The English voice on Scottish independence must be heard

Robert Henderson

The shrieking flaw in the  proposed Scottish independence referendum is the failure to establish the terms of Independence before the referendum is held.  This is vital because all parts of the UK are potentially seriously affected, especially if Cameron is mad  enough to agree to an independent Scotland using the pound with the  Bank of England as lender of the last resort (https://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/an-independent-scotland-must-not-be-allowed-to-have-the-pound-as-their-official-currency/).

The terms of  independence should be negotiated between Westminster and  Holyrood and put to a referendum of all parts of the UK apart from  Scotland before the Scottish referendum is held. If it is rejected the  Scottish referendum should be  delayed until further negotiations on terms have been agreed and put to a further referendum. If that  fails,  either because no such terms can be agreed or because they are agreed and the second referendum rejects them, the question of Scottish incidence should be shelved for ten  years to give time for reflection.

The Agreement between Cameron and Salmond  

There is no provision in the agreement signed by Cameron and Salmond  for what happens if no terms for independence are agreed.  (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/About/Government/concordats/Referendum-on-independence).  This has considerable consequences. On the face of things   the strength of the respective negotiating positions of Westminster and Holyrood  in the event of a Yes vote would depend on the size of the  majority for independence.  While it is true that a large majority for independence would add weight  to Holyrood’s  demands , any Yes vote,  however small the majority,   will give Holyrood a strong negotiating position because something has to be decided.  That would put Westminster in a very difficult situation  because, even if they wished to only agree to equitable terms such as Scotland not using the Pound and taking on a share proportionate to their population of all UK public debt,  Westminster  would be in a very  difficult position if Holyrood refused  such terms.   In such circumstances, the odds are that a compromise which was favourable to Scotland and unfavourable to the rest of the UK would be agreed simply to honour what was implicit within the idea of a Scottish independence referendum, namely, that the  referendum would result in independence if the vote was Yes.

It is inconceivable that any Westminster Government could refuse to come to an agreement on the terms of independence,  because it would produce a running political sore which would never be healed.   Holyrood could refuse to come to equitable terms because they would know that even if Westminster delayed matters  for a while by refusing to agree terms,  the odds would be strongly on them caving in sooner or later. Not only that, if a Government is formed at Westminster in 2015 which does not include the Tories, the terms would almost certainly be much more in favour than they would be if they were agreed by the present coalition. There is also the possibility of the next General Election happening before 2015 if the Coalition falls apart.

Any agreement on terms  would have to be agreed by both the Westminster and Holyrood Parliaments.  If so, it is unlikely that Holyrood would refuse any terms laid before them by Salmond, although they might insists on better terms . Westminster is another matter.  Either the Commons or Lords or both could refuse to pass the legislation needed to give legal form to independence  or the Bill could be amended one way or another during its passage to make it unacceptable to either Holyrood or the Westminster Government.  There are many MPs in the Commons who  have good reasons for trying to stop the Bill or of improving  or worsening the conditions.  There would be a particular temptation for LibDem and Labour MPs sitting for Scottish seats to jump from the UK political ship and support very favourable terms for Scotland in the hope of making a political career in Holyrood politics.

There is also the question of how English, Welsh and Northern Irish would give their assent to any terms  of independence which were agreed.  There has been no mention of a referendum on the terms in all parts of the UK apart from Scotland.   If the Tories and Labour were behind the terms , there would be no meaningful way of voters to express their agreement or disagreement at a General Election.  The odds are that the electorate would  not be offered an opportunity to say Yes or No to the terms.

There is also the position of the Scottish electorate to consider. As they would be buying a pig-in-a-poke if  they vote for independence, there is a very strong case for saying that the Scottish electors should have a vote on the terms before independence goes ahead.

The practical difficulties

In addition to the likely friction between Westminster and Holyrood over terms for independence, there are matters which are either wholly or partially dependent  on foreigners.  There is the question of whether an independent Scotland would automatically remain part of the EU or  have to reapply and if they have  to reapply, whether  Scotland would have to join the Euro. Spain has already signalled that there would be no automatic acceptance of an independent Scotland into the EU (http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-spain-would-not-allow-scots-automatic-eu-entry-1-2588253).  If Scotland was refused membership of the EU that would have profound effects, both in terms of the money she currently receives in grants from the EU and access to EU markets, especially for Scotch whisky.

Then there is the Pound. If Westminster refused Scotland the use of the Pound, Scotland would either have to join the Euro (assuming she can join the EU as an independent state) or set up her own currency from scratch.   Even if they are allowed the use of the Pound it is unlikely that the arrangement would last long. The splitting of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993 is instructive. The official division took place on 1 January. Initially both countries retained the old Czechoslovak currency the koruna, but by 8 February they had set up separate national currencies (each also called the koruna) because the Czech Republic was substantially richer than Slovakia and having the same currency made no sense because she could only be a loser. In effect, the Czech Republic would have been subsidising Slovakia if they had continued to share a currency. (Once the new national currencies were established the Czech koruna traded at a substantially higher value than the new Slovakian koruna.)

As for Nato,   It is by no means clear that an independent Scotland would be accepted by that organisation.  It  would have tiny armed forces and its determination not to have nuclear weapons within its territory would make it an unattractive proposition for Nato members (http://www.scotsman.com/news/snp-party-conference-get-nuclear-guarantee-from-nato-leadership-told-1-2590701).

The Balkanisation of England back in play

Those who imagined the Balkanisation of England through regional assemblies had died with the humiliating rejection of assemblies put forward by John Prescott (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16932030) should be on their guard.   Cameron has agreed in principle to further,   as yet undefined devolved powers,  for Scotland if the Referendum result is  No to Scottish independence.  (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9587910/Tories-back-new-UK-constitutional-settlement.htm).

Cameron supports the idea of a permanent constitutional convention which  would decide the constitutional balance between devolved and central power if Scotland votes No.  The Daily Telegraph reported on 5 October that

“It [the constitutional convention]  could mean power being transferred from Westminster to the English regions or new restrictions on Scottish MPs voting on domestic English issues.

Miss Davidson, the Scottish Conservative leader, told an inquiry by MPs she supported the creation of a constitutional convention but only if it examined the balance of powers between all four home nations.

Senior Tory sources confirmed the move is backed by Mr Cameron as means of tackling “instability” in the current set-up that can be exploited by Nationalists to stir up tension and acrimony.

The Prime Minister believes that tax powers currently being transferred to Edinburgh under the Scotland Act represents the limits of “bilateral devolution” and any further changes must be considered in the context of the UK as a whole.” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9587910/Tories-back-new-UK-constitutional-settlement.htm)

The position is the same with the Independence Referendum:  it is a blank cheque.  By agreeing to this Cameron has placed the UK less Scotland  in a position where they are likely to see further privileges given to Scotland at their expense. That is particular true of England which has no Parliament or government to speak up for its interests.    If the independence referendum was lost only narrowly Scotland’s bargaining position would be strong because there would be a temptation for Westminster to agree to very extensive increases in the devolved powers available to Scotland.

