Old Scatterbrain Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 I have seen a couple articles in the past week or so alluding to the fact that Scotland wants to separate from the UK. Is this something new, or is this an historical dispute? I thought the Irish were the rowdy separatists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellowhouse Sam # 25171 Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Nothing that hasn't been brewing for a thousand years give or take a few hundred. Historically, the Scots were feriously opposed to English domination and still are. While not historically correct in all aspects the movies Braveheart and Rob Roy should lend you a taste of a Scotsmans problem with the English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Harley, #14153 Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 It's an issue that's been around for 300+ years. I'm not sure why the Scots feel the need to vote on it now. Of course, I don't really understand the whole concept of the UK. Why is there England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales? How are they alike? How are they different? And why do they keep paying for this whole notion of a figurehead royal family? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Scatterbrain Posted September 17, 2014 Author Share Posted September 17, 2014 I guess my question was poorly worded: I knew there was an historical conflict, but I didn't realize it was still an issue in the modern era. You used to hear about the IRA in the news all the time, but I don't ever remember hearing much about the Scots. I guess I just kinda figured eveyone was getting along okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCandless Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 The Scots were even a problem for the Romans... Hadrian couldn't beat them, so he figured he wall them off! The First War of Scottish Independence was in 1296~! Several Wars since... It's been simmering that long. Although in modern times, it's been more like the relationship between the Nawth and The South... getting along ok-ish, just don't agree with the Guvmint much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 And why do they keep paying for this whole notion of a figurehead royal family? Actually, the Royal Family pays far more in taxes than they receive from the government... and they do pretty much work for a living. Check this guy's response to the question: Do the British Citizens taxes pay for the Royal Family's Living Expenses? From his comments: "The USA pays more for the maintenance of the first and second families (federal and states) than Britons do for our royals." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky Nelson Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 And why do they keep paying for this whole notion of a figurehead royal family? Why do we dress up like cowboys and pretend to shoot outlaws? It's entertaining. The Royal Family represents centuries of national identity. Nobody thinks they're God's chosen to rule the land any more, but they represent everything the nation has experienced together - war, peace, famine, plenty, success, failure, victory, defeat, and victory again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172 Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 I believe that it all goes back to the Roman invasion, and Hadrian's Wall. The Scots were never defeated like the tribes in what is now England. I am not too steady on my English history, but I believe that Ireland has issues for similar reasons. With the English victory at Culloden Field, everything changed. The Scots apparently never forgot. Besides the fishing in Scotland is exceptional and not as restrictive as England. Perhaps they want to make more money off of the fish trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-BAR #18287 Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 The fact that the English are promising concessions to the Scots if they don't secede would suggest that England has been unfair to Scotland for years. And the Scots want more say in the use of the oil produced off their shores, and Scots tend to be more liberal politically than their conservative English bedfellows, and some don't like the nuclear subs stationed in Scottish waters. Interesting times! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah Bob #35998 Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland were all ruled by separate kings at one time. Different language cultures and attitudes. England ended up being the biggest dog and took the orhers under her wing (after many bloody conflicts). Imagine if Georgia annexed Illinois, Louisiana, and Maine. Feathers were ruffled, to say the least. This issue has been around for several centuries. The polls seem to be really close, for and against, whether the Scots are in favor of independence right now. If they do vote to separate there will be much debate in the coming months on how to do it. It is, as they say, a sticky wicket, wot? And the reason you may not have heard much about is is the fault of our American media that generally doesn't pay much attention to the rest of the world except Iraq and Mexico. That's why I also check BBC, the Times of India, and even Al Jazeera. Scotch drinkers should probably stock up just in case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah Bob #35998 Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 With the English victory at Culloden Field, everything changed. The Scots apparently never forgot. (Insert "Yankees" for English, "Appomattox" for Culloden, and "Virginians" for Scots here) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172 Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 (Insert "Yankees" for English, "Appomattox" for Culloden, and "Virginians" for Scots here) I don't think the folks in South Carolina were too happy about it either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah Bob #35998 Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 I don't think the folks in South Carolina were too happy about it either. Take your pick of a dozen states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugs Bonney SASS # 10171 Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Next you'll be telling me that the Stars-n- Bars doesn't refer to Hollywood