devo-Max "telling"?
As far as I'm aware (and I lived in London for 20 years) there is no antagonism towards Scots that compares to the "White Settler" jibes that get thrown against non-Scots in many parts of Scotland.
I'm also not aware of any fire bombing campaigns against properties owned by the Welsh either.
Extremem nationalism is a hairs breadth aware from bigotry and racism and a million miles away from stereotyping Taffies, Jocks, Cocknies, Brummies, Scousers etc.
In federal states the opinions of all the different areas of that state's opinion would be taken into account. The UK is admittedly not federal but Scotland was told that our relationship with the UK was to become that which you would expect to see in a federal state. These are the words of Gordon Brown not Nicola Sturgeon. Scotland could end up dragged away from our friends and neighbours in the European community for no good reason. You can't expect us to do that quietly. It'll be one of the best chances we have to secure the break up of Britain in the next couple of years.
Didn't Scotland have a chance to secure the "break up of Britain" six weeks or so ago and rejected the idea, or did I dream it?
But it is a bit rich a nation of 5 million deciding they have the right to vote on the future of a union of countries with a total population of over 64 million, but then complain it isn't fair if the majority of those 64 million were to vote to leave the EU......
Salmond was far too confrontational towards Westminster in the referendum and used the siege mentality.
I'm sure his attitude to Westminster will change if he gets elected as an MP as part of an enlarged SNP delegation. He'll suddenly find it a very comfortable place indeed.
The danger for Sturgeon is that he will use it to create a separate power base in London which she'd find it hard to control.
I'm sure his attitude to Westminster will change if he gets elected as an MP as part of an enlarged SNP delegation. He'll suddenly find it a very comfortable place indeed.
The danger for Sturgeon is that he will use it to create a separate power base in London which she'd find it hard to control.
He spent 13 years in Westminster, so it's unlikely his attitude will change this time.
I'm sure his attitude to Westminster will change if he gets elected as an MP as part of an enlarged SNP delegation. He'll suddenly find it a very comfortable place indeed.
The danger for Sturgeon is that he will use it to create a separate power base in London which she'd find it hard to control.
Yup.
But as she is going to get kicked out after the 2015 parliamentaries it won't make any difference;-)
Because there have been calls from some unionist politicians to make independence illegal and the majority of unionists are claiming, for appearances sake at least, that the question has been settled for good.
What I think is hypocritical is that people in England would be in outrage if the rest of the EU was to come to a decision and Germany, as the biggest country, was able to ignore that and only their votes counted. That is why we have a veto within in the EU, which means a country smaller than Scotland could overrule lots of bigger countries because that is nature of a fair union that acts in union. The attitude by some people, yourself included to the idea that the UK union should also be expected to work in the same way is frustrating. If three parts of a union don't want to leave the EU then why should one larger part, if it is not by nature a bully, take the other three partners out against their will. The nature of the UK is not one nation, it's a family of nations, and that is the words of those who were defending the Union before the referendum. It's time for change, respect and clout for the home nations. Let England show that is a mature nation capable of working and respecting it's other equal partners.
Didn't Scotland have a chance to secure the "break up of Britain" six weeks or so ago and rejected the idea, or did I dream it?
Yes and we almost did it. The EU issue and the treatment we've had in the minutes, hours and days after the No vote should be enough to make that 45% 50% plus. The Union is still dying.
But it is a bit rich a nation of 5 million deciding they have the right to vote on the future of a union of countries with a total population of over 64 million, but then complain it isn't fair if the majority of those 64 million were to vote to leave the EU......
England is free to vote to leave the EU and UK if it's partners wish to remain within the European Union. Members of unions having vetoes is standard in the EU. It's strange why the shrieks of complaint are so shrill now. England has to learn how to act in partnership instead of thinking what it wants is what Britain wants.
Didn't Scotland have a chance to secure the "break up of Britain" six weeks or so ago and rejected the idea, or did I dream it?
But it is a bit rich a nation of 5 million deciding they have the right to vote on the future of a union of countries with a total population of over 64 million, but then complain it isn't fair if the majority of those 64 million were to vote to leave the EU......