It will be in the interests of  politicians (and voters ) in the Celtic Fringe and those sitting for English seats whose parties rely heavily on  MPs from  outside of  England  to wield power and influence (the Tories and the LibDems) to vote for a settlement which would Balkanise England through regional assemblies. They would do this because it would emasculate England politically by reducing  English political representation to a serious of minor political entities on a par or even smaller than those of the various Celtic assemblies.  Nor would such assemblies have the same  emotional attraction as those of the Celts because they would not represent a nation and many of the regions would not have a strong local identity.

It is probable that if English assemblies were put to a referendum most would be rejected just as the few trial ones under Prescott were rejected. But one or two might get through and that would be the thin end of the wedge because the Westminster government in favour of regional assemblies  would be able, if it was still the prime revenue raising body in the UK (and it almost certainly would be),  to favour those few English parts with regional assemblies  and that could lure the others in given time. Alternatively,  English regional assemblies could simply be created by Act of Parliament with no referenda.  Once established, it would be very difficult to turn the clock back, not least because each would have established a new political class at the regional level .  English electors might hate the idea but if all major Westminster parties supported it there would be nothing the electors could do.

Eternal vigilance is the watchword

There is a very real danger of England being sold  comprehensively down the river over the next few years.  English MPs, Peers and the media should be ceaselessly lobbied over what is happening, both over the terms of independence and what is likely to happen if  the Scots vote No to independence.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Devolution, Nationhood, Politics and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to The English voice on Scottish independence must be heard

  1. uknleo says:

    The British establishment will ride roughshod over English opinion and interests as they always do Mr Henderson. You know this.

    Organised English political resistance has been criminalised. Nobody speaks for us because they cannot, dare not, or will not.

    English MPs, Peers and media are complicit in this treachery. They won’t fight on our behalf now, or ever. Their orders are to destroy English national identity and our people once and for all. Can we really expect them to about face when they have all but achieved this goal?

    The time of the homogenous nation state is over. Mr Van Rompuy tells us so.

    We must embrace globalisation, multicuturalism and Allah. And go quietly into the night.

    I wish it were not so. But my fellows will not raise from their slumber, and as such I fear we will deserve everything that is coming our way.

    And what is coming our way will not be pleasant.

    The only solace I can find is that sure as night follows day, the fate of the Scotch will ultimately be no different from ours.

    Lol.

    • William Gruff says:

      I wish I could disagree with your prediction but I share your pessimism.

      RE. the Scotch fate: Like every other parasite they’ve killed their host. One of the matters we need an English Parliament for is to protect England from the inevitable Scotch exodus when things collapse up there. More generally, there’s an awful lot of objectively anti English British and EU legislation that needs to be repealed before we can begin to defend ourselves and our long-term interests.

      • Chris says:

        The English Voice will be totally and utterly ignored, which is just as it ought to be. If and when Scotland decides to end the existence of Great Britain it will be on our terms entirely. What makes England think it has any rights to talk about Scotland? Sort your bloody selves out and mind your own business.
        Henderson, a good Scotch surname if ever there was one, your forefathers come from Dumfries and Galloway I take it? Or thereabouts, one of those saddo Scot’s that want to be English, too funny really!
        Unless of course you are a deliberate saboteur of the Union and you are trying to whip up our English neighbors for fun? It has been a jolly lark ever since that wee tart Elizabeth I of England died in 1603 and we established a proper royal dynasty on their throne, what the hell were the Tudors, farm laborers a couple of generations prior to ruling that there England.
        What have the English ever done for good quality Scotsmen like us Mr Henderson, they have been most surly little subects of our glorious ruling King’s and Queen’s since 1603. Should we cast them off into poverty now, no oil and gas I hear tell, hahaha. What else can we do, yes give them America’s trident missiles which Scotland currently looks after, they can pay for there expensive upkeep.
        Well Mr Henderson, keep on fighting that proud Nationalist Fight, you are a truly brace son of Caledonia to expose in such sarcastic terms the apparent superiority of England, little do they know that sarcasm is a control game we have played on them since 1707, muuuhuuuuhuuu!
        But Scotch we are and here’s tae us, let’s cast off these surly tenants of the Imperial Scottish Crown and return ourselves to our rightful and prosperous state, what will they do with all those silly Skyscrapers in London that we have been building for them since the 80’s, they may have to eat them I suppose.
        So Mr Henderson, until the Saltire is raised above all Scotland again then you must keep on writing, Rabbie Burns would be proud of you, you deserve a brand new kilt for all this hard pro-Scottish effort, a true Scotsman you are!

      • William Gruff says:

        There being no reply option to the laughably McStigmatic McDrivel submitted by Chris yesterday, 7/11, I’ll post here, since his tartan tinted tripe was in reply to my comment:

        Chris you’re a sad wee laddie, and presumably a dedicated skirt wearer. and you need to get out more. You’re seriously deluded and desperately in need of urgent psychiatric treatment. To be fair to you, however, I must admit that I laughed and laughed at your post, most amusing, although I suspect that you thought you might wind us up.

        Keep trying, only try harder.

  2. uknleo says:

    Was a touch pessimistic Mr Gruff, my apologies. Sometimes I write to try and mock/stir up any reading lurkers. And my comment was in a sense just a rambling build up to the Scotch troll baiting section at the end.

    On that note. Where the hell are they? The Scotch at Mr Hendersons blog usually provide good sport.

    Just imagine it Mr Gruff, an English Parliament full to the rafters with patriotic English men and women. Experts in their fields with relevant life and real world experience. No duplicitous career politicians straight from kindergarten. English laws for English interests.

    Mr Henderson, head of the Ministry of Cricket!

    Self-determination, freedom and independence for the English. Wow.

    Crazy talk.

    Back to sleep.

    (Hope you are keeping well sir! Mr Henderson too. All the best.)

  3. james s says:

    I have to say this is one of Robert’s poorest pieces.

    Factually incorrect in the most part and using newspaper articles, written within the confines of known editorial policy, to back up mere assertions is poor.

    In previous articles at least he hand-picked some facts that supported his view, while simply ignoring those which undermined it, but in this piece there is only assertion.

    D-, could do better Robert.

  4. james s says:

    As for Billy Goat Gruff and Leo, if this is a snapshot of the morals of the English then it’s a damning one. Thanks goodness cowards like this are in the minority.

    Just because you two feel frustrated by your own lack of representation you take solace in wishing the same fate on others? Or that just because others have the balls to potentially rid themselves of a corrupt government and you and your peers have not, you wish them ill?

    Human decency transcends borders and politics and you two should have a good look in your mirrors and ask yourselves where this xenophobic journey is taking you. I believe in ridding my country of a blatantly corrupt and inept system of government but this does not make me hate everyone who doesn’t share the same opinion.

    I’m currently British, as I technically still will be after independence, and I’m frankly embarrassed to be associated with people like you.

