ChatterBank1 min ago
Is Nicola Sturgeon Pregnant?
51 Answers
I saw a picture of her in the paper this morning in a red dress and she has either put on a lot of weight or is pregnant
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by gordiescotland1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Wharton, i know more than most, including many Scots on the issue of independence, already said twice that she is SNP politician , that now makes it three. Besides you want independence, it had better be the type that takes you out the equation of England, your own tax, army, health service, no cap in hand anywhere near us, because independence means just that. And no keeping the Pound -
A cut from the rest of the UK, its not what Alex Salmond actually wants is it, because he wants to retain many of the things that tie us together, look at his words, his manifesto or whatever you want to call it on Scottish Independence, its a nonsense that won't come to fruition,
A cut from the rest of the UK, its not what Alex Salmond actually wants is it, because he wants to retain many of the things that tie us together, look at his words, his manifesto or whatever you want to call it on Scottish Independence, its a nonsense that won't come to fruition,
//It was Scots currency long before 1707.//
the scots currency was called "the pound" - but to get one English pound, a scot would need to hand over 12 of his own. this came about at the time of James VI/I and was still the case in 1707, when the exchange ratio for setting the common currency. pre-union scots coins ceased being legal tender in 1708.
the scots currency was called "the pound" - but to get one English pound, a scot would need to hand over 12 of his own. this came about at the time of James VI/I and was still the case in 1707, when the exchange ratio for setting the common currency. pre-union scots coins ceased being legal tender in 1708.
The polarised comments are intriguing. Yes, independence is just that and, yes, it should be considered forever (although in reality there is no such thing as forever in politics). The "daft wee lassie" has more sense than she was credited with here. Presumably unlike the contributor, she would not entertain the idea of taking herself off to Denmark (with their own currency) to lead them into they light on how they, a nation the same size as Scotland, are a third world country and a joke and better off joining their larger neighbour Germany. Denmark has a longer history as an independent entity than has the United Kingdom. Not only that but in all the lists compiled by OECD, etc. Denmark outperforms the UK, sometimes by a wide margin. The Nordic countries (all but one with its own currency), nations of similar or smaller sizes than Scotland, consistently outperform the UK. The UK is (outside the UK) the joke - any UK national would have to look for the real sentiments of other Europeans because the fog inside the country claims it is "the best", rather like the situation within the USA (and other places too, to be fair).
If life is a race, why run it with a diver's boots on both feet ? On the other hand, the referendum will be a democratic exercise and there are lots of people who are rigid with fear of change, any change - hence, so as to reassure these souls, the desire to keep certain things that have practical value. Those who look at things without prejudice already know that David Cameron, or any other Westminster leader, will not be voted out by voters in Scotland. Personally, if the English will not co-operate over continued use, at least in the near to medium term, of the Pound then I think Scotland should look to another solution. But I don't think English leaders will in the event cause any difficulty, although some are not above making threats to influence the vote. Also, personally, I think Scotland should do away with the military altogether apart from coast and border forces. This is what the majority of countries of Scotland's size have in effect done for decades - their military could never repulse a proper assault. Adventures abroad (Afghanistan, et al) would by definition be completely ruled out.
Scots share, and always will share, a history with the rest of the UK and they took part in and contributed to the conquest and running of a large part of the globe - in the past. The empire is gone and the United Kingdom is just another medium (I didn't say mediocre) country at best. The past will not be erased any more than Scotland will no longer be part of Britain and its people British. But an independent Scotland will be able to choose its way forward and although there are people in England who are deeply miffed, like a snubbed lover, over the prospect, I am convinced that with the separation the relationship between the two countries will actually improve (it is uneasy at present). There are plenty of precedents for such a development, Ireland's independence being the closest to hand.
If life is a race, why run it with a diver's boots on both feet ? On the other hand, the referendum will be a democratic exercise and there are lots of people who are rigid with fear of change, any change - hence, so as to reassure these souls, the desire to keep certain things that have practical value. Those who look at things without prejudice already know that David Cameron, or any other Westminster leader, will not be voted out by voters in Scotland. Personally, if the English will not co-operate over continued use, at least in the near to medium term, of the Pound then I think Scotland should look to another solution. But I don't think English leaders will in the event cause any difficulty, although some are not above making threats to influence the vote. Also, personally, I think Scotland should do away with the military altogether apart from coast and border forces. This is what the majority of countries of Scotland's size have in effect done for decades - their military could never repulse a proper assault. Adventures abroad (Afghanistan, et al) would by definition be completely ruled out.
Scots share, and always will share, a history with the rest of the UK and they took part in and contributed to the conquest and running of a large part of the globe - in the past. The empire is gone and the United Kingdom is just another medium (I didn't say mediocre) country at best. The past will not be erased any more than Scotland will no longer be part of Britain and its people British. But an independent Scotland will be able to choose its way forward and although there are people in England who are deeply miffed, like a snubbed lover, over the prospect, I am convinced that with the separation the relationship between the two countries will actually improve (it is uneasy at present). There are plenty of precedents for such a development, Ireland's independence being the closest to hand.
Latest Posts
As If The Cowards Of Hamas Have Not...
News2 mins ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Society & Culture5 mins ago
Employers To Move Jobs Abroad...who'd...
News12 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.