Should the population of each nation be the deciding factor? - Remember Scotland & England are in an EQUAL Union. Scotland wasn't conquered and 'taken over' meaning that whatever the nation of England decides is good for Scotland.
Also do you think the rest of the EU should have a vote in whether the UK should leave the EU?
Should the population of each nation be the deciding factor? - Remember Scotland & England are in an EQUAL Union. Scotland wasn't conquered and 'taken over' meaning that whatever the nation of England decides is good for Scotland.
Also do you think the rest of the EU should have a vote in whether the UK should leave the EU?
However, in Europe there are some matters where every country has a veto, so the UK can stop legislation that every other country wants. However, England won't extend that to the other countries in the UK. Can't have it both ways, eh chaps?
However, in Europe there are some matters where every country has a veto, so the UK can stop legislation that every other country wants. However, England won't extend that to the other countries in the UK. Can't have it both ways, eh chaps?
False comparison
The EU isn't a state - it's a collection of soverign states who choose to pool some of their sovereignty.
The Act of Union is not an association of sovereign states - it was a Union of two states to make a single state in which all are equal. Which means one person one vote not one Scots' vote can overrule 10 English.
Yes and we almost did it. The EU issue and the treatment we've had in the minutes, hours and days after the No vote should be enough to make that 45% 50% plus. The Union is still dying.
England is free to vote to leave the EU and UK if it's partners wish to remain within the European Union. Members of unions having vetoes is standard in the EU. It's strange why the shrieks of complaint are so shrill now. England has to learn how to act in partnership instead of thinking what it wants is what Britain wants.
Who are England's partners?
We have the UK - England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are descriptions of regional groups within the UK. As are London and Yorkshire.
England doesn't act in partnership with anyone. The UK acts collectively.
(Remember the YES campaign did lose, no matter no hard you try to spin it)
This story has not harmed the SNP if todays poll is to be believed it has the SNP at 52% and Labour at 23%
Full details in the Opinion Polls thread so all the Unionists can read it and weep!
Yes and we almost did it. The EU issue and the treatment we've had in the minutes, hours and days after the No vote should be enough to make that 45% 50% plus. The Union is still dying.
Except, of course, you didn't and as a result the Union isn't dying at all.
England is free to vote to leave the EU and UK if it's partners wish to remain within the European Union. Members of unions having vetoes is standard in the EU. It's strange why the shrieks of complaint are so shrill now. England has to learn how to act in partnership instead of thinking what it wants is what Britain wants.
England isn't a member state of the EU, therefore it isn't in a position to vote to leave.
The UK is a member state of the EU and under the simple concept of one person, one vote, the majority will decide on whether to continue to remain a member state. That is how democracy works.
Personally I think it would be a terrible mistake to leave but if that is how any vote were to turn out I would have to accept it.
The EU isn't a state - it's a collection of soverign states who choose to pool some of their sovereignty.
The Act of Union is not an association of sovereign states - it was a Union of two states to make a single state in which all are equal. Which means one person one vote not one Scots' vote can overrule 10 English.
The Act of Union meant that Scotland, Wales and NI have a disproportionate share of MPs - in other words it means it takes fewer votes to elect an MP there than in England. Hence it isn't just "one person one vote" in practice as not all votes are equal when MPs are elected.
A referendum held on a "one person one vote" basis undermines the Act of Union as it was established as it wipes out that advantage to the non-English parts of the UK. In other words England would have a greater say than it does in a vote held in Westminster.
Comments
Anything she can do to suck votes away from Scottish Labour the better.
Are you aiming to break up our wonderful Union of Nations? If so, you're doing a grand job ;-)
He's the most sensible one on here.
I am sure he is big enough and ugly enough to survive your withering disdain.
Salmond was far too confrontational towards Westminster in the referendum and used the siege mentality.
The vow was a newspaper headline - from the Daily Record.
It has been exposed that the "vow" document pictured on the front page never existed. All that existed was a joint press statement to the effect that the parties would devolve more power to Scotland - which is happening as we type.
How is recognising the vow as a joint press statement and not as some nationalist have tried to portray it as a commitment to Devo-Max "telling"?