    • William Gruff says:

      As usual you sound like one of those effeminate old queens that seem so typical of the fancy dress wearing Scotch middle classes. So much so that I can actually hear your accent as I write; a chorus of shocked oohs and ochs accompanying grimaces of tortured outrage as you fidget distractedly in your pleated tartan skirts and frilly blouses, the very picture of some quaint old comedy of laughably affected manners. And as usual you’re deluding yourself. It is you Jocks who lack the ‘balls’ to vote to rid yourselves of a ‘blatantly corrupt and inept system of government’ (In the case of Scotland I ask which of the two are you referring to?). Even were that otherwise you could not do so since blatant corruption and ineptitude are so much a part of Scotch political and economic life, and because of that of those areas of British life too. Dishonesty and incompetence are the hallmarks of the Scotch, not the English.

      That notwithstanding, while you may currently think of yourself as British you will no longer be so, in any meaningful sense, should your compatriots ever summon what little courage they have and put their money where their McMouths are, regardless of what chubby wee Alex may have told you. That isn’t going to happen, however, and we will have to boot you buggers out, which more and more of us are more than happy to do.

  5. uknleo says:

    Globalisation james s. Get with the programme old bean, for you’re several decades behind the times.

    Slowly but surely, just like England, Scotland will be consumed by it, and its attendant nightmares of mass immigration and multiculturalism. Do you really think Scotland will escape?

    Then think again.

    Your cities will be colonised by hostile invaders that take from you your very living space, your means of employment and ability to raise families. They will gang rape your daughters on an industrial scale as a form of religious Jihad. They will take over your capital and assault your fellows should they foolishly wander into one of ‘their’ areas.

    Resistance to this race replacement process will be criminalised, enforced with the full might of the state and its media machine.

    Scotland will perish, as England perished.

    …..

    This fate is what I fight. I do not seek your approval, nor do I ask your permission.

    • William Gruff says:

      Few immigrants go to Scotland and having worked there for two years it’s easy to understand why. The people are nasty, surly, resentful, insular, self-regarding, and paradoxically self-loathing at the same time, unexceptional to the point of being less than mediocre, incapable, greedy, scheming, grasping, intolerant, narrow minded and bigoted; thoroughly dislikeable in a word. The country itself has, apart from a brief period during the English industrial revolution, been an economic backwater and will be again once we’ve kicked the buggers out of the union, since they will never vote for ‘endaypairndance’.

      • William Gruff says:

        PS: Donald Trump is currently showing the Scotch what life in the real world will be like for them. Watch ‘You’ve Been Trumped’ , currently available on (Jock infested) BBC iPlayer to see the future of Scotland when global money has the whip hand there.

  6. uknleo says:

    I watched that documentary William. As a resident of the Westcountry, environmental and community destruction on behalf of ‘progress’ is nothing new i’m afraid to say. And as a resident of England I consider myself a hardened veteran in terms of coping with the heartbreak of seeing my communities and homeland taken over and bespoiled.

    Nevertheless it was sad to watch. I have spent some time in that part of the world, from Inverness, through Nairn and down to Aberdeen. A very beautiful part of the world indeed. Somewhat ruined of course by the anti-English hatred spewed forth by the locals at every possible opportunity. Something that a lad from South Devon found hard to understand. “How can these people hate me? What have I, or my fellows from the peaceful Westcountry done to engender such poisonous vitriol?” I would oft ask myself.

    I can only assume Trump has friends in high places. Followers of the ‘Great Architect of the Universe’ I would imagine. To see those journalists bundled into the back of a police car in handcuffs was disconcerting to say the least. Very sinister indeed.

    Yet I speak on behalf of many when I say that we will not be intimidated or cowed by New World Order goons. Nor Mohammedans or anybody else. If you want our country, our homeland…

    …come and take it!

    • William Gruff says:

      They suck that vitriol in with their mothers’ milk. It’s almost instinctive in them, so much so that one of the first acts of the Scotch ‘pairlyment’ was to commission an investigation into ‘Scottishness’ to see if there is anything more to it than English with a tartan accent mixed with rabid Anglophobia. I’ve no idea what the outcome was. Presumably they found the conclusions disagreeable and buried the report. I have met a few Jocks who were not Anglophobes, but the disease is, in my experience, endemic there and no Jock is untouched by it.

      • james s says:

        Pot? Kettle? Anyone?

        A man who rabidly hates the Scots and never fails to voice it complaining about some of the Scots hating the English!

        Jeez. You couldn’t make it up.

        Please, please, grow up ffs.

  7. james s says:

    I understand your despair over the changing nature of your country. I have witnessed it with my own eyes and listened to many friends describe the demise of their communities. It is hard to see an end to it under the Westminster system where you are stuck with two parties filled with the same types putting their own agenda before the needs and aspirations of the people.

    Contrary to what the hateful weasel Billy Gruff suggests, there has been substantial immigration into Scotland but for whatever reason, it’s not had such a negative impact in terms of the formation of racial ghettos and areas where a minority immigrant population becomes aggressively dominant. I’ve only witnessed this in Yorkshire and the midlands but I appreciate it’s happening all over England. I’ve been in the Highlands a lot recently and it seems every third voice is Eastern European but I’m not overly concerned as my encounters with the Polish etc have been very positive and unlike the Asians and Caribbeans, relatively few of these economic migrants actually wish to stay in the UK long term. Indeed, many are heading home such is the state of the economy here.

    With regard to your comment concerning anti-English sentiment in the Highlands, I received similar anti-“Jock” hassle during my years in England. There are w***ers everywhere sadly. I am being 100% serious when I say the only difference I can see really is that the Scottish grunts have a go at solely the English. The English grunts hate everybody: the “Bog-tretters” (Irish), the Taffs, the Frogs, the Germans, the Italians. They are far more cosmopolitan in their blind hate. Every society has their knuckle-draggers and I have seen little difference overall wherever I’ve been.

    This is why I don’t understand the likes of Billy Gruff. He helps the cause of English nationalism not one bit. I frequent many different sites and blogs, many of which are concerned with the independence referendum and in every single one, any anti-English “knuckle-dragger” comments are not tolerated and frankly pitied. There is no point in resenting others purely on the basis of where their parents chose to have sex.

    My parents for instance both worked from the age of 15, never having been out of work. They have paid all their taxes, bought their home and paid their council taxes, been good neighbours, they’ve brought up two kids who were never in trouble and went to Uni to earn good money and pay into the system themselves and are pillars of the family to this day and people who would do anything for you once they’ve met you. Yet Billy-goat Gruff describes them as “less than mediocre, incapable, greedy, scheming, grasping, intolerant, narrow minded and bigoted; thoroughly dislikeable in a word.” simply because they are on the other side of a line on a map.

    If you guys want to see a serious movement for change develop in your country like it has in mine, you’ll have to ditch the knuckle-draggers like Billy as well as the extremists who most people think of when contemplating the English independence movement. The SNP and the independence movement have managed to remove the knuckle-draggers from their movement and they’re now taken seriously by those they need to support them. Blind hate and resentment gets you nowhere and just makes everyone negative and miserable.

