Congeries of cross connected concepts
According to Harry’s Place the current financial crisis has put a crimp in Scottish plans for independence, as the UK had to bail out some banks in Scotland with more money than the entire annual budget of Scotland. I can see that, but what puzzles me is why England would want to hold on to Scotland. Why not play the Czech Republic to their Slovakia? I can understand loyalty to the UK but if the other members don’t respect it, then you’re just setting yourself up to be played as a mark which seems to be the general state of England these days.
P.S. I also think we should declare San Francisco an independent city-state but we do not have the good fortune of a separatist movement there.
| Ali Choudhury Wednesday, 15 October 2008 at 15:45 |  |
If it’s not necessary to change, it’s necessary not to change.
| Peter Burnet Friday, 17 October 2008 at 15:55 | |
Coming from a country that over a period of thirty years invested huge amounts of money, emotional energy and political capital to persuade a part from leaving, all the while wondering whether we wouldn’t be happier and better off if the s.o.b’s were on their own, I believe I am qualified to assure you such matters don’t lend themselves readily to your rational analysis. Didn’t you folks learn that once?
| Harry Eagar Friday, 17 October 2008 at 19:53 | |
They learned it well enough to start swearing the oath of allegiance in 1876 (like my great grandfather did). But they didn’t like it.
| Ali Choudhury Monday, 20 October 2008 at 13:07 | |
Scots != the French.
| Andrew Duffin Monday, 20 October 2008 at 14:23 | |
Couple of reasons spring to mind:
1. North Sea Oil
2. United Nations Security Council (as in, permanent seat on).
3. Prospect of ever having a Labour Government in England again.
All gone if the UK breaks up.
And also, it’s JUST what the EU wants to happen. Therefore we oppose it.
| Annoying Old Guy Monday, 20 October 2008 at 15:11 | |
1) Does the North Sea oil bring in more cash than Scotland costs?
2) I think that’s a lost cause regardless of Scotland’s status, not to mention that the UN is rapidly sliding into irrelevance.
3) Isn’t that basically vote farming? I mean, sending money from English taxpayers to Scottish voters to buy the election? Shouldn’t that make people in England want to get rid of Scotland, not keep it, in order to not have a basically foreign government imposed on them?
| Andrew Nixon Tuesday, 21 October 2008 at 07:27 | |
AOG: you’re imposing rational arguments onto what is mostly an emotional debate.
| Brit Tuesday, 21 October 2008 at 07:28 | |
Andrew Nixon is my pseudonym.
| Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 21 October 2008 at 11:18 | |
Yes, that’s a personal failing of mine. It’s why I don’t find most situation comedies amusing, because my brain keeps poking me in the cerebellum the whole time with “why doesn’t he just say ‘no’ and be done with it, instead of digging a deeper hole?”.
| Harry Eagar Tuesday, 21 October 2008 at 15:41 | |
Considering the massive transfer of wealth to the south under Thatcher, the Scots are probably only now catching up to that robbery.
| Brit Wednesday, 22 October 2008 at 03:42 | |
Heh heh…no, I think the Scots have had fairly strong views on Thatcher for a while now.
| Harry Eagar Wednesday, 22 October 2008 at 11:27 | |
Catching up, not catching on. As I rezd it at the time, they were aware of what she was doing.
I guess if you hzve a really long memory, the Thatcher looting could have been regarded as payback for James VI’s courtiers’ plundering of England in the early 17th century.
