Scottish Independance - General

[QUOTE=Torjuz;34809656]Oh my god... Are you serious?[/QUOTE] I am. The older British inhabitants tend to be Protestant, but there are also immigrants who may be Moslem or Catholic. Then there is all the irreligious people on top of that. In both the North and South of Britain, the composition is generally the same. Saying that Northern Britain has a big enough religious difference from Southern Britain to the point of forming a country is a silly idea.

[img]http://www.txscot.com/images/TX%20St%20Andrew%20Flag.jpg[/img] Freedom from London and Washington Also why the fuck does wales even exist?

[QUOTE=Broseph_;34810653] Also why the fuck does wales even exist?[/QUOTE] Wales was created from the remnants of Celtic people and the Romano-British who fled to the place and held it against the Saxons. After some centuries they developed a common identity (Mostly hatred of the Saxons/English to the east). Following this, the English lords slowly extended their influence into Wales, with occasional military campaigns as well. By the 16th century it was annexed outright by England in an act of parliament. Recently, like Scotland they also have had a bit of petty nationalism sprouting up.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;34811655]Wales was created from the remnants of Celtic people and the Romano-British who fled to the place and held it against the Saxons. After some centuries they developed a common identity (Mostly hatred of the Saxons/English to the east). Following this, the English lords slowly extended their influence into Wales, with occasional military campaigns as well. By the 16th century it was annexed outright by England in an act of parliament. Recently, like Scotland they also have had a bit of petty nationalism sprouting up.[/QUOTE] What's the deal with Cornwall?

Okay, clearing up a few misconceptions here. 1. Romanticised Scotland was infulenced by Walter Scott, he brought a resurgance in Scottish Nationalism, but anybody saying before that Scots saw themselves as North Britons is just stupid. For one thing different Scots have probably felt different things about their nationality for some time, however we have books talking about the Scottish people that date back to Roman occupation, and Scottish Books about the Scottish people, the the Scotichronicon date back to the 15th century and the medieval period. The Decleration of Arbroath, made after the Scottish Wars of Independance in 1320 shows a very solid idea of what a Scot is, inculding an origin myth (like most peoples of the time) that distinguishes them from their cousins the Irish. Anglo-Scot relations have varied throughout history, for some periods they were really good, but there was always a distinctive Scottish identity from England, if there had not been then Scotland would have been assimilated long ago. 2. The Scottish and English churches are radically different. The Scots are Presbytyrian (well were, both socities are pretty secular these days) a very militant, dour version of protestantism, hellfire and brimstone variety. The English are Episcopalian, with pomp, ceremony and bishops, much closer to Catholicism just minus communion and a pope. Cornwall is like wales, it's got a celtic/romano-british heritidge, people displaced by the Anglo-Saxons. Also my above historical stuff isn't a justifiication for modern independance (I'm undecided on that) I just wanted to clear up misconceptions.

[QUOTE=carpie;34815257]For one thing different Scots have probably felt different things about their nationality for some time, however we have books talking about the Scottish people that date back to Roman occupation[/QUOTE] I thought the Kingdom of Scotland was formed in the 800s? The Scots never even arrived in Scotland until well after the Roman Empire had left.

1. Modern national identity doesn't just come from the Scots, any more than English just comes from Anglo Saxons. The English also incorporate their celtic heritidge, the Romano-Britons, the tribes and their leaders like Boduica, even King Arthur. The Scots do a simular thing with Norwegian settlers and the Picts. 2. Scots were mentioned briefly by the Romans, though its true they were just mentioned as Irish raiders attacking Wales. There was probably limited settlement before hand. The precursor to the Scottish kingdom, Dal Riata, was founded in roughly 500 AD

[QUOTE=carpie;34815643]1. Modern national identity doesn't just come from the Scots, any more than English just comes from Anglo Saxons. The English also incorporate their celtic heritidge, the Romano-Britons, the tribes and their leaders like Boduica, even King Arthur. The Scots do a simular thing with Norwegian settlers and the Picts. 2. Scots were mentioned briefly by the Romans, though its true they were just mentioned as Irish raiders attacking Wales. There was probably limited settlement before hand. The precursor to the Scottish kingdom, Dal Riata, was founded in roughly 500 AD[/QUOTE] Isn't England more Norman than Anglo Saxon?

Why does everyone seem to believe what the papers say and without any economic knowledge just go "Scotland would go bankrupt, lol"? Scotland is in pretty good shape. Sure it'd have to accept a proportion of national debt, and yes they'd have to make changes which most Scottish people haven;t really considered, but the idea of them going bankrupt is just nonsense. The only way they'd go bankrupt is if it happens within the next few years and the EU forces them to reapply for membership, thus forcing them to take on the European currency as all new memberstates "have" to. (For the record, I'm half English, half Scottish living in London. Would like the union to remain, but at the end of the day Scotland should be a democracy. If the majority of people want the union dissolved, then dissolve it)

[QUOTE=Lhuth;34846527]Why does everyone seem to believe what the papers say and without any economic knowledge just go "Scotland would go bankrupt, lol"? Scotland is in pretty good shape. Sure it'd have to accept a proportion of national debt, and yes they'd have to make changes which most Scottish people haven;t really considered, but the idea of them going bankrupt is just nonsense.[/QUOTE] Scotland has little in the way of natural resources. Its GDP in 2009 was £131 Billion, whereas the city of London alone in England was £565 Billion. The North Sea is emptying of oil, and the public sector that Scotland has is far too costly to maintain, with most of it. (Like prescriptions and universities, which are heavily subsidised by the English so the Scots can make use of it.)