    One final point on the anti-Scottishness on this site: if Scotland does break Westminster’s grip and makes a success of it, the people of England will see this and start to seek it for themselves which can only be good for what you believe in. As long as the self-serving types in Westminster maintain the status quo, as you say your country is lost. Being negative and wishing ill on the Scots for wanting to leave Westminster control does not make sense from an English nationalist point of view. It’s EXACTLY the catalyst you need.

    Regards,

    james s

    • William Gruff says:

      You’re going to have to learn some rather more cerebral, and more adult, insults James if you’re going to be taken seriously, and to get a serious grip on reality. The ‘knuckle dragger’ insult is invariably the first result of the pompous yet intellectually impotent, and essentially meaningless; it simply doesn’t work except to show the accuser as inadequate.

      • james s says:

        The “knuckle dragger” comments are directed at the types who insult, hassle and abuse others for no other reason than that they come from a different “tribe”. People like you frankly and indeed many “knuckle-dragger” Scots, English, Welsh etc who do the same. To hate and abuse other humans solely on the basis of where they occur with reference to a line on a map is shameful and in this day and age illogical. As I explained to you before, people who vent at others on racial grounds are more than likely projecting their own shortcomings. So please, just return to whatever hell you came from and leave the debates to the adults.

        You’re dismissed.

  8. maverick says:

    I hope there is no attempt to redraw the border between England and Scotland,i have a feeling there will be pressure applied to try for referendums to annexe the border areas into scotland.Naturally the rest of the remaining oil and a large chunk of the gas will fall into Scottish handsCameron is such a nincompoop (withs lots of Scottish blood!) ,that he would rather allow English people to be annexed ,than for instance expel millions of non English people occupying all the major urban areas of England.

    • William Gruff says:

      Those grasping buggers will attempt to get as many of the assets as they can while leaving us with as much of the liability as possible, a great deal of it attributable to their greed and incompetence, and we have no patriotic English government to prevent it.

  9. james s says:

    I think friend you are getting into the world of fantasy, although it is true that Berwick is a Scottish town within English jurisdiction that until recently was still technically at war with Russia. I can’t see the rest of the north suddenly denying their English heritage any time soon.

    The only potential territorial dispute that won’t easily be dealt with is the 6000 sq miles of north sea annexed by Westminster by statutory instrument into English legal jurisdiction in 1999. This annexation broke the Treaty of Union itself which supposedly guarantees preexisting borders and limits.

    The law of the sea is vague on this matter and it’s likely some accommodation will have to be sought, no doubt at great cost to us taxpayers. Before 1999, 94% of the hydrocarbons lay in legally Scottish territory. After the “grab” by Westminster, 83% lies in Scottish territory so it represents a fair bit of money and no doubt will cause a stir and polarize opinion along the lines of where you were born and not on any ideas of fairness or historical accuracy.

    • William Gruff says:

      There you go again James. You are full of Scotch Mist (a polite term for Scotch bullshit) and, ironically, guilty of precisely what you accuse maverick of, living in a world of fantasy.

      Berwick-upon-Tweed is not a Scotch town nor has it ever been. It was founded when the English kingdom of Northumbria stretched to the Forth and beyond, in other words when Edinburgh was an English town. It may, perhaps, although this is far from clear and arguably highly unlikely, have been ceded to the King of Scots, under duress, with the vague and undefined region of ‘Lothian’ when the ever treacherous Jocks took advantage, as is their custom, of English difficulties with the Danes. The town then was very wealthy and while it may well have been what Jock thought he’d swindled out of the English it is highly unlikely to have been what the English gave away. If it was it was certainly never abandoned by the English but was captured by the Scotch, and occupied by them, as it was for various short periods several times during the following three hundred and fifty or so years, the Scotch invaders being ejected on every occasion. The town was indisputably back under English control by the time of Henry VIII since he paid for the improvement of the fortifications there, and has been ever since. Berwick’s so called independence was never more than notional – England paid for the improved eighteenth century defences and provided the garrison – and dates from well after the accession of James I, which suggests that it was a sop to Scotch sensibilities on the matter that was unlikely to provoke rebellion in the English. The place is now an economic backwater with the lowest average income in England and the only reason you Jocks want it is because the English have it and stopped you from stealing it, several times. It’s typical of the Celtic cattle raiding mentality that Jocks consider things once stolen to be their inalienable property and the rightful owners the villains when they take them back. That notwithstanding, the only people in the town who think the place rightfully Scotch are Scotch incomers or their spawn. The locals describe themselves as Berwickers, Borderers, British, or more usually English. I know because I lived there for over eight years, only moving south five years ago, still maintaining contact with people in the area.

      I’ve read an awful lot of nonsense from Jocks about the Act of Union, and I’ve read the Act itself – I actually have a copy of it from HMSO – and it makes no mention of borders, jurisdiction over the Tweed or any of the other nonsense you duplicitous bastards are wont to claim has breached its terms. Indeed it actually makes clear that a single kingdom was to be created, which abolished the borders rather than preserved the. More fantasy. At one time those Scots who backed the union wanted Scotland renamed North Britain.

      The six thousand square miles of sea that you refer to have not been ‘annexed’ by Westminster. Firstly, Westminster retains overall sovereignty over all ‘U’K territorial waters and agreed areas of international waters, including those adjacent to Scotland (just as it retains ultimate sovereignty over the ludicrous talking shop that is the Scotch ‘pairlyment’ – which it can actually abolish should it wish to). Secondly jurisdiction in certain matters over six thousand square miles of the North Sea has been returned to England, from whom it was taken for the benefit of Scotland. Here, in all too typically Scotch fashion, you’re confusing England with Britain, which, ironically, is precisely what you are wont to accuse us of doing. Westminster is the seat of British governance and there being no English government, Westminster handles English affairs, subject always to the unaccountable interference of MPs representing Scotch constituencies, in addition to the less than certain intentions of the one hundred or so Jocks sitting there for English constituencies. We can be certain therefore that England’s interests will rarely if ever be served.

      The law of the sea is not so vague as you would have us believe and you grasping Jocks would certainly like, at least when it favours England, and in any case cannot be employed in any settlement until the thirty per cent of the oil reserves lying in waters Adjacent to England that were transferred to Scotland, by the odious Anglophobe Henry McLeish, are returned to us, along with the mackerel quotas that were arbitrarily taken from Northumberland and other English fisherman and given to the Scotch, and our fair share of the ‘U’K’s EU fishing quotas (Scotland currently benefits from 70% of the ‘U’K quota.)

      Your typically Scotch tendency to hold forth with absolute authority on matters about which you obviously know very little, if anything, will avail you nothing here. The English have never been fooled by Scotch ‘inventiveness’ (ie bare faced lying), we’ve just been too polite to laugh at you and tell you off to your faces, but those days are now past. You’ll get used to it eventually, try as you might to deter us with your rather hackneyed accusations of ‘reecesm’, ‘egnurance’ and lairk of mairners’.

      I’m sure there’s an old music hall name for wee Scotch wifey like old queens like you. I’ll see if I can find it out.

