ChatterBank34 mins ago
Kent.the New "Toilet"County Of England.
Just off from reading the Gruadian,i see a few business types are busy replacing the "garden"bit from road signs and replacing them with "toilet" signs down in Kent.(Because all the problems this Brexsh*t is going to cause).Co-incidentally,i have just been told today that i mightnt have a job next year thanks to Brexsh*t.Boss might be moving production to Poland.Thanks,Brexiteers.
Answers
Her obsession with independence is as ill timed & stupid as Boris' new found enthusiasm for the banning of petrol cars by 2030, what a moment to bring that in! Covid & Brexit are plenty enough to deal with, & George is correct to point this out, he deserves & should get plenty of support up there:...
09:57 Sun 29th Nov 2020
ynnafymmi 14:37 Sat 28th, you may be right. An independent Scotland would in such negotiations have the same opposite number as the EU currently has and therefore the same problems which maybe will inevitably result in the same sort of impasse. With friends like these, who needs.....
Maybe others (including you ?) are right that Scots are inherently incompetent and foolish and therefore have no hope of doing as well independently as other countries of similar or smaller size, those which are doing so much better than the UK and have done for years or decades. Maybe when it comes to running their own country, Scots will not have the sense to cast off the failed UK ways, systems and processes in favour of simply copying and applying ways that work, foreign ones, and scrap the World Beating British ones.
Only with serious change can Scotland escape the mess of recent decades, and that also goes for the UK as a whole. It is and should be the choice and decision of the people of Scotland, to say whether they are happy where they are or they want to go for something different. Does Scotland dream of going back to Ruling the Waves, is that a serious priority ? Oh, and for those who suggest the whole of the UK should decide yay or nay on Scottish independence, did they at the time want the whole of the EU to decide for or against Brexit ?
Maybe others (including you ?) are right that Scots are inherently incompetent and foolish and therefore have no hope of doing as well independently as other countries of similar or smaller size, those which are doing so much better than the UK and have done for years or decades. Maybe when it comes to running their own country, Scots will not have the sense to cast off the failed UK ways, systems and processes in favour of simply copying and applying ways that work, foreign ones, and scrap the World Beating British ones.
Only with serious change can Scotland escape the mess of recent decades, and that also goes for the UK as a whole. It is and should be the choice and decision of the people of Scotland, to say whether they are happy where they are or they want to go for something different. Does Scotland dream of going back to Ruling the Waves, is that a serious priority ? Oh, and for those who suggest the whole of the UK should decide yay or nay on Scottish independence, did they at the time want the whole of the EU to decide for or against Brexit ?
//Oh, and for those who suggest the whole of the UK should decide yay or nay on Scottish independence, did they at the time want the whole of the EU to decide for or against Brexit ?//
//Karl, There's no comparison in the relationship between that of Scotland within the UK & that of the UK within the EU.//
Indeed there isn’t. The European Union was a collection of disparate nations which had been forged together under the guise (initially) of forming a trading bloc (very good idea). But it later gained ideas and ambitions way above its station when it tried to morph into a single federal state (very bad idea). There was no single head of state, no single language, no single government, no single economic model and no single currency so that task was also going to be a struggle. It would have been difficult enough with the original six, or maybe then nine that formed the bloc when the UK joined. But at least they had similar economies. The problems with that ambition began when the EU’s expansion took in countries which had vastly different economies. Despite its name, the European Union was no union at all but simply a collection of members. It would make no more sense to allow the people of all those members to vote whether or not one of them should leave than it would to allow all the members of the Marylebone Cricket Club to have a say on whether one of its members should leave.
The Union of Scotland and England, by contrast, was formed of two nations who had shared a monarch for a hundred years and who shared common values and a common language (well, very nearly!). It has also shared a Parliament for 300 years (leaving aside the nonsense implemented by Tony Blair) and is, to all intents and purposes, a single sovereign nation. It would be very reasonable to ask all the people of that Union a question about its future. England has a vested interest in Scotland (and vice versa) because it is part of the nation, just as Cornwall or Yorkshire is.
//Karl, There's no comparison in the relationship between that of Scotland within the UK & that of the UK within the EU.//
Indeed there isn’t. The European Union was a collection of disparate nations which had been forged together under the guise (initially) of forming a trading bloc (very good idea). But it later gained ideas and ambitions way above its station when it tried to morph into a single federal state (very bad idea). There was no single head of state, no single language, no single government, no single economic model and no single currency so that task was also going to be a struggle. It would have been difficult enough with the original six, or maybe then nine that formed the bloc when the UK joined. But at least they had similar economies. The problems with that ambition began when the EU’s expansion took in countries which had vastly different economies. Despite its name, the European Union was no union at all but simply a collection of members. It would make no more sense to allow the people of all those members to vote whether or not one of them should leave than it would to allow all the members of the Marylebone Cricket Club to have a say on whether one of its members should leave.
The Union of Scotland and England, by contrast, was formed of two nations who had shared a monarch for a hundred years and who shared common values and a common language (well, very nearly!). It has also shared a Parliament for 300 years (leaving aside the nonsense implemented by Tony Blair) and is, to all intents and purposes, a single sovereign nation. It would be very reasonable to ask all the people of that Union a question about its future. England has a vested interest in Scotland (and vice versa) because it is part of the nation, just as Cornwall or Yorkshire is.
Khandro and New Judge, Consider this: Discussions a) Scotland vs Westminster (England) and b) the EU vs Westminster (England). No similarity ?? My comment referred to and was (as I feel certain you realise) a take on ynnafymmi's statement that negotiating (with Westminster) the dissolution of the Union would be a different proposition - I suggest there would be at least this explanation if it turned out to be particularly difficult. Dissolving the union would not be strikingly simple but it is certainly not impossible either. It should not be exceptionally difficult assuming good faith of both parties (which, yes, is not a given). Similar things have been achieved before, and largely harmoniously.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles35 mins ago
Horror As 'Man Doused In Bleach' In Busy...
News110 mins ago
Film, Media & TV123 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles135 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles166 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.