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;34846759]Scotland has little in the way of natural resources. Its GDP in 2009 was £131 Billion, whereas the city of London alone in England was £565 Billion.[/QUOTE] Really? London, that economic powerhouse with a population of 2.8 million more people than the whole of Scotland, and nearly 8.7 million more when taking it's metropolitan area into account, has a higher GDP than a country of 5 million? Who would have thought. As for the oil. Yes, you're right. It won't last for ever. However, there is at least another 40 years worth of oil in the North Sea. And with advances in technology, the amount that can be brought up from the reserves increases all the time. If only Scotland had the best potential in the whole of the UK for renewable energies. And had the ability to not only produce enough energy for itself, but be able to sell off any excess in the future..

[QUOTE=Bad)-(and;34846822]Really? London, that economic powerhouse with a population of 2.8 million more people than the whole of Scotland, and nearly 8.7 million more when taking it's metropolitan area into account, has a higher GDP than a country of 5 million? Who would have thought.[/QUOTE] This powerhouse is so powerful it can subsidise a lot of Scotland, and many other places.

[QUOTE=Bad)-(and;34846822]Really? London, that economic powerhouse with a population of 2.8 million more people than the whole of Scotland, and nearly 8.7 million more when taking it's metropolitan area into account, has a higher GDP than a country of 5 million? Who would have thought. As for the oil. Yes, you're right. It won't last for ever. However, there is at least another 40 years worth of oil in the North Sea. And with advances in technology, the amount that can be brought up from the reserves increases all the time. If only Scotland had the best potential in the whole of the UK for renewable energies. And had the ability to not only produce enough energy for itself, but be able to sell off any excess in the future..[/QUOTE] Scotland would only get a certain amount of that oil proportional to it's population.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34847154]Scotland would only get a certain amount of that oil proportional to it's population.[/QUOTE] It has nothing to do with population. What matters is where the oil lies. 90% of all oil reserves and nearly half of all gas reserves would lay inside Scottish waters. So if Scotland were to become independent, it would be Scotland that would reap the benefits of the UK's oil industry. Which is probably one of the main reasons Cameron and his cronies are so against Independence.

Everyone's really bitter in this thread.

is it true that the fact that in Scotland, higher education is free and then United Kingdom as a whole have to pay the fee?

[QUOTE=AK'z;34847588]is it true that the fact that in Scotland, higher education is free and then United Kingdom as a whole have to pay the fee?[/QUOTE] It's free. But it's paid for by the Scottish Budget.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34846406]Isn't England more Norman than Anglo Saxon?[/QUOTE] First there were the Celts. Then the Romans invaded. Then the Romans left, and the Anglo-Saxons invaded, pushing what was left of the Celtic-Roman people into Wales and Scotland, in the 400-500s. Then in 1066, Normans (who, though resided in France, were Norsemen) invaded and intermingled with the Anglo-Saxons.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34847715]First there were the Celts. Then the Romans invaded. Then the Romans left, and the Anglo-Saxons invaded, pushing what was left of the Celtic-Roman people into Wales and Scotland, in the 400-500s. Then in 1066, Normans (who, though resided in France, were Norsemen) invaded and intermingled with the Anglo-Saxons.[/QUOTE] Also there have been regular immigrations to the island such as French during the Reformation, Germans in the 19th century, Slavs and Asians in the 20th/21st. Britain's a pretty mixed place, tis good to a country mixed like that. (The BNP can piss off)

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;34846759]Scotland has little in the way of natural resources. Its GDP in 2009 was £131 Billion, whereas the city of London alone in England was £565 Billion. The North Sea is emptying of oil, and the public sector that Scotland has is far too costly to maintain, with most of it. (Like prescriptions and universities, which are heavily subsidised by the English so the Scots can make use of it.)[/QUOTE] The best guess for London Population is 7,160,441 and Best guess for Scotland Population is 5,100,000. The city of London has a much higher population, and that isn't taking into account those who commute into London. While London is richer per person, you are comparing the economic heart of the UK to a rural area that is much less dense than London.

[QUOTE=AK'z;34847588]is it true that the fact that in Scotland, higher education is free and then United Kingdom as a whole have to pay the fee?[/QUOTE] Scottish Students get university fees paid for them, any students from elsewhere (Including the rest of the UK, have to pay the full price (anything up to £9,000/year I believe).

[QUOTE=Thoughtless;34847944]The best guess for London Population is 7,160,441 and Best guess for Scotland Population is 5,100,000. The city of London has a much higher population, and that isn't taking into account those who commute into London. While London is richer per person, you are comparing the economic heart of the UK to a rural area that is much less dense than London.[/QUOTE] The population of Scotland used to be much higher, along with being an industrial powerhouse back in the Industrial age. The Clyde was especially famous for shipping, but after WW1 it went into terminal decline. Along with this, whole hordes of people emigrated as well, massively reducing the population.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;34848087]The population of Scotland used to be much higher, along with being an industrial powerhouse back in the Industrial age. The Clyde was especially famous for shipping, but after WW1 it went into terminal decline. Along with this, whole hordes of people emigrated as well, massively reducing the population.[/QUOTE] That means nothing against my point.

[QUOTE=Zambies!;34543419][i]United we stand, divided we fall[/i] Imagine Canada if Quebec broke off, what about Colombia? What about Newfounland. Now imagine the UK, what would other constituents begin to say? "Free Cymru" or "Free Kernow"? Granted that is a harsh example but the example stands.[/QUOTE] Colombia? British Columbia :eng101:

[QUOTE=Beniuk;35003386]Colombia? British Columbia :eng101:[/QUOTE] There was a possible nation called Columbia in west Canada during the 1850's, but it never gained much steam.