      • james s says:

        The use of “duplicitous bastards” when referring to your cousins north of the border shows you up for what you are . A hateful bigot who frankly should be an embarrassment to this or any site. I suggest you leave your parents’ home and get laid, and soon. Any psychology graduate will instantly spot the signs of projection within your endless insults towards people from Scotland. I find peace in the fact that cowards like you never have the courage to say things like you do to the faces of the people they are attacking, choosing instead to hide behind their keyboards venting their blind hate. You’re pitiful frankly.

        Your “version” of Berwick’s history is farcical Billy. I suggest you do your homework. If hate is truly blind you’ve just given an apt demonstration.

        Your first contention:

        “Berwick-upon-Tweed is not a Scotch town nor has it ever been. It was founded when the English kingdom of Northumbria stretched to the Forth and beyond”.

        Considering Northumbria existed in this state 300 before “England” ever existed demonstrates your ineptitude. Northumbria was founded by the Angles. You know, that Germanic tribe that came over and kicked you ancestors’ collective arses, just like the Danes, the Romans, the Jutes, the Saxons, the Vikings and lastly the Norman French did.You seem to celebrate “Englishness” in terms of the achievements of those who conquered you and treated you as the filth on their shoe. I often wonder why people like you do this. England’s indigenous population’s history, from whom most of you non-immigrant English are related, has almost universally been about servitude to conquering tribes from outwith your shores. You even refer to yourselves as “Anglo-Saxon”, a term given to you by your Norman conquerors who for hundreds of years bred within their own kind and treated the actual “English” people they ruthlessly repressed as untouchables.Billy, you’re going to have to stop living vicariously through dead foreigners mate. It’s like the Poles celebrating the achievements of Hitler’s Germany.

        Northumbria and Berwick has been administered or “ruled” by the Romans, the Angles, the Danes, the Scots and the English in the past two millennia. The border that exists today is based on the Treaty of York 1237 with a few minor revisions. The original Treaty confirms Berwick as being in Scotland and under the remit of Scots Law, having received it’s Royal Charter from David 1 of Scotland 100 years earlier. This Treaty was never repealed or rescinded so the numerous annexations of the town by the Norman kings of England for 200 years after were in fact occupations.

        The final agreement between the Scots and their Norman counterparts occurred in 1502 with the signing of the Treaty of Perpetual Peace which left Berwick under English administration, whilst it remained part of Scotland and subject to Scots Law. This situation remained until after the Union of Parliaments in 1707 when the Wales and Berwick Act of 1746, ordained that henceforth English Law would apply in Berwick, although still not specifically declaring the town as being in England. To this day the town remains an anomaly, a separate enclave under administration by the English County of Northumberland.

        Now obviously within the UK this anomaly is frankly irrelevant but with the repeal of the Treaty of Union possibly pending, we by all accounts revert back to the status of the nations prior to the union when Berwick was clearly still a Scottish enclave falling within the remit of Scots Law. Pick the bones out of that!

        Your second assertion: ” That notwithstanding, the only people in the town who think the place rightfully Scotch are Scotch incomers or their spawn. ”

        The last poll I can find was conducted in 2008 where 79% of the town’s inhabitants said they wanted the town returned to Scottish rule in the event of Scottish independence.

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-514118/Berwick-Tweed–Englands-northernmost-town–wants-defect-Scotland.html

        In the article it says a poll conducted 10 years prior to this one was narrowly in favour of English rule (51/49%). Based upon your assertion, somewhere between 49 and 79% of people there must be Scottish! Of course we know they are not, they just wish to be.

        I choose not to comment on the rest of your rant as it is just bigoted noise. Indeed, can you spare it for other forums like the National Front or whatever and keep your blind hate to yourself? You’re degrading what can be a useful resource.

        james s

    • William Gruff says:

      PS: Since Scotland makes no net contribution to the ‘U’K treasury, whatever ‘accommodations will have to be sought’, will be at English expense.

      • james s says:

        In 2010/2011, 9.6% of UK taxes came from Scottish territory. 9.3% of UK expenditure was attributable to Scottish territory. This is from the governments own GERS report based on ONS data. Look it up!

        What was England’s contribution Billy? Bear in mind the whole UK deficit was £136,142,000,000 and the government’s own figures confirm Scotland was a net contributor.

        Just give me a shout if you need help.

  10. ROBERT CROSS says:

    As far as “regional assemblies” are concerned,despite thier rejection at the ballot box,they are all up and running,and continue to take a proportion of your “poll tax” for thier lavish maintainence,thier members are self elected,and thier existence is still largely secret.But this agenda regarding scottish independence does not come from Scotland or England, it is purely a creature of the eussr,since our demographic decline is not proceeding fast enough to satisfy the fascists in brussels,they now seek to balcanise the entire UK,by splitting the union,first scotland ,then the other two,none of which has a viable future as independant countries,without the support of the English taxpayer.Unfortunately free and fair elections/referenda are a thing of the past,indeed the voter is so conditioned and manipulated via the press and “political correctness”that there can never be an honest result in any of our political dealings.This whole issue is designed to pit one against another who share common interests,as thatcher did,divide and conquer is the means to achieve our enslavement and secure our political infertility,when to the common man the real enemy is the “political class” though he does not wish to realise it,for it would force him to take a stance,and this is his real fear,much better to hide and pretend that “our representatives”have our best interests at heart.

  11. William Gruff says:

    There is no ‘reply’ link to James’ last bit of idiotic tosh so I’ll put my response in a new comment, which I post for the benefit of English readers:

    James it is quite clear that you really do know absolutely nothing about the issues you offer your risible McStigmatic opinions on. Your assertion that Northumbria and Berwick were administered by the Romans is so far beyond utterly stupid that it beggars belief, although it does serve to alert us to the dishonesty and immaturity of your contributions, as does your fanciful nonsense, which I’ve seen before in various forums, about spurious differences between ‘Angles’, Anglo-Saxons and English. It may suit whatever weird agenda you skirt wearing buggers are following up there to ignore the fact that English is simply the adjectival sense of Angle, perhaps founded on your ignorance of the Norman scribal practice of writing E for the digraph Æ (OE ash), which these days is simply shown as A. The early English, at least in the later pre-conquest period, seem to have used Angle and Saxon (the latter term probably a Roman nickname for various peoples) synonymously. England, or Angle Land, is simply a contraction of ‘Englaland’, or land/s of the Ængles.

    The same sentiment applies to your description of later mediaeval English kings as ‘Norman’, which again is typically Scotch, and indicative of a profound basic ignorance of the subject, and which, again, I’ve seen in numerous forums. Stephen (Stuck in your barren and boggy fastness with only midges and the chips on your shoulders for company as you gaze resolutely at your navel, you may not have heard of him.) was the last Norman king of England; his successor, Henry I, was a Plantagenet, the earlier kings of which line are also described as Angevin. In what laughably outdated ‘history’ books do you buggers read the rubbish you write?

