Posted on 09/15/2014 2:52:53 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
"If you don't like me – I won't be here forever. If you don't like this government – it won't last forever. But if you leave the UK – that will be forever."
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
Scotland didn’t join England voluntarily. The best that can be said for David Cameron is that he’s less repulsive than his Labor Party counterparts. That’s rather faint praise.
i think there is a hugh export market for haggis for hurling. /s
Haggis is used in a sport called Haggis Hurling, which involves throwing a haggis as far as possible. The world record for haggis hurling was achieved by Lorne Coltart on 11 June 2011, who hurled his haggis 217 feet. This throw surpassed the longstanding previous record of 180 feet 10 inches (55.12 m), held by Alan Pettigrew since 1984.[17][18]
On October 8, 2008, competitive eater Eric “Steakbellie” Livingston set a world record by consuming 3 pounds (1.4 kg) of haggis in 8 minutes on WMMR radio in Philadelphia.[19]
Following his victory in The Masters golf tournament in 1988, Scottish golfer Sandy Lyle chose to serve haggis at the annual Champions Dinner before the 1989 Masters.[20]
Well the Cameron Clan motto is “Unite” not “Untie”
I feel like hurling whenever I see that haggis Hillary. Maybe someone will hurl her for us. Would be good sport.
Well, what a way to win friends: vanity with a delusion of inherent superiority. There’s nothing new.
No, they joined because they were deeply in debt.
If Scotland was to leave, there is no way they would ever get back in. Firstly, even if they realised what a catastrophic error they had made, they could never turn round and admit it, it would be an abject of utter national humiliation. They’d just have to carry on muddling along as best as they could.
Secondly, they’d have to face a referendum from the people of rUK on letting them back in, and I can’t see people here wanting to do that after the Scots had just told us to go and f ourselves because they thought they could create a socialist paradise using all the oil they’d took with them from the North Sea. The attitude would be ‘you jacks made your bed sleep in it’. Even now, there are plenty of little Englanders, growing in number, who after years of resentment at the Scots having devolution but nothing for England, want Scotland to get out and are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of watching the Nats fall on their faces, as they inevitably will because Salmond’s economic and monetary policies were basically scribbled on the back of an envelope whilst he was sitting on the toilet.
This whole dogs dinner that we have today is because of the utter uselessness of the main three parties, who have ensconced themselves in a London bubble for years, and failed to truly reform the UK into a federal nation as it should have been when Scottish and Welsh devolution was granted in 1999.
wow they are scared.
Dear David,
no one likes someone who is too clingy
Better painful divorce than abusive marriage.
The Acts of Union were approved by both the English and Scottish Parliaments, so I don’t know how one would call that “involuntary” (the large majority of Scottish commoners seemed to oppose it, but they were not in charge back them). If the Scottish Parliament hadn’t approved, it wouldn’t have happened, and they would have remained separate nations with the same monarch (unless Scotland chose someone else to succeed Queen Anne, as the Scottish Parliament granted itself the right to do. This was a main reason England wanted the union)
Anyway, Cameron cracks me up, subtract Scotland’s 59 MPs (only 1 of whom is a Tory) and Cameron could tell Nick Clegg is screw off because he would have a narrow MAJORITY. And yet he weeps and begs them to stay, enticing them with the possibly of his defeat in the next election (WTF?). Imagine New England and Hawaii leaving the US (Which would leave the Senate tied) and Mitch McConnell begging them not to.
Perhaps I do the merits of British unionism a great disservice (Scotland has offshore oil, important naval bases, and there’s the whole “national pride” thing), but it keeps coming back to that for me.
I love my country (The USA) but I would bid New England adieu in a GD heartbeat.
That’s the thing, though: Cameron would be considered a Liberal by our standards. In Britain, not being a trade unionist or a socialist basically makes you a Conservative. I have no idea what he’d be forced to do in the US political environment, but he’d likely be a massive RINO.
Scotland, on their end, is even further to the left. The dream of the “Yes” movement is nothing short of a welfare state propped up by North Sea oil (which is already much lower in price than a decade ago). It’s a really terrible idea in a lot of ways, and likely to result in the world having to bail them out with humanitarian aid.
