Where did I even say that, your just making it up. Ireland was invaded by Scotland at one point too. Most of the north of Ireland are Scottish decent as well.
Scotland despite what people would like us to believe wasn't conquered.
I have not seen anyone claiming Scotland was conquered.
She didn’t think much of Business Secretary Vince Cable describing London “rather unkindly” as a huge suction machine draining the life out of the rest of the country. “I want Scotland to seek to emulate not resent the best you have to offer.”
Nicola Sturgeon with the SNP anti English rhetoric we've heard so much about from Better Together and their supporters.
She didn’t think much of Business Secretary Vince Cable describing London “rather unkindly” as a huge suction machine draining the life out of the rest of the country. “I want Scotland to seek to emulate not resent the best you have to offer.”
Nicola Sturgeon with the SNP anti English rhetoric we've heard so much about from Better Together and their supporters.
Where did I even say that, your just making it up. Ireland was invaded by Scotland at one point too. Most of the north of Ireland are Scottish decent as well.
Scotland despite what people would like us to believe wasn't conquered.
So a few years after a Scottish civil war and a few before the Glencoe Massacre then.
I don't understand the focus on Scotland vs. England in the historical record. Scotland has a pretty colourful record of being nasty to Scots who don't sing from the same hymn sheet as those in power. Seems to be conveniently forgotten any time history is brought into the independence debate.
7.32 Going forward, one option would be to create a formal monetary union with two equal partners each having the same degree of oversight and input into the governance of the 'shared' central bank. An alternative model would be to establish governance on a 'shareholder' basis, according to the relative economic (or population) size of the partners.
I am wondering if this is what Alex Salmond is after.
I suspect he would like to see a situation where all the countries of the UK would have an equal (25%) stake in the BoE.
In the meantime he wants Scotland to have a 50/50 (with rUK) share in the running of the BoE.
He will probably dangle the lure of taking on it's share of the UK national debt and money from North Sea Oil in return for this.
I think that all this is a naked power grab by some Scottish politicians.
So a few years after a Scottish civil war and a few before the Glencoe Massacre then.
I don't understand the focus on Scotland vs. England in the historical record. Scotland has a pretty colourful record of being nasty to Scots who don't sing from the same hymn sheet as those in power. Seems to be conveniently forgotten any time history is brought into the independence debate.
That's a bit of cheap shot - in a lot of countries history, the ruling classes, monacrchy whatever have been at times 'nasty' to their countrymen.
Scotland was conquered in 1304 by Edward 1, Robert The Bruce through a campaign of guerrilla warfare between 1306 and 1314 reconquered it. Only Stirling castle remained in English control by 1314 this being the catalyst to Bannockburn.
in a lot of countries history, the ruling classes, monacrchy whatever have been at times 'nasty' to their countrymen.
Precisely why I can't abide any comments where Scotland is made out to be worse off under the "ruling class" of England. Take the union out of the equation and the divisions present in Scotland will still be there because there is and always has been a ruling class in Scotland of its own making.
Scotland was conquered in 1304 by Edward 1, Robert The Bruce through a campaign of guerrilla warfare between 1306 and 1314 reconquered it. Only Stirling castle remained in English control by 1314 this being the catalyst to Bannockburn.
What was Scotland at the time - the Northern Isles weren't part of the Kingdom of Scotland. The Scotland that was subject to the Wars of Independence hasn't existed for centuries.
What was Scotland at the time - the Northern Isles weren't part of the Kingdom of Scotland. The Scotland that was subject to the Wars of Independence hasn't existed for centuries.
Scotland was conquered in 1304 by Edward 1, Robert The Bruce through a campaign of guerrilla warfare between 1306 and 1314 reconquered it. Only Stirling castle remained in English control by 1314 this being the catalyst to Bannockburn.
It has also been 'one-sided' since the Treaty of Union.. ;-)
It has also been 'one-sided' since the Treaty of Union.. ;-)
Arguably an affront to brave Scots who died for Scotland's independence, if we use the logic of some unelected benefit junkie in Westminster upper chamber.
shoosht! Scotland is only hard done-by from Westminster! Don't you know that?