    Far from despising the English the Norman conquerors admired their achievements, which is why William the Bastard was so keen to acquire the kingdom, and quickly set about legitimising their appropriation of English estates by marrying the daughters of the dispossessed families. Many of those who could not accept the post conquest reality fled abroad, some to the still overwhelmingly English southern part of the then imprecisely defined southern Scotland, which is filled with English place names, a fact that McStigmatic Jocks find hard to accept. English refugees refreshed the Scotch gene pool and also gave the Stuarts the foundation of their claim to the English throne. The Scotch royal line was further enriched with Norman blood so that after about 1100 the Scotch kings were Anglo-Norman.

    The term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ was coined not by the Normans but by late nineteenth century German philologists, who were at that time foremost in the study of language and linguistics.

    Like every Jock I’ve ever discussed these matters with you cite, incorrectly, any charter you think can be shown to support your case, when viewed through tartan tinted spectacles, while ignoring both those that don’t and the simple fact that mediaeval kings were compelled from the circumstances and conditions prevailing at the time to make alliances and agreements, sometimes ‘in perpetuity’, that they had no intention of honouring as a matter of expediency. The modern term for that is ‘realpolitik’. Far from resolving difficult situations such charters merely place the relevant matters in the unfinished business list. You’d need far more knowledge and grasp of the intricacies of mediaeval history than you obviously have to understand that, as well a world view that has developed beyond the cattle raiding mentality.

    Scotch charters had no validity in England, as any fool but a Jock would understand without being told. That’s just another Scotch conceit, another example of which is the grant by the Scotch king Edgar (note that English name) of land at Tweedmouth, which is and has always been south of the Tweed – so, even by McStigmatic Scotch definition, not in Scotland – to a group of monks, even though he had no authority there. The grant can be seen as aspirational, an attempt to extend his authority by testing the waters of English reaction, it does not mean that the English accepted the act or conceded territorial sovereignty. Jocks may consider a Scotch act binding in England but it wasn’t and isn’t.

    The ‘Union of the Parliaments’ is a Scotch fiction invented to allow for the equally fictitious ‘Union of the Crowns’, which Jocks are wont to believe occurred with the accession of James I, considered by them to be ‘the greatest reverse take over in history’ (in the words of at least one tartan tinted McStigmatic historian). The parliaments, like the crowns were united when the kingdoms were united, and the border effectively dismantled. They were not separate acts.

    Your statement that Berwick ‘remains a separate enclave’ and will come under the ‘remit of Scot[ch] law’ following the dissolution of the ‘union’ is pure fantasy’ and can be dismissed as such without further discussion. Were it not you Jocks would not be making a fuss about ‘returning’ it to Scotland.

    Everyone knows that opinion polls are meaningless because they can so easily be rigged in so many ways but with regard to those concerning Berwick: I moved there in 1998, just at the time it is claimed a survey on the issue of becoming part of Scotland was polled, which poll is referred to in the item you cite. I heard nothing of it and knew nothing of it until another survey was allegedly polled in about 2004/5, which I also knew nothing of (nor did anyone else in Berwick with whom I was acquainted, which was a fair few from across the social spectrum) until the result was splashed across the front pages of the local papers. It was claimed subsequently, by a few who were aware of it but not involved in it, that the sample had been very small and very selective. Everyone knew what that meant. I suspect that the same can be said of the 2008 poll your link refers to. Those who favour giving this ancient English bastion to the Jocks have tended to avoid asking the general population of the town what they want, preferring instead to seek, presumably in private, the predictable views of their own kind. An example of the secretive way in which the Scotch Berwick lobby operates is given by the article that appeared in an internationally renowned, London based financial paper. A journalist arrived in Berwick to interview the individual about the town’s economic prospects and spent two hours with him. She was not interested in anything he had to say and apart from asking him a few heavily loaded questions, the answers to which she subsequently twisted to fit the editorial agenda, did nothing more than repeatedly put to him the suggestion that Berwick would be better off as part of Scotland. That was about ten years ago and I know what occurred because the story was retold to me by the interviewee shortly afterwards. Polls are meaningless, even as propaganda. Few in Berwick want to be Scotch, and the Scotch don’t really want Berwick, as the various racist comments and aggressive campaigns regarding English patients receiving healthcare north of the border suggest. This is just one of those persistent trivial sores that the Scotch seem incapable of leaving alone, mainly, I suspect, because, like threats of independence, they think it will put us in a bigger lather than it does them.

    As far as ‘projection’ is concerned, You’ve proved yourself more subject to that than I. The same can be said of ‘bigoted noise’.

    As amusing as this is, and as invaluable as each opportunity is to offer examples of confounding Scotch myth makers to English commenters who may be taking their first steps into what may be for some the daunting task of de-McStigmatising the Anglosphere, I do have more pressing and more profitable tasks to attend to so I’ll call it day on this thread and leave the last tartan tinted word to you.

    I would just say though that your posts are tediously familiar, being precisely alike to those of every other Anglophobic Jock I’ve encountered in fifteen years on the web. I noticed long ago that you all tend to make one unsupported and absurd claim after another, and then avoid addressing any contrary points made in reply, choosing instead to shift the goal posts, erect straw men and hide behind red herrings. It’s a very feminine way of conducting an argument, which may explain why you all love to strut about in pleated skirts, beneath which you claim not to wear under garments, and frilly blouses with cross gartered stockings, a little velvet jacket and a purse hung from your waist. The modus operandi never varies: you all indulge yourself in identical insults in the vain hope of undermining your opponent’s intelligence and maturity and, when that fails, you all resort to egregious ad hominem insults, squealing like stuck pigs when your opponents respond in like fashion, that being the only thing you understand. I’ve come to the conclusion that the reason your contributions are indistinguishable one from another is that they are all there is to your ‘culture’, anything of worth that you claim being nothing more than English with a tartan accent.

    I look forward to our next dance dear.

    • james s says:

      So, let me get this right Billy,

      You are claiming that treaties made between and signed by the Kings of two respective countries on several occasions are null and void simply because that was the way back then? Or is it because they happen to refute your whimsical argument?

      Also, that the Norman’s admired the weaker English for their achievements? I’d love to see the evidence of that, as they treated the people of what we now call England really well didn’t they! You are treating history like a list of items that you then build a story around to feed your clear need for racial reinforcement.

      You called me stupid for suggesting that in the past 2000 years, that area and the people that lived there fell within the control of many powers including the Romans? A quick look at the Roman ruins listed in Britain in Wikipedia, for anyone that is interested, shows 25 entries for forts, towns and sites in the area that became known as Northumbria. Indeed, looking through the albeit abbreviated list it’s hard to see anywhere else in the conquered England that there were more Roman settlements, especially forts. To suggest that the Romans never controlled the area we know as Northumbria or one of its major settlements, namely Berwick, just makes you look like a sillly Billy.