As far as I'm aware (and I lived in London for 20 years) there is no antagonism towards Scots that compares to the "White Settler" jibes that get thrown against non-Scots in many parts of Scotland.
I'm also not aware of any fire bombing campaigns against properties owned by the Welsh either.
Extremem nationalism is a hairs breadth aware from bigotry and racism and a million miles away from stereotyping Taffies, Jocks, Cocknies, Brummies, Scousers etc.
Didn't Scotland have a chance to secure the "break up of Britain" six weeks or so ago and rejected the idea, or did I dream it?
But it is a bit rich a nation of 5 million deciding they have the right to vote on the future of a union of countries with a total population of over 64 million, but then complain it isn't fair if the majority of those 64 million were to vote to leave the EU......
I'm sure his attitude to Westminster will change if he gets elected as an MP as part of an enlarged SNP delegation. He'll suddenly find it a very comfortable place indeed.
The danger for Sturgeon is that he will use it to create a separate power base in London which she'd find it hard to control.
Yup.
But as she is going to get kicked out after the 2015 parliamentaries it won't make any difference;-)
Because there have been calls from some unionist politicians to make independence illegal and the majority of unionists are claiming, for appearances sake at least, that the question has been settled for good.
What I think is hypocritical is that people in England would be in outrage if the rest of the EU was to come to a decision and Germany, as the biggest country, was able to ignore that and only their votes counted. That is why we have a veto within in the EU, which means a country smaller than Scotland could overrule lots of bigger countries because that is nature of a fair union that acts in union. The attitude by some people, yourself included to the idea that the UK union should also be expected to work in the same way is frustrating. If three parts of a union don't want to leave the EU then why should one larger part, if it is not by nature a bully, take the other three partners out against their will. The nature of the UK is not one nation, it's a family of nations, and that is the words of those who were defending the Union before the referendum. It's time for change, respect and clout for the home nations. Let England show that is a mature nation capable of working and respecting it's other equal partners.
Yes and we almost did it. The EU issue and the treatment we've had in the minutes, hours and days after the No vote should be enough to make that 45% 50% plus. The Union is still dying.
England is free to vote to leave the EU and UK if it's partners wish to remain within the European Union. Members of unions having vetoes is standard in the EU. It's strange why the shrieks of complaint are so shrill now. England has to learn how to act in partnership instead of thinking what it wants is what Britain wants.
Should the population of each nation be the deciding factor? - Remember Scotland & England are in an EQUAL Union. Scotland wasn't conquered and 'taken over' meaning that whatever the nation of England decides is good for Scotland.
Also do you think the rest of the EU should have a vote in whether the UK should leave the EU?
False comparison
The EU isn't a state - it's a collection of soverign states who choose to pool some of their sovereignty.
The Act of Union is not an association of sovereign states - it was a Union of two states to make a single state in which all are equal. Which means one person one vote not one Scots' vote can overrule 10 English.
Who are England's partners?
We have the UK - England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are descriptions of regional groups within the UK. As are London and Yorkshire.
England doesn't act in partnership with anyone. The UK acts collectively.
(Remember the YES campaign did lose, no matter no hard you try to spin it)
Full details in the Opinion Polls thread so all the Unionists can read it and weep!
Except, of course, you didn't and as a result the Union isn't dying at all.
England isn't a member state of the EU, therefore it isn't in a position to vote to leave.
The UK is a member state of the EU and under the simple concept of one person, one vote, the majority will decide on whether to continue to remain a member state. That is how democracy works.
Personally I think it would be a terrible mistake to leave but if that is how any vote were to turn out I would have to accept it.
Opinion polls suggest the majority of voters in England would vote to remain in the EU.
And perhaps you could explain why those who wish to leave the EU who live in the south of England are, to use your words, "closet racists"?
You commie northerners need to be bought down a peg or two.
The Act of Union meant that Scotland, Wales and NI have a disproportionate share of MPs - in other words it means it takes fewer votes to elect an MP there than in England. Hence it isn't just "one person one vote" in practice as not all votes are equal when MPs are elected.
A referendum held on a "one person one vote" basis undermines the Act of Union as it was established as it wipes out that advantage to the non-English parts of the UK. In other words England would have a greater say than it does in a vote held in Westminster.