celebrities drinking habits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORNERY OAF Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 watch Braveheart...you will get it then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G #1840 Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 The Britain that the Romans found was populated by different Celtic peoples (and some pre/non Celts like the Picts). By the time of the Saxon migrations, these were the Welsh, Cornish, Gaels (Scots). The Saxons pushed all the Celts to the perimeter areas where they are today. Edward I (Longshanks) first subjegated the Welsh which was the last time they expressed any rebelious spirit. Then he tried the same with the Scots. (See Braveheart). While Wallace failed to drive the English out, Robert the Bruce did, creating a somewhat independant Scotland for the next few hundred years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowCatcher Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 There are several questions that one can't help but wonder at as we watch this unfold: 1. Why are only the Scot's getting to vote on this - shouldn't the English and Welsh have a say as well? 2. Will the Scot's vote with their hearts or their wallets - and of you who know a Scot will realize just what a big challenge that will be! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowCatcher Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Dang if this thing hasn't a hair trigger on it . . . . Will the Scots vote for the romance of freedom, or will they avoid the cost of setting up a new government? They have a 300 year history of being pissed at the English, to which many respond... "get in line".... but they have gained a bit as well... so which way will they go? We'll know tomorrow, or at least, a day or so later . . . I was at the canteen this morning talking with some of the locals on this - some want to rebuild the Hadrian wall . . . keep the ruddy Scot's out . . . others think it would be a damn fool thing to do . . Lot's of emotion on this one . . . Me - I'm a French/Spanish ancestry American who's a guest in the country, I don't have a dog in this fight - but I hope what ever they decide, that it works out for all . . . . They're a good people, all of them, and one of our best allies, I want nothing but the best for them all . . . . after all... they sent their best and brightest over to get the party started! Shadow Catcher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 England did not annex Scotland. The Union of 1707 was voluntary, and enabled Scotland to have a role on the world stage that it never would have otherwise had. (And I say this as one with a lot of Scot's ancestry, hence my alias, for instance, which is taken from a Sir Walter Scott novel.) Scots would be very unwise to break up the Union. Their right to do so, though, has never been in doubt now or in the past: they are an ancient nation, never conquered (despite inroads from time to time). But they are a very small one (about 5 million people; less than the population of Washington State). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Dan Dawkins Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Best I can tell Scotland is full of bleeding heart liberals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Just the impact on Scotch alone has me not supporting a Scottish move towards independence GG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Angus McPherson Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 FWIW, a co-worker of mine is from Scotland and retired from the RAF. He is now an American citizen. He and the large part of his family that is still in Scotland are against it. Their concern seems to be partly what will happen to the pensioners. i.e. Who is going to pay it? Scotland? England? Or neither? National pride is one thing, but I think a break with the UK would be a mistake. The Scots have a lot of great history as part of Great Britain. I'd hate to see them disregard it. I'll forgive them their part against us in the scuffle back in the 1700's. :-) Black Angus McPherson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-BAR #18287 Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Just the impact on Scotch alone has me not supporting a Scottish move towards independence GG Off to the store to fill some inventory gaps... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172 Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 England did not annex Scotland. The Union of 1707 was voluntary, and enabled Scotland to have a role on the world stage that it never would have otherwise had. (And I say this as one with a lot of Scot's ancestry, hence my alias, for instance, which is taken from a Sir Walter Scott novel.) Scots would be very unwise to break up the Union. Their right to do so, though, has never been in doubt now or in the past: they are an ancient nation, never conquered (despite inroads from time to time). But they are a very small one (about 5 million people; less than the population of Washington State). Maybe we could join England, Red. The fishing seems to be better in BC and Alberta so maybe there are benifits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugs Bonney SASS # 10171 Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 England did not annex Scotland. The Union of 1707 was voluntary, and enabled Scotland to have a role on the world stage that it never would have otherwise had. (And I say this as one with a lot of Scot's ancestry, hence my alias, for instance, which is taken from a Sir Walter Scott novel.) Scots would be very unwise to break up the Union. Their right to do so, though, has never been in doubt now or in the past: they are an ancient nation, never conquered (despite inroads from time to time). But they are a very small one (about 5 million people; less than the population of Washington State). Now let me get this right. Scotland voted to enter into a union with England and now it can simply vote itself out? In the meantime here in the "Land of the Free" none of the fifty states that voted themselves into the Union has the right to vote itself out. Methinks something stinks and it ain't coming from the Cheese thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Now let me get this right. Scotland voted to enter into a union with England and now it can simply vote itself out? In the meantime here in the "Land of the Free" none of the fifty states that voted themselves into the Union has the right to vote itself out. Methinks something stinks and it ain't coming from the Cheese thread. Legend has it that Texas still can... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Now let me get this right. Scotland voted to enter into a union with England and now it can simply vote itself out? In the meantime here in the "Land of the Free" none of the fifty states that voted themselves into the Union has the right to vote itself out. Methinks something stinks and it ain't coming from the Cheese thread. Scotland had been a nation for many centuries when it "voted" (a highly dubious point; "agreed" would be better) in favor of the Union. The English and Scottish monarchies had been united for about a century before the union, with the accession of King James VI of Scotland as King James I of England. Why would the issue of whether or not Scotland could leave the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (which has been recognized since it entered it) have anything at all to do with the United States? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah Bob #35998 Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 As Red says, there was not actually a "vote" as we think of it today. Back in those days, the monarchs and aristocracy made the decisions for the poor peasants (based on what was best for the top dawgs) Sound familiar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugs Bonney SASS # 10171 Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 As Red says, there was not actually a "vote" as we think of it today. Back in those days, the monarchs and aristocracy made the decisions for the poor peasants (based on what was best for the top dawgs) Sound familiar? Sounds more and more familiar Scotland had been a nation for many centuries when it "voted" (a highly dubious point; "agreed" would be better) in favor of the Union. The English and Scottish monarchies had been united for about a century before the union, with the accession of King James VI of Scotland as King James I of England. Why would the issue of whether or not Scotland could leave the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (which has been recognized since it entered it) have anything at all to do with the United States? Well, in a very simplified version, it's like this. Once upon a time Several kingdoms in the Southern part of the United States decided they no longer wanted to be allied to the northern bunch. They had elections and voted themselves out and the Northern folks decided that even thou the "will of the people" was good enough to get them in, it wasn't good enough to get them out. A severe disagreement ensued. Some folks think it's settled, others are still willing to dispute the decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocWard Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 Edward I (Longshanks) first subjegated the Welsh which was the last time they expressed any rebelious spirit. Owen Glendower (anglicized version of his name) might disagree if he were still alive. As might Henry IV and his son, Henry V. The younger defeated Glendower twice in major battles while still prince. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nasty Newt # 7365 Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 So, how many of the states that seceded from the Union prior to the Civil War would vote themselves out today if they could? I'm thinking none of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harvey Mushman Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 As pointed out, there are hundreds of years of history here, but the recent dominant force is the far more liberal politics in Scotland, and many years of Tory (conservative Brit measures) top leadership of the UK. They actually prefere an even MORE socialist model! A couple other of the many factors are also the presence of the entire Brit nuclear (Trident) submarine deterrent fleet (the antithesis of lib philosophy - they are anit-nuc) near Glasgow, with none in England. Additionally, the current booming oil production of Scotlande that seems to make them think they would be economically self sufficient for decades without the more diversified support of the entire UK economy. Unfortuantley, if they vote to go their own way tomorrow, they have several issues to resolve quickly, then in the long run. For example, what currency do they use, based on what bank's guarantee? Euro, Pound? or their own pegged to what? Not to mention the oil reserves are predicted to decline precipitously over the next 10-15 years. they risk the recent experience of Ireland and Greece... I am 50% Scot. Huge issue I have oversimplified, but I hope my clansmen and countrymen vote to stay "United" tomorrow. Harvey BTW, no fears on Scotch - it may become their primary product! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugs Bonney SASS # 10171 Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 So, how many of the states that seceded from the Union prior to the Civil War would vote themselves out today if they could? I'm thinking none of them. There are some active secessionist movements in several states but I don't think any of them have the votes needed to actually do it. However, that is not the point. Having the right to do something does not mean you are required to act on it. The people of any state should have freedom of choice just as it seems the Scots have. The founders said so in the Declaration of Independance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORNERY OAF Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 So, how many of the states that seceded from the Union prior to the Civil War would vote themselves out today if they could? I'm thinking none of them. i agree..none...at all..nice to talk about it and spout off hw indepemdant thay are. But none would ever REALLY think about it...pure monitary, none could exist without uncle sugar and his wallet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim No Horse Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 Not legend..Texas can divide into 5 states....Main problem....who gets the Alamo.... Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.