Latest post of the previous page:
I believe that you would be able to lawfully register if you spend as much time living in Scotland as you do at your other address.Dumfries and Galloway is one of our favourite places btw. We often holiday there.
Latest post of the previous page:
I believe that you would be able to lawfully register if you spend as much time living in Scotland as you do at your other address.Hmmm.... I always thought that the "Great" in Great Britain was because of its association with, and relative size to, Brittany, and the Norman Conquest. But perhaps I am wrong....?Altfish wrote:The 'Great' in Great Britain, IIRC, was added when Scotland joined the union, it is meant to be 'Greater Britain'. So, I suppose you could argue that if Scotland devolves the 'Great' should be dropped.petemster wrote:.
Maybe we could all just be, "Britain" (without the misnomer,"Great" preferably).
Scotland would be "North Britain" and England-Wales would be "South Britain".
How does that sound?
Derivation of "Great"[edit source | editbeta]After the Anglo-Saxon period, Britain was used as a historical term only. Geoffrey of Monmouth in his pseudohistorical Historia Regum Britanniae (c. 1136) refers to the island of Great Britain as Britannia major ("Greater Britain"), to distinguish it from Britannia minor ("Lesser Britain"), the continental region which approximates to modern Brittany, which had been settled in the fifth and sixth centuries by Celtic immigrants from the British Isles[33]. The term Great Britain was first used officially in 1474, in the instrument drawing up the proposal for a marriage between Cecily the daughter of Edward IV of England, and James the son of James III of Scotland, which described it as "this Nobill Isle, callit Gret Britanