“, a permanent Tory fiefdom would result in England and Wales”

Um…I suspect you didn’t quite mean it this way – but I think it is unlikely Wales would ever have a permanant Tory majority.

Also I can’t see it as a legitimate democratic argument that Scotland and Wales should continue to deny England the right to have a conservative government if that is what the English electorarate wish. Scottish independance (and the almost certain greater powers for Wales that would follow) would simply mean labour in england would have to up its game – which means the labour party effectively becoming English labour and letting Welsh labour and Scottish labour becoming sister parties.

“Yet if the perception is that going it alone will allow Scotland to opt out of austerity imposed by a Conservative government in Westminster, nobody should be surprised if the Nats pull this stroke off.”

Unfortunately for them – “an independent Scotland would in fact be a long way from surplus. In 2009-10 its deficit, even assuming that it kept 91 per cent of North Sea revenues, would have stood at 11 per cent of GDP — the same as the figure for the UK as a whole.”

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/7564283/can-scotland-make-it-on-its-own.thtml

I assume that Scotland would also have to assume some pro-rata share of the existing stock of UK public debt?

I assume that Scotland would also have to assume some pro-rata share of the existing stock of UK public debt?

Surely not.

It wasn’t their government that ran up the debt………..

3 – Yes it was. Scotland’s part of the UK, and it’s a UK debt. Being a bit puerile about it, at the time of the highest deficits we had a Scottish PM and a Scottish Chancellor. Hard to disavow all responsibility…

Will you and others stop saying that without `Scotland that England will be permanent Tory fiefdom. It’s not true. If you don’t believe me take a look at the great analysis done by Rev Stu. Labour voters in Scotland have been lied to for years on this subject
http://wingsland.podgamer.com/?p=13513

If it does nothing else, an independence referendum will put to rest forever the idea of the average Briton as a chirpy, can-do, Keep Calm And Carry On type – fundamentally decent people, you know.

It’s only been two days, and I’ve already clocked thousands of insufferable twunts on both sides of the Border boo-hooing about how they’re the most victimised and oppressed people in western Europe.

I admit, I’m leaning towards the notion that the Kick The Jocks, Out Those Scrounging Scum bunch are even sillier and more pitiful than the We Hate The English crew – at least the latter confine their bile to one target, rather than spewing it at everyone who looks or talks differently – but it’s a close run thing and there’s time yet for a shock result.

Assuming that the players involved are telling the truth (WARNING – POLITICIANS), then I see no reason why it shouldn’t all go ahead as and when. It seems reasonable to suppose that a devolved Scottish government does not have the legal power to call a referendum, and it also seems reasonable to believe that a UK government would legislate to allow it under the supervision of a suitable body. Similarly, this referendum should therefore be decisive with an in or out question as any other would end up like the disastrous first referendum on devolution in Scotland which failed to provide a satisfactory answer.

Whether or not it would result in a permanent Conservative majority in England is really irrelevant to Scotland, and is only therefore of interest to the (future?) English Labour Party.

Tim J @ 4

To be fair though, we had a British Chancellor and a British PM, Gordon Brown was held neither post in the interests of Scotland. He may have been M.P. for Kirkcaldy, but he was never the P.M. for Scotland.

Tony Blair being English, even though he was educated in a Scottish public school.

Still the debt thing is interesting, What happened when the Ireland left the UK?

Dave,

Good post – but you forget the one other point of importance here. Even the unionists admit that if the majority of Scots want independence, it is not in their power to deny this. It is after all democracy…

Not sure either Scotland or England would automatically slip into single-party rule though, albeit the right-left divide (if that is a useful concept) would be somewhat different in both countries. But as politics reflect the electorate, that would be no great surprise – although I think the biggest outcome of Scottish independence would be the birth of a credible right-wing party in Scotland (from the ashes of the Conservatives, perhaps attracting the classical liberals and the right-wing of the current SNP alliance).

I’ve never taken it very seriously when I’ve heard Tories bleating about how they’ll emigrate if their taxes rise, if Labour get in, etc., but I think I would seriously consider moving to Scotland if it ever became independent. Unless Alex Salmond would consider taking Wales and the North of England with him? Maybe we should turn the whole thing around and have a referendum on expelling the Home Counties from the Union.

Jim,

Still the debt thing is interesting, What happened when the Ireland left the UK?

I doubt this is a comparable example – that was hardly an amicable parting, and the Irish would claim that they were occupied, and therefore not liable for debts. The Scots do not have that option.

Mind you, splitting up into England (sorry but technically Wales is part of England – hence the lack of the dragon on the Union Jack) and Scotland would be a neat way to write off the debt (UK? Never heard of them, Mr Baliff; only Scotland and me live here…). Just have to figure out what to do with Northern Ireland…

It’s not true. If you don’t believe me take a look at the great analysis done by Rev Stu.

I more or less agree with Stu there (and I loved Amiga Power, so I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt) but I’m not sure how rigorous the analysis is:

“1992 Conservative govt (Major)
———————————————
Conservative majority: 21
Without Scottish MPs: 71
NO CHANGE”

I do hope the Scots will take Tyneside and Merseyside with them.

To be fair though, we had a British Chancellor and a British PM, Gordon Brown was held neither post in the interests of Scotland.

No, they held those posts (we assume) in the interests of the UK, of which Scotland is a part. Scottish politicians really can’t disavow Scotland’s participation in the UK Government.

Tony Blair being English, even though he was educated in a Scottish public school.

Weell… He was born in Scotland; his father was adopted by a Scottish family as a baby and his mother was Ulster-Scots. If you exclude Tony Blair from being considered Scottish, you’re adopting quite a restrictive view.

Still the debt thing is interesting, What happened when the Ireland left the UK?

The Irish Free State took on a ‘fair and equitable’ share of the National Debt. From the Anglo Irish Treaty:

5. The Irish Free State shall assume liability for the service of the Public Debt of the United Kingdom as existing as the date hereof and towards the payment of War Pensions as existing at that date in such proportion as may be fair and equitable, having regard to any just claim on the part of Ireland by way of set-off or counter claim, the amount of such sums being determined in default of agreement by the arbitration of one or more independent persons being citizens of the British Empire.

The Free State was later relieved of this contribution in return for renouncing territorial claims on Northern Ireland.

“but technically Wales is part of England – ”

Technically none of us give a shit about what happened in the 16th century or whether a dragon is on a flag, even the unionists don’t regard Wales as part of England, apart from in the late 90s when a few englishman thought Ryan Giggs was the solution to the left-sided problem

Watchman @ 9

although I think the biggest outcome of Scottish independence would be the birth of a credible right-wing party in Scotland

No need for a ‘new’ right wing party, the Labour Party will take up the cudgels of the Centre Right to counter the Centrist SNP, with the greens moving into the vacuum on the left. The Orange bookers and the Tories moving seemlessly into the Labour Party without too much squeaking and the decent Lib Dems being absorbed into the SNP.

QED.

Planeshift @ 15:

“Technically none of us give a shit about what happened in the 16th century”

I believe that lawyers might.

17 – we’re more interested in the 12th century… Well, property lawyers are anyway.

“I more or less agree with Stu there (and I loved Amiga Power, so I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt) but I’m not sure how rigorous the analysis is:”

It’s “NO CHANGE” in the sense of not changing which party had or didn’t have a majority. Obviously the actual numbers alter, but Major had a majority with Scotland included and he’d have had a majority without it, hence no change.

“Maybe we should turn the whole thing around and have a referendum on expelling the Home Counties from the Union.”

Bring it on (as Ed M would say)!

In fact, as a resident of central London, I would like to see Zone 1 declare independence.
Passport to Pimlico!!

It’s “NO CHANGE” in the sense of not changing which party had or didn’t have a majority. Obviously the actual numbers alter, but Major had a majority with Scotland included and he’d have had a majority without it, hence no change.

Point taken, but the Feb 74 election without Scotland would have seen the Tories as the largest party by quite a distance (6 short of a majority).

@ 15.

I was under the impression that Wales and England were technically merged into a single country when the ancient Welsh family the map Tudors became the royal family of England. That was when the English coat of arms was supported by a lion (England) and a dragon (Wales). The Welsh bits in the arms were removed by James the I / VI when he took over the throne in London.

The Welsh have generally got along very well with the English for most of the last 600 or so years – unlike the Scots and the two nations remained a single country until Welsh devolution, which was most heavily opposed in North Wales – the part where Welsh culture is arguably the strongest. Incidentally, the whole Welsh independence movement wasreally kicked off by the drowning of Tryweryn in the 1950′s, accompanied by some pretty offensive remarks about”primitives” by Labour NEC member Bessie Braddock. I seem to remember that those evicted from their homes and farms received no compensation.

“Zone 1 declare independence.”

Nick Griffin already thinks London is a foreign country

” North Wales – the part where Welsh culture is arguably the strongest. ”

The extent of ‘welshness’ better fits onto a east/west geographical distinction than north/south. Also the increase in support for devolution in last years referendum in North Wales suggests the divides are becoming less significant.

Watchman @ 9

Even the unionists admit that if the majority of Scots want independence, it is not in their power to deny this. It is after all democracy…

This is interesting because it goes to the heart of the reality of the nation state- that its government has the monopoly of the means of violence within its borders. It has really nothing to do with democracy except that our current leaders pretend the democratic component is an important one. So they are somewhat hamstrung when they have invaded foreign nations to impose democracy but then are seen to refuse to allow it in these islands.

For example, there is currently a movement for the Wirral to secede from the UK and have the peninsula become a self governing entity like the Isle of Man, with low taxation and small government. Do you really think that if a majority of the inhabitants voted to do this, they would be allowed to?

What about if my town voted for independence? Or the people in my street?

And is it not illogical that the people of Liverpool should be tethered to economic policies appropriate for London?

So it seems to me that this is interesting, though not from the point of view of historical nationalism which is, frankly, irrelevant in the modern age. It is interesting because the question of a referendum on self government opens up fundamental questions about the characteristics of the state is and its relationship with its citizens.

And the more that people think this through, the more they will begin to realise that the relationship is founded in control, money and oppression.

Although Salmond does have considerable momentum behind him actually wining an independence vote would be quite difficult for him. However, if Michael Moore continues to act like a Colonial Governor, the coalition will only strengthen the nationalist hand. The Liberals have strong federalism credentials going back over a century and it has been bizarre listening to them arguing against their own principles.

The principles of self-determination in constitutional and international law is that it is the seceding nation that decides if it wants to become independent. They do not need the permission of anyone. For the Westminster parliament to pull rank would be a big mistake. The principle of ‘ parliamentary sovereignty ‘ is not accepted and has no counterpart in Scots Law. Judges in the highest courts in the land have made clear throughout the 20th century that parliament was not sovereign over Scots Law. From the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath onwards the accepted principle has been that sovereignty came from the people and the monarch only ruled by consent of the people. If leaders acted against the wishes of the people they have no legitimacy and can be removed. That point is important when one considers what the question should be. All the opinion polls suggest that the favoured option is not full independence, but devo-max. To deny people the right to vote on their favoured option would be acting against their expressed wishes.

I specifically flew back from the U.S. to vote no in the devolution referendum as I thought it would be a disaster. However, I have since changed my mind and they have done quite a good job. Being politicians one expects some dumb things from them. However, there has been more positives than negatives. A parliament containing politicians who are not responsible for raising the money that they spend is bad politics and bad economics. Therefore, devo-max where full tax raising powers are exercised from Edinburgh and they make a pro-rata contribution for joint defence and foreign services seems the way to go to me. EU law would prevent them from varying VAT so that would continue to be levied by London.

Salmond is a fascinating character who makes mincemeat of his Scottish Labour numpty opponents. Scottish Labour have responded to the SNP phenomenon by being entirely negative. One would search in vain for any of them to argue a positive case for the Union. Michael Kelly informs us that voting for independence would be selfish. Brian Wilson tells us that the Scots should vote no to independence because they should think about the people in Liverpool and Newcastle. Self-determination is something that the left support all over the world, but apparently not in their homeland.

The last Holyrood election really was a turning point. The SNP traditional vote never was particularly left wing contrary to what one often reads. They always picked up a lot of rural and urban middle class anti-Labour votes. However, the traditional working class areas are now deserting the Labour Party and turning to the SNP. After voting for them for the bast part of a century the voters have sussed that Labour politicians serve the Labour Party, and not the people. Those areas were poor when they started voting Labour and they are still poor. Salmond can easily say that he is standing up for Scotland and mean all of Scotland. Labour can’t say that because they view politics from a class perspective. I dislike nationalism in all its forms. However, there is no doubt that Salmond is winning the arguments. Moreover, a nationalism based on residency rather than ethnicity is a quite different creature to the negative forms.

Making politicians responsible for raising the tax that they spend should be a natural Tory position. I can’t see how they can defend the block grant system. From what I can see some of the Scottish Tories are coming round to that view. Staying within the Union and devolving all revenue raising to Holyrood could eventually end up Sottish Tory policy choice. The Labour Party have spent a century trying to turn the Scots into North Britons and failed. Young people are more likely to support the SNP than Labour. Old people support Labour and their support could go the same way as the Sottish Tory vote 20 years ago and just gradually die out. Unless they start making a positive case for the Union they will be even more discredited. Telling people how awful it would be not to be tied to mother London is not a positive case. The Liberals should rediscover their Liberal roots.

Scotland could easily go it alone. Her public finances in independence would be considerably healthier than the UK. Moreover, Scotland runs a current account surplus by producing more than she consumes. The only argument is whether independence is desirable not viability. The present arrangements have had their day and need to be changed.

Tim J @ 14

If you exclude Tony Blair from being considered Scottish, you’re adopting quite a restrictive view.

An English MP though. Looking at his wiki page, I put him down as more Scottish than Rod Stewart and of course miles in front of J.K Rowling, both of whom are widely accepted in Scotland as Scots, so it just goes to show you.

To be honest, we normally take anyone as Scottish on the most tenuous of links.

Richard @ 26:

“Scotland could easily go it alone. Her public finances in independence would be considerably healthier than the UK. Moreover, Scotland runs a current account surplus by producing more than she consumes.”

A rather dubious assertion, actually:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/7564283/can-scotland-make-it-on-its-own.thtml

“. A parliament containing politicians who are not responsible for raising the money that they spend is bad politics and bad economics”

This is precisely the main problem of the welsh assembly. Even the tories recognise this and its likely we’ll get fiscal responsibilities in the next few years whether labour like it or not.

Richard outlines the case for devo-max extremely well, and opinion polls suggest a devo-max option would get 80-90% suggest in a straight fight against the status quo – which is the main reason the london based parties oppose even putting this option to the vote. Frankly the difference between a devo-max and full independance isn’t that big – i doubt people vote SNP because they want to see Scotland build aircraft carriers. Even with Foreign Policy remaining UK wide, such an arrangement would probably make another Iraq impossible. In other words the UK as we know it is already finished, and we now in the situation of whether westminster is going to pull rank to keep devo-max off the ballot, a move that increases support for full independance.

The only way the union survives is if the london parties unite to offer a positive alternative for all 4 nations based far more on a federal model with significantly less power for the UK treasury, and make the case in Scotland why this is better for people in Scotland than independance. Almost 30 comments in and nobody has even tried to go beyond the tired old “we subsidise you! you’ll never make it alone!”.

“but the Feb 74 election without Scotland would have seen the Tories as the largest party by quite a distance (6 short of a majority).”

That’s an interesting point. Might try to edit something in about that.

28. XXX

” A rather dubious assertion, actually: ”

Not as dubious as citing a biased source such as the Spectator, XXX.

The Spectator using UK Treasury fantasy numbers are not credible. The UK Treasury do not record accurately where public expenditure actually occurs. For example, they assign a share of the defence procurement budget as public spending to each region even if that money is not spent in that area. There is no doubt that Scotland does have a current fiscal budget deficit. Note the fiscal deficit is different from the current account which is in surplus. However, the UK also has a fiscal deficit and it is larger than the Scottish fiscal deficit when one accurately accounts for all revenue and expenditure.

Professor Andrew J. Hughes Hallett of George Mason University is the person to read.

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/economics/CDMA/papers/wp1009.pdf

@ 25 pagar

“What about if my town voted for independence? Or the people in my street? ”

I have always wondered what would happen if my girlfriend and I voted to make our flat an independent state.

“but technically Wales is part of England – ”

Not according to the the Government of Wales Act…?

Separation has never been about who gets the record collection, but who gets the children and who gets the debts.

“‘Yours for Scotland,’ was the sign-off Scotland’s First Minister, Alex Salmond, gave in a May 2007 letter to Sir Fred Goodwin, then chief executive of Royal Bank of Scotland, as he endorsed the Edinburgh-based bank’s bid for Dutch financial group ABN Amro.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9008246/An-independent-Scotland-would-struggle-for-AAA-rating.html

In Thursday’s FT, Salmond is quoted saying “an independent Scotland would not share the UK government’s £197bn exposure to Royal Bank of Scotland’s toxic assets because the Treasury were responsible for the failed regulation of RBS.”

In other words, he is claiming that the Treasury should have intervened to block the takeover bid made by RBS for the Dutch financial group ABN Amro which Salmond personally approved of but which turned out to be a financial disaster for RBS.

@ 25 pagar

“What about if my town voted for independence? Or the people in my street? ”

Well, your town probably doesn’t have its own legal system, education system, a history of being an independent nation, it will not be recognised as a “country”, etc., etc., … So I don’t think you’d get anywhere, really.

(Though Passport to Pimlico is perhaps worth noting here – they declared themselves Burgundians because of yon olde-fashioned legal documents, not out of caprice.)

“Well, your town probably doesn’t have its own legal system, education system, a history of being an independent nation,”

It’s perhaps worth recalling that the Act of Union of 1707 was a means of resolving Scotland’s dire financial straights in consequence of the failed Darien project:

“The Darién scheme was an unsuccessful attempt by the Kingdom of Scotland to become a world trading nation by establishing a colony called ‘New Caledonia’ on the Isthmus of Panama in the late 1690s. From the outset, the undertaking was beset by poor planning and provision, weak leadership, lack of demand for trade goods, devastating epidemics of disease and increasing shortage of food; it was finally abandoned after a siege by Spanish forces in April, 1700. As the Darien company was backed by about a quarter of the money circulating in Scotland, its failure left the nobles and landowners – who had suffered a run of bad harvests – almost completely ruined and was an important factor in weakening their resistance to the Act of Union (finally consummated in 1707). ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme

Even so the Act of Union didn’t prevernt a Scottish Jacobite army from invading England in 1745 and capturing Derby, a town about 100 miles north of London, with the intention of restoring the Stuart dynasty to the thrones of Scotland and England.

@37

You’ve sort of proved my point – Scotland is different to “my town” and “the people in my street”.

“You’ve sort of proved my point – Scotland is different to “my town” and “the people in my street”.”

My posts @35 and @37 show that Scotland and the Scots demonstrate long established tendencies towards aggression and promoting financial disasters.

The 70+ mile long Hadrian’s Wall across the north of England was the most heavily fortified frontier in the Roman empire.

Try this report in The Times in 2005: “A UNITED Nations report has labelled Scotland the most violent country in the developed world, with people three times more likely to be assaulted than in America. England and Wales recorded the second highest number of violent assaults while Northern Ireland recorded the fewest.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1487949/posts

Of course, there are reasons for this tendency. As the Scottish government put it in a recent healthcare warning:

Scotland’s drink problem is significantly worse than the rest of the UK. Figures suggest that as many as half of men and a third of women in Scotland regularly drink above sensible drinking guidelines.

Alcohol consumption across the country has increased by 19 per cent since 1980, driven by an increase in affordability of 70 per cent over the same period.

I really don’t think Culloden was about “Scotland’s drink problem”.

My point was: Scotland is a country. Your point doesn’t seem relevant.

(And by-the-by, I’m not denying Scotland’s current alcohol problems.)

dee,

I really don’t think Culloden was about “Scotland’s drink problem”.

Have you seen Dundee on a Friday night?

“My point was: Scotland is a country. Your point doesn’t seem relevant.”

Heaven forbid that anyone else could have a different perspective on Scotland and the Scots from the one permitted by yourself.

That is very revealing – at the time of the football world cup in 2006, there were several reports in the news of English expats in Scotland flying the England flag who were beaten up – I can post the links. Around where I live, there are several Italian restaurants and some of the folk who work in those restaurants were flying Italian flags at the time but no one made a point of assaulting them or tearing up their flags.

There are parts of Mexico, America and Canada which operate outside the normal national laws – such as unorthodox Mormon communities in America and Canada, which continue to practise polygamy, or the drug baronies in Mexico. By your argument, these are entitled to independence. In short, your argument is rubbish because it can’t be taken as a sensible general principle.

Planeshift et al,

Technically none of us give a shit about what happened in the 16th century or whether a dragon is on a flag, even the unionists don’t regard Wales as part of England, apart from in the late 90s when a few englishman thought Ryan Giggs was the solution to the left-sided problem

And he would have been (and the additional games might have reduced his off pitch activities, so a win-win situation…).

But my point is deeper than that. Scotland and Northern Ireland can easily secede from the union, as they are separate countries. Wales was never a separate country, but has instead been held by right of conquest (Welsh rulers and English kings alike) and incorporated into the kingdom of England. Nothing to do with the Tudors (after all, Henry VII had no claim to any Welsh princely title, but did have a rather weak one to the throne of England), more the Normans and Edward I (not generally beloved of his neighbours). So Wales becoming independent would be the breakup of a soverign country in a way Scotland or Northern Ireland would not (although it would be comparable to the breakup of Ireland). In all honesty, this is hardly the major consideration, as I’d still go with the idea that if they want to be independent, let them.

And that applies to the Wirral as well, and possibly Chaise’s flat (albeit, as it is a flat the declaration of independence could only affect the space inside and external surfaces and not the party walls, which could make hanging pictures a declaration of war). If you believe in democracy and devolution, you have to accept the possibly silly consequences (an independent republic of the Wirral; President Chaise; a Conservative-led coalition government…).

@ 36 dee

“Well, your town probably doesn’t have its own legal system, education system, a history of being an independent nation, it will not be recognised as a “country”, etc., etc., … So I don’t think you’d get anywhere, really. ”

So the argument for allowing Scotland to split from Britain isn’t democratic? Because a group of people (such as the residents of a town) don’t need any of the things listed above to hold an election.

Scottish independence? Sure I will vote for that when the time comes. Previously I considered myself as a bit of a sporting patriot. I confine my Scottish heritage to when Scotland play football or rugby, or to be honest take part in football or rugby matches. Scotland has rarely ‘played’ in sporting competitions for nearly twenty years or so. I seriously cringe at the anti English crap that I hear spout out around me. A bit of ‘anyone but England’ banter in sporting events, but some prick daubed ‘English go home’ on a bridge some years back and I find that kind of racism embarrassing. Seriously dudes, that is not who most of us Scottish are. I can quite happily sit in a pub with a dozen English people listening to a comedian without feeling the need to scream ‘freedom’, every five minutes. I have plenty in common with my English mates and can get on with the number of English bosses, I have known and have met some great English guys on holiday and have er ‘known’ some great English women over the years too. I have even managed to shag the odd dyed in the wool Tory, it is amazing what effect a rough Scottish accent has on nice middle class English girls, though I am sure the vodka may have played apart as well.

I was brought up in what we call a Unionist family, basically British first and Scottish a poor second. As I have got older, I have found myself pretty much alienated from British politics, first by the Conservative Party, (I actually would describe myself as a small ‘c’ conservative believe it or not), then New Labour. Slowly but surely I have seen politics in Britain becoming more and more remote. I see far too many decisions driven, not by anything so common as ‘facts’ or ‘evidence’, but more about what people want to be true. I see far too many policies drawn up by a need to be seen appeasing the nutters that happen to write leader columns in the Right wing press than anything else. A couple of examples immediately come to mind.

The merciless attack on the disabled being one. It is patently obvious to me that the direction of reform is just wrong and that opinion is taken by most ‘decent’ people in society. Yet here we are with an obviously failing system that is buckled beyond redemption, and most important of all, failing the very people it is supposed to be helping. Yet Westminster is entirely helpless to stop it. Labour and the Tories are in a mutual vicelike deathgrip, lest they be seen as ‘soft on scroungers’, the Lib Dems have actually asked for amendments, yet their leadership have wiped their arses with the paper their motion was written and we are sleepwalking to a system that will leave disabled people destitute. Why? Not because no-one in Parliament can foresee the problems, but because the no-one wants to stand up to the fucking morons and tell them that what they believe is not true.

Another example is the attitude toward the unemployed. We have all read about the student being sent to Poundland, despite already doing unpaid work, ‘Big Society style’, in her local museum. Again, why? Why is this happening? Why is a system of bureaucracy sending her to work for a private company, denying someone who actually needs a job, legitimate work and denying her the chance to do something that actually might enhance her life? Because halfwits around this Country want a fucking moronic system in place and no-one in Politics has the balls to them to shut the fuck up.

Westminster based Politics has been destroyed by people who are nominally British. I am British, but I feel no affinity with these cunts who appear to delight in wanting other people to suffer. I feel nothing towards the people who would rather pretend that unemployment is a new phenomenon, invented in 1997 and the Jarrow marches were a figment of our imagination. I share nothing with people who see the disabled as a fucking nuisance and the Daily Mail as gods to be worshipped. I am NOT anti English, nor is this driven by my obvious anti Tory sentiments. This is to do with all the Parties in Westminster.

Frankly, I would have a United States of Europe than be ruled by these cretins.

I do not think that Scotland’s problems will cease once we are independent, nor do I think we will never make mistakes, but divorced from Westminster, we would at last have our own destiny at our own hands.

Well done JIm. I think that sums it up for lots of people. I just hope the Scottish Labour voters – I was one for most of my life – wake up and realise what’s being done.
How Labour can defend the poverty in, for example, Glasgow where they have been in control forever, God only knows!

Never, ever undestimate how despised the tories are in Scotalnd, how little they understand the country, but also how people feel betrayed by (New) Labour. That’s why they voted SNP. Also – Alex Salmond is the wiliest politician in Europe when it comes to things like managing expectation and using such hatred of government. I’d bet on him.

I can never tell if Bob B is taking the piss or being deadly serious when he brings up Hadrian’s wall as evidence against modern day scots.

@ 48 Cylux

“I can never tell if Bob B is taking the piss or being deadly serious when he brings up Hadrian’s wall as evidence against modern day scots.”

I tend to have that problem with Bob in general.

I always thought Hadrian’s wall was emblematic of the theiving nature of the people of Northumberland – they nicked most of the stone for their own houses…

There is little doubt that Caledonian tribes of Scotland would have been aware of the mighty reputation of the Romans well in advance of their attempts to extend the borders of their Empire northwards. Since AD 43 the Romans had conquered southern England and bloodily suppressed Boudicca’s rising. The fierce Caledonians however had decided they were not going to be subject to Rome rule, even if it meant that they had to make a fight of it!

It started in AD 79 when Agricola, the Roman governor of Britannia, sent a fleet to survey and map Scotland’s coast. By AD 83 Agricola had advanced conquering southern Scotland and the Caledonian tribes to the north knew that they faced immanent invasion.

It was at this point that the Roman historian Tacitus records that the Caledonians “turned to armed resistance on a large scale”. Obviously recognising the might of the highly disciplined Roman war machine, the Caledonians employed guerrilla tactics attacking individual Roman forts and small troop movements. In one surprise night-attack, the Caledonians nearly wiped out the whole 9th legion; it was only saved when Agricola’s cavalry rode to the rescue.

By the summer of AD 84 Agricola and his legions had pushed deep into the Caledonian homelands in the north-east of Scotland. It was on this march, at a place the Romans recorded as Mons Graupius (somewhere in the Grampian Mountains, perhaps at Bennachie by Inverurie), that the Caledonians made the fatal error of confronting them head on.

It is said that some 30,000 Caledonians faced a Roman army of about half that size. It is also recorded that the Caledonians had the advantage of the higher ground, but just like Boudicca some 40 years earlier, they lacked the organisation, discipline and military tactics of the Roman legions.