      It’s clear there is little point continuing down this line. You are too blinkered in your xenophobic journey you’ll never see the blindingly obvious. That your ancestors were very weak, capitulating to any enemy that showed a strong hand even when their numbers were small. The things you value and claim to be “English” had little to do with your ancestors and everything to do with the customs and practices of your foreign masters who totally dominated your country and from pretty gruesome evidence, treated the average “Englishman” appallingly. I fail to understand why you celebrate this. The way your compatriots bow down to the privileged elite even today is a sad echo of your history.

      Anyway, we could go round in circles forever so back to the subject at hand: Robert’s incorrect assertions.

  12. Wat Tyler says:

    The earliest confirmed reference to the name ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is by the greatest Englishman to have lived; King Alfred the Great. ‘Rex Anglorum Saxonum’ is repeatedly used by Alfred throughout his writings.

    • William Gruff says:

      From memory, I recall that tenth century charters of Æþelstan describe him as Rex Anglorum vel Saxonnum, which means King of the Angles or the Saxons, not King of the Anglo-Saxons, if I recall correctly. I may well be mistaken, and my Latin was never good, but I seem to recall Alfred being described as Rex totiae Anglorum, which means king of all the Angles, which included the ‘Saxons’. I no longer have access to the relevant texts, so cannot check what you have written, but if Alfred was described as Rex Anglorum vel Saxonnum, or Rex Anglorum et Saxonnum (Rex Anglorum Saxonnumque?) he was not being described as King of the Anglo-Saxons. The Anglo in Anglo-Saxon is an adjective, used to differentiate the Saxons who came to The British isles from those who stayed in what became Germany, and are described by historians and philologists as the Old Saxons.

      When last I was involved in things ‘vel‘ was thought to mean that the terms Angle and Saxon were thought of as synonymous by the early English. Why else would a king be described as ruling over one people or another, rather one people and another?

      I’m aware that you may have more up to date information of course and welcome correction if I’m mistaken.

    • William Gruff says:

      PS: Anglorum and Saxonnum are genitive plural nouns.

  13. Bloke says:

    If the UK were to leave the EU then Scottish independence would fade away as an issue I suspect.

    • William Gruff says:

      Undoubtedly. However, having awoken the sleeping giant, as it were, the Scotch would then have to live with the prospect of the English, now discovering that ‘Britishness’ is nothing more than a means by which people who are not English, and often dislike us, are able to live and prosper in England or, in the case of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, benefit from English resources while living in their own countries, giving them their independence whether they want it or not, which we can do.

      I hope to have that opportunity.

      • james s says:

        Evidence please.

        I cited actual ONS figures for you above relating to Scotland alone, showing the flow of cash in the UK from north to south. Can you do the same? Bearing in mind cash is only one “resource”.

        I’d also like you to cite the other “resources” we’ve stolen from you? Oil,? Coal? Minerals? Water? Energy? Fish? Manpower? Intellect?

        In every single example of a resource I’ve cited, Scotland has by far been a contributor into England. All we seem to get back is retirees, nuclear weapons, war dead, disrespect and debt.

        I look forward to you providing data and examples for each resource in evidence of your claim..

        We Scots will be glad to grant you your independence soon enough. The problem is you’re still left with Westminster and the old boys network that actively works against change and representation in your country.

        It may also be worth remembering when you sneer at the your UK cousins, Wales and N. Ireland were not given a choice to “join” the UK so the fact it’s been a disaster for them being tied to the English is hardly an excuse for your lack of respect for them. It may explain why many hate you.

  14. james s says:

    You may also wish to refer to these ONS stats for the UK from 2010 (2011 figures aren’t out yet):

    REGIONAL GROSS VALUE ADDED – UK – 2010

    Region……….£ Per Head

    London……….£35,026
    SCOTLAND….£22,154 (incl. geographical share of oil)
    S. East…………£21,924
    SCOTLAND…..£20,220 (excl. geographical share of oil)
    East England…£18,996
    South West……£18,669
    East Midlands…£18,090
    North West……..£17,381
    West Midlands…£17,060
    Humber…………..£16,917
    N. East……………£15,744
    N. Ireland…………£15,651
    Wales……………..£15,145

    The national breakdowns are as follows:

    SCOTLAND……..£22,154
    ENGLAND………..£20,974
    N.IRELAND………£15,651
    WALES……………£15,145

    So what conclusions can be made:

    1) Scotland produces more revenue than any other part of the UK when all its income is accounted for.

    2) Scotland contributes 6% per head more than England.

    3) Even without ANY oil, Scotland was the third highest “region”.

    4) Scotland left 27.6 billion in taxes that year which was not returned in the block grant. This money was predominantly spent in London and the South East, an implicit subsidy raising the London and S.East GVA figures and therefore the English average. Wales and N Ireland did similar and so, in reality, the headline figure for England should in fact be considerably lower.

    5) Half a million Scots work in the south of England inflating the English total. Far fewer English work in Scotland so again, there is another implicit subsidy which is not reflected in these figures.

    6) Outwith the South Eastern corner, England is a basket case.

    Considering Scotland last year contributed 9.6% of UK revenues with just 8.4% of the population I look forward to the next set of figures for relative contributions into the UK.

    I fail to see any evidence on us relying on you for ANYTHING!

  15. Sad to see the anti-scots/anti-english bile here obscuring any sensible debate.

    The chances are mr salmon will lose his referendum anyway. But if he doesn’t, apart from it being being in my view a sad day both for englishmen and scotsmen, as Henderson says there are a number of points that need to be considered if the english taxpayer is not to be wrongly penalised by a decision over which he has no control. British government being what it is they probably won’t be, and the tax payer probably will be.

    But even then the scots will find that independence will not be the sunlit uplands salmon has sold them.

    ANd your contributors arguing the contrary are retailing uninformed tripe, half truths and delusions; I’m looking at you james salmon. Cheers.

    • james s says:

      Robert’s assertions are always extremely one-sided and rarely complementary to those he directs them against so although most of the responses are polite the fact some dare to question him elicits an immediate barrage of insults and stereotype portrayals by xenophobes like Billy above and the threads descends into nonsense.

      You claim my arguments are uninformed tripe. The figures I quoted above for example are actual Kite-marked Office of National Statistics figures, the same ones used by your government to base policy decisions on. Even the serious politicians don’t pedal this myth any longer as the data is overwhelming that Scotland contributes more than its fair share.

      There are many other examples I could cite to confirm this. For instance, in that same year Treasury figures confirmed 22% of all corporation tax collected in the UK came from companies operating in Scottish territory. Yet, we are only ever credited with our population share of 8.4% in GERS figures. That is a huge amount of money lost from the Scottish accounts. Never mind the fact that most large companies have their head offices in London and pay their taxes through their London account which inflates both London’s and England’s GVA figures when the productivity actually occurred in Scotland and elsewhere, hence the huge difference in GVA between London and the rest of the regions.