It’s an inter-Left struggle. Cui bono?
Despite clearly being the dominant country in the UK, it seems to me that England got a raw deal out of absorbing Scotland. I'm guessing the whole movement towards independence today started when Scotland was granted their own Parliament again in 1999. The original merger dissolved the English and Scottish parliaments entirely and created the modern United Kingdom parliament. But now the Scottish have a local Parliment to represent their own interests, but the English do not -- they get representation only on their own city councils, the UK parliment, and the EU parliment. There's a legislative body for Scotland as a whole, but not England as a whole (and many of the UK government agencies that exist for "England" are shared jointly with Wales)
>> Anyway, Cameron cracks me up, subtract Scotland’s 59 MPs (only 1 of whom is a Tory) and Cameron could tell Nick Clegg is screw off because he would have a narrow MAJORITY. And yet he weeps and begs them to stay, enticing them with the possibly of his defeat in the next election (WTF?). Imagine New England and Hawaii leaving the US (Which would leave the Senate tied) and Mitch McConnell begging them not to. <<
He's said he won't resign if Scotland goes bye bye, so I think he's just trying to use it to get them to reconsider but it doesn't seem to be working. In short, it makes Cameron look weak and non-influential (which he is), so he's getting b---- slapped. I can see the point of the English government anyway... it used to be they controlled half the planet and now they can't even keep control over their own island. If Scotland leaves, I bet Ireland and Wales will be next. Once there's no more UK, England's influence in world affairs will greatly wane.
Of course, purely from idealogical point of view, British conservatives would be FAR better off without socialist Scotland influencing the makeup of the national government. The Scottish conservatives have a bit more influence in the Scottish parliament, but I think many of their seats are due to proportional representation, and the leader of the Scottish Conservatives is a Cameron-type CINO who supports gay marriage. The Scots would probably be better off creating their own political parties from scratch if they become independent.
>> Perhaps I do the merits of British unionism a great disservice (Scotland has offshore oil, important naval bases, and there’s the whole “national pride” thing), but it keeps coming back to that for me <<
If you were a British conservative, you'd most likely favor (or should I say "favour"?) keeping Scotland in the UK as a matter of traditional and national pride. By the same token, though, you'd probably support keeping the monarchy as part of the government for the same reason. As for me, I'm neutral on the issue. It would make more sense for me if they addressed the Irish independence question first. They've "temporarily" had two Ireland's for about 80 years now, haven't they?
And again, I note with irony -- the American conservatives who scream the loudest that "WE ARE A REPUBLIC!!!" seem to be the ones who would be happier if they were living in a UK style parliamentary system.
I thought so too but it actually created the "Parliament of Great Britain", which lasted until Great Britain and Ireland were United into the UK nearly a century later.
now the Scottish have a local Parliment to represent their own interests, but the English do not
And that's patently unfair, the Scottish Parliament now has power of most local affairs and England has no say. Yet Scottish MPs in Westminster can vote on "England and Wales" issues which are controlled by the UK Parliament. The obvious solution (if Scotland stayed) would simply be to exclude their MPs from such votes.
England and Wales are legally together, have been since Henry VIII officially annexed Wales to England. Independence for Wales would be tricker than Scotland and I don't see it being on the table any time soon if ever, the Welsh separatists are politically weak compared to their Scottish counterparts, there doesn't appear to be much desire amongst the Welsh people to seperate.
DJ's distant cousin used to be the leader of the Scottish Tories, Annabel Goldie, right DJ?
For Northern Ireland 2 of the counties are majority Unionist, Antrim and Down, I think they should stay with the UK if they wish. Reunification makes sense for the rest of NI, but heavens knows what that would do to Ireland politically, it's already a mess.
Supposed relative, I haven’t traced the line, though it is an obscure last name.
As for the parliamentary system, it has it benefits (normally there is no divided government), but also it’s drawbacks.
I hope we listen to him.
Erm, we did. Not under best of circumstances, but thank god we did.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.