The tightly packed Roman ranks relied upon their short stabbing sword in combat. Their front ranks were made up of auxiliary troops conscripted from Germany, Holland and Belgium, with the seasoned veterans of Roman legionaries holding things together towards the rear. Bloody hand to hand fighting followed and at one point the Caledonians, with their numerical supremacy managed to outflank the Romans, but once again the highly mobile Roman cavalry rode into action to save the day for them.

Picts v. Romans – copyright Historic UKWith that cavalry charge it appears that any hopes of a Caledonian victory vanished and in the bloodbath that followed 10,000 men were slaughtered. As well as those who fought valiantly to the bitter end, many fled into the surrounding forests and mountains burning their houses and killing their own wives and children in fear of Roman reprisals.

On the following day Tacitus records, “…the hills were deserted, houses smoking in the distance, and our scouts did not meet a soul.”

Following their defeat at the Battle of Mons Graupius, the Caledonian tribes must have considered that their days were numbered, but then luck intervened. The Emperor Domition ordered Agricola back to Rome to help resolve the more pressing military crisis on the Rhine and Danube frontiers.

The Romans re-entrenched southwards and Hadrian’s Wall was built in 122AD between the Solway and the Tyne estuaries, establishing the northern most frontier of the Empire. Hadrian’s successor as emperor, Antoninus Pius, attempted yet again to push the frontier further north between the rivers Forth and Clyde and built his own wall, the Antonine Wall.

The Antonine Wall was built mainly for propaganda purposes as it was seen as expanding the boundaries of the Empire, but on his death it was abandoned in favour of Hadrian’s Wall.

With the exception of some minor border skirmishes, a period of peace was established along this frontier that lasted for more than a century.

During this time the tribes to the north of the wall were left unmolested and united to form the Pictish nation. The Picts’ name first appears in 297 AD and comes from the Latin Picti, meaning ‘painted people’.

By 306 AD however, united and better organized, the Emperor Constantius Chlorus was forced to protect his northern frontier against Pictish attacks on Hadrian’s Wall.On several fronts throughout Europe the tide was slowly turning against the mighty Roman Empire.

As Rome weakened the Picts became bolder, until in 360 AD together with the Gaels from Ireland they launched a coordinated invasion across Hadrian’s Wall. The Emperor Julian dispatched legions to deal with them but too little lasting effect. The Pictish raids cut deeper and ever deeper into the south.

The Roman system of law and order broke down and the wall itself was eventually abandoned and in 411 AD. The Roman legions left British shores to deal with the barbarian crisis at the heart of the empire. The Romano-Britons that remained hired other barbarians, the Angles and Saxons, to help defend them against the Picts. And so, in a final twist of irony, it would appear that it was the Scots themselves that were responsible for creating the ‘Neighbours from Hell’!

Ther term Pict appears to be derived from Pecht, an indigenous tribal name which survives in a list of forts on the Antonine Wall which was occupied for short periods between 142 and 164. The idea that it derives from a Latin term is due to the essentially English adoration of all things Roman – fair enough – they were part of the Roman Empire for over four centuries – WE WERENAE! And Pecht is what they continued to be called in indigenous oral traditions from Shetland to the Borders.
The idea of a Pictish nation is impossible to substantiate before the 6th century when further incursions form the south by the Northumbrians appear to have greatly impacted on all the tribal peoples north of Hadrians Wall – who were, from the Roman perspective – and that includes the Scots – all deemed Caledonians a.k.a. Picts.

Well the devil sure will be in the detail.

The Scottish finance minister couldn’t even answer Andrew Neil’s most basic questions on the Daily Politics today on the issues of currency, monetary policy and debt.

52 HairyPict

You need a geography lesson. Northumbria is north of Hadrian’s Wall.

52 HairyPict

And you need a history lesson too. The Romans did recognise a people called Scots (Scotti). They lived in Ireland.

@51: “The Romano-Britons that remained hired other barbarians, the Angles and Saxons, to help defend them against the Picts. ”

I know of no historic evidence to support a claim that the Romano-Britons “hired” the Angles and Saxons to help defend them against the Picts. For starters, the geography is all wrong – and I live on the edge of south London in what became the heart of Saxon England.

Almost all local place names around here end in -ton or -don, which were typical Saxon place names, and seven Saxon kings were crowned before the Norman Conquest in Kingston-upon-Thames, about 5 or so miles away. By accounts, the Saxons who settled around here sailed up the rivers Thames and Wandle. They were hardly well-paced to ward off attacks by the Picts striking from Scotland, or later invasions by the Vikings and Danes. The land around here was never part of Danelaw territory.

Bob B @ 56:

“I know of no historic evidence to support a claim that the Romano-Britons “hired” the Angles and Saxons to help defend them against the Picts.”

Try Gildas, De Excidio Britanniae, chapters 22 to 23:

22. Meanwhile, God being willing to purify his family who were infected by so deep a stain of woe, and at the hearing only of their calamities to amend them; a vague rumour suddenly as if on wings reaches the ears of all, that their inveterate foes were rapidly approaching to destroy the whole country, and to take possession of it, as of old, from one end to the other. But yet they derived no advantage from this intelligence; for, like frantic beasts, taking the bit of reason between their teeth, they abandoned the safe and narrow road, and rushed forward upon the broad downward path of vice, which leads to death. Whilst, therefore, as Solomon says, the stubborn servant is not cured by words, the fool is scourged and feels it not: a pestilential disease mortally affected the foolish people, which, without the I sword, cut off so large a number of persons, that the living were not able to bury them. But even this was no warning to them, that in them also might be fulfilled the words of Isaiah the prophet, “And God hath called his people to lamentation, to baldness, and to the girdle of sackcloth; behold they begin to kill calves, and to slay rams, to eat, to drink, and to say, ‘We will eat and drink, for tomorrow we shall die.”‘ For the time was approaching, when all their iniquities, as formerly those of the Amorrhaeans, should be fulfilled. For a council was called to settle what was best and most expedient to be done, in order to repel such frequent and fatal irruptions and plunderings of the above-named nations.

23. Then all the councillors, together with that proud tyrant, were so blinded, that, as a protection to their country, they sealed its doom by inviting in among them (like wolves into the sheep-fold), the fierce and impious Saxons, a race hateful both to God and men, to repel the invasions of the northern nations. Nothing was ever so pernicious to our country, nothing was ever so unlucky. What palpable darkness must have enveloped their minds-darkness desperate and cruel! Those very people whom, when absent, they dreaded more than death itself, were invited to reside, as one may say, under the selfsame roof. Foolish are the princes, as it is said, of Thafneos, giving counsel to unwise Pharaoh. A multitude of whelps came forth from the lair of this barbaric lioness, in three cyuls, as they call them, that is, in three ships of war, with their sails wafted by the wind and with omens and prophecies favourable, for it was foretold by a certain soothsayer among them, that they should occupy the country to which they were sailing three hundred years, and half of that time, a hundred and fifty years, should plunder and despoil the same. They first landed on the eastern side of the island, by the invitation of the unlucky king, and there fixed their sharp talons, apparently to fight in favour of the island, but alas! more truly against it. Their mother-land, finding her first brood thus successful, sends forth a larger company of her wolfish offspring, which sailing over, join themselves to their bastard-born comrades. From that time the germ of iniquity and the root of contention planted their poison amongst us, as we deserved, and shot forth into leaves and branches. The barbarians being thus introduced as soldiers into the island, to encounter, as they falsely said, any dangers in defence of their hospitable entertainers, obtain an allowance of provisions, which, for some time being plentifully bestowed, stopped their doggish mouths. Yet they complain that their monthly supplies are not furnished in sufficient abundance, and they industriously aggravate each occasion of quarrel, saying that unless more liberality is shown them, they will break the treaty and plunder the whole island. In a short time, they follow up their threats with deeds.

I have to compliment Bob B for his fascinating comments … the best thing about Lib Con ( although there are some other great contributors )

58 paulnewman

Totally agree. Though there have been many interesting comments on this thread, not just from Bob B.

If Scotland leaves the UK (as opposed to dissolving the union, which requires a UK wide referendum), the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, could demand concessions over Scottish membership of the EU – we could get the Scottish trawlers out of Cornish waters!

Lucy why does the desire of the Scots to run their own country and effectively rule themselves necessitate ‘retribution’ that you propose?. I want independence but that doesn’t mean I am anti English, want the 10% of the Scottish population who are English to leave or for the many Scots who live in England to come home. Why do so many English people want to be ‘in charge’ either in the UK or not in Europe. How about everyone being ‘equal’?

@61 – But that’s precisely what will happen. The vicious trade war when England essentially leaves the Union and the EU…

Try this interview of Alistair Darling in Saturday’s Guardian:

Alistair Darling warns of profound risks in Scotland’s gamble for independence
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/14/alistair-darling-risks-scotland-independence

“Technically none of us give a shit about what happened in the 16th century”

“I believe that lawyers might.”

False. The Scottish and English parliaments both passed the Acts Of Union in 1707. The Irish and English parliaments both passed the Act Of Union in 1801. It is often asserted there was an act of union with Wales, even in history textbooks. Actually there were the Laws in Wales Acts 1535 and 1542. These were not Acts Of Union de jure, even if in de facto they acted as such. They were a tyrannical annexation of Wales by England. No Welsh parliament passed the Act Of Union. The English parliament of the day included no Welsh members.The Laws In Wales Acts were themselves were specifically repealed in part in 1887 and another part in 1993. If it were challenged the rump of the Laws In Wales could not stand and it would be proof there is no Union.