      It’s easy to see through figures when you go into the detail but the headlines always reflect what politicians and vested interests want you to hear. It’d be a brave politician or newspaper editor to tell 88% of the population in England that they are subsidy junkies. Far easier to pedal the myth that it’s the “Jocks” and ensure only figures net of “invisibles” are quoted. Make up areas of the UK like the “Extra-Reggio” territories that don’t actually exist to ensure a large chunk of income never appears in the Scottish accounts as that would only encourage the Independence movement. The fact that 94% of the oil income that year, an easily identifiable figure, came through Aberdeen is handily forgotten. Quite rich considering the Aberdeen council tax payer pays for the enhanced infrastructure but never gets the credit, just being judged “subsidy junkies” by the press in England like the rest of Scotland.

      Or procure a report from the government’s chief economist of the day and when the conclusions are forthcoming immediately lock it away for 30 years using the Official Secrets Act. That way, the “important” projects of the South East, namely the M25, Chunnel, Heathrow, London’s ever destructive growth, etc can be bought and paid for while the rest of England, Scotland and the UK withered on the vine. Now we can see how folly this centralisation process was as our economy is in tatters. Totally unbalanced, running a chronic trade deficit, a chronic fiscal deficit and the highest external debt per person in the entire world, the bulk of which was accrued by the “affluent” south.

      Just over a year ago I was a Unionist concerned with an SNP majority in Edinburgh. A year of reading and homework later I genuinely cannot think of one reason I’d want my children to grow up in an inherently corrupt and failing UK when there is a possible lifeboat in the form of a new state free of Westminster’s dead hand. This has nothing to do with being patriotic or disliking the English like most try to portray on here, it has everything to do with a fresh start for my kids, free from the disaster of Westminster and the “British” concept which is there purely to maintain the privilege of the few.

      p.s. I’d like some examples of where I’ve misled you with my “tripe” Cuffley. Just a few would do. The fact what I say may not be what you want to hear is no justification in itself for decrying it.

      Regards.

      • William Gruff says:

        You sad old bugger; you’re blind to reality as everyone else sees clearly. Your tripe is much too tedious to bother wading through but to take one small example, approximately one third of the 94% of oil income that you claim was routed through Aberdeen came from English waters. That’s not Scotch ‘productivity’ you silly, sad old McSkirtwearer, nor are the fish landed in Scotch ports that were caught in English waters, or claimed under the disgracefully disproportionate Scotch fishing quotas (only a Jock would have the bare faced McCheek to claim the proceeds of theft as ‘productivity). I suspect that you’ve forgotten to add the English subsidies of Scotch road transport, both in construction, maintenance and operating costs and toll free passage of Scotch hauliers over English roads, and of Scotch broadcasting, as well as the disgracefully disproportionate number of Scotch numpties who work in, and degrade the ‘English’ media (Naturally that will be changed following English independence.), and I’m willing to bet that you’ve deliberately omitted from your profit and loss account the money taken by thieving British Jocks from English tax payers and pensioners to bail out incompetent Jock bankers and greedy Jock subsidy junkies..

        The fact is that while more Jocks undoubtedly live in England than English people live in Sc*tland, those English people who do live in that pox ridden shit hole of a country constitute the overwhelming majority of the fewer than two hundred thousand net tax payers there, while those Jocks who work in our green and pleasant land are overwhelmingly net dependents of the English tax payer and contribute absolutely fuck all, other than their odious opinions and anti English votes. Even where Jocks in England are net tax payers, each job in England that is done by a Jock is a subsidy to Sc*tland, and not vice versa, you silly old Lorne sausage.

        My experience of Scotland is that one invariably finds the management of a successful company in English hands. In England one invariably finds that Jocks tend to handicap any organisation that is silly enough to employ them, a classic example of which is the Jock riddled BBC, which is absolutely rotten from top to bottom with you Anglophobic buggers (all living at our expense and all claiming to subsidise us), and apparently filled with kiddie fiddling perverts of the sort the Dunblane investigation uncovered, which is one Scotch ‘subsidy’ we would rather do without. You see how it works? Successful businesses in Sc*tland are invariably run by English people whereas bloated and inefficient organisations in England invariably have a disproportionate number of parasitic Jocks mismanaging them. Is it any wonder that we hate you and wish to be rid of you as soon as we have a Parliament to represent our interests?
        We might take you more seriously were you to be a little more honest with you

  16. Blighty says:

    I personally believe apart from economic considerations on both sides. I think it will have a negative physiological impact on entire nation, which will include Scotland after the Honeymoon. It will lower international credibility and bargaining power for the whole of the former union. Also if the UK pulled out of Europe it would according to a recent opinion poll increase the chances of a Yes vote for Scotland, and not the opposite as suggested.
    Over recent years the nation has fallen apart by the seams, probably mass immigration hasn’t helped as it has reduced national pride.
    Now that’s interesting isn’t it; I was born in Bournemouth but it is on the same lump of Terra firma as John O Groats. I feel passionate about being British and if Scotland leaves the Union, I for one will feel hurt, let down and betrayed. It will be as if Scotland pulled the plug out of the Britannia bath tub.

  17. michael cushing says:

    As a UK CITIZEN DISENFRANCHISED by the Westminster parliament = EXILED WITH LOSS OF IDENTITY (ie. no right of representation Under ALL UK JURISDICTIONS) per UN and ECHR definition / protocols living in Europe. Wonder why THE WESTMINSTER / GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHMENT has needed to be reformed during the last 300 years . Why has various constituent ‘lands / areas of the Westminster Parliament demanded and received INDEPENDENCE – ‘ Commonwealth Countries / Areas, Ireland ( Eire ) . ITS LIKE THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE . WHEN WILL THE WESTMINSTER PARLIAMENT grasp the nettle and be honest and truly representitive of UK CITIZENS AND UK RESIDENTS. and not just self interest / party political morons . Tony Blair used some grey cells and gave the people of Ulster a chance to live as UK citizens as close to a” normal’ way of life by creating the ASSEMBLIES Wales,Scotland, N.Ireland (in place of the shamefull disregard to UK Citizens Human Rights lack of 1 man 1 vote in N. IRELAND ) . This has devolved as everyone in the UK should know to FIXED BUDGETS AND NO BORROWING POWER DEVOLVED PARLIAMENTS / ASSEMBLIES for Wales Scotland N. Ireland over the last decade so WHY is the NATIONAL DEBT / EXPENDITURE OF THE WESTMINSTER PARLIAMENT over this period increased to BANKRUPT proportions .- who controls / counts the expenditure / borrowing in England in the name of the UK ??!!! . Its not a case of Scotland wanting idependence its simply obvious that Westminster Parliament has CREATED THE ONLY REASONABLE OPTION – INDEPENENCE . If there was an England Assembly / Parliament ( or proportionate ‘ Regional Assemblies ) with the same proportionate fixed budjets the UK would not be having this massive problem / upheavel . All the Westminster Unionist Parties know the above is a simplistic truth and therefor are continuing with the same RUBBISH ( politely put ) in the run up to the Scots Referendom – scare mongering in the name of themselves / political parties NOT THE CITIZENS OF THE UK

  18. Pingback: What happens if Scotland votes NO to independence? | England calling

  19. Pingback: All you could ever want to know about Scottish independence | England calling

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s