You'd think so, wouldn't you With the onus on inequality as a reason to vote for independence, I'm utterly bemused at how the cause of inequality in Scotland is Westminster. The fact is that Scotland has always been a divided nation, and if Westminster was taken out of the picture then there would still be divisions in Scotland. I guess the crux comes down to degrees of inequality being more or less, but I honestly feel that the degree isn't large enough in the direction of less to warrant such drastic measures. Trying to play Poverty Olympics ("we're more disadvantaged than you") leaves a bad taste in my mouth
"There you go again? I don't remember Scotland being con queried anytime in the last 300 years?"
Scotland hasn't been conquered any time in the past 300 years. Neither has Wales. Ireland is a different matter, but any conquering that went on there was done so with Scots involvement. So I'm not entirely sure why you brought up Wales and Ireland, unless you were trying to conflate their histories with Scotland's. They are not comparable simply because they share a common denominator of "The Union".
She didn’t think much of Business Secretary Vince Cable describing London “rather unkindly” as a huge suction machine draining the life out of the rest of the country. “I want Scotland to seek to emulate not resent the best you have to offer.”
Nicola Sturgeon with the SNP anti English rhetoric we've heard so much about from Better Together and their supporters.
Funny that.
June 2013 - SNP tweets heading 'How London is bleeding Scotland Dry' - also posts it on it's facebook page.
Comments
I have not seen anyone claiming Scotland was conquered.
How can she be soooo nasty
Then why mention that you feel Wales and Ireland were? Seems completely pointless.
well said nicola
Scotland was 'conquered' between 1651 and 1660
So a few years after a Scottish civil war and a few before the Glencoe Massacre then.
I don't understand the focus on Scotland vs. England in the historical record. Scotland has a pretty colourful record of being nasty to Scots who don't sing from the same hymn sheet as those in power. Seems to be conveniently forgotten any time history is brought into the independence debate.
I am wondering if this is what Alex Salmond is after.
I suspect he would like to see a situation where all the countries of the UK would have an equal (25%) stake in the BoE.
In the meantime he wants Scotland to have a 50/50 (with rUK) share in the running of the BoE.
He will probably dangle the lure of taking on it's share of the UK national debt and money from North Sea Oil in return for this.
I think that all this is a naked power grab by some Scottish politicians.
That's a bit of cheap shot - in a lot of countries history, the ruling classes, monacrchy whatever have been at times 'nasty' to their countrymen.
Scotland was conquered in 1304 by Edward 1, Robert The Bruce through a campaign of guerrilla warfare between 1306 and 1314 reconquered it. Only Stirling castle remained in English control by 1314 this being the catalyst to Bannockburn.
Precisely why I can't abide any comments where Scotland is made out to be worse off under the "ruling class" of England. Take the union out of the equation and the divisions present in Scotland will still be there because there is and always has been a ruling class in Scotland of its own making.
What was Scotland at the time - the Northern Isles weren't part of the Kingdom of Scotland. The Scotland that was subject to the Wars of Independence hasn't existed for centuries.
Not only Scotland, there's plenty resentment towards Westminster south of Scotland mate.
I think it will be the other option.. two central banks.. with one in Edinburgh..
When you see it like this Scotland covers a vast area
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0041/00410969.gif
Does this mean everything else is up for grabs?
How much hydrocarbons are there under Scotland's waters?
A Kingdom, why?
It has also been 'one-sided' since the Treaty of Union.. ;-)
Read back and see what i was replying to.
LOL. Anything to draw attention away from Cables comments
Arguably an affront to brave Scots who died for Scotland's independence, if we use the logic of some unelected benefit junkie in Westminster upper chamber.
You'd think so, wouldn't you
I meant "what constituted as the Kingdom of Scotland at the time"; I'm fully aware it was a Kingdom, hence me saying so in the next sentence.
You replied to this:
"There you go again? I don't remember Scotland being con queried anytime in the last 300 years?"
Scotland hasn't been conquered any time in the past 300 years. Neither has Wales. Ireland is a different matter, but any conquering that went on there was done so with Scots involvement. So I'm not entirely sure why you brought up Wales and Ireland, unless you were trying to conflate their histories with Scotland's. They are not comparable simply because they share a common denominator of "The Union".
Funny that.
June 2013 - SNP tweets heading 'How London is bleeding Scotland Dry' - also posts it on it's facebook page.
Only taken 8 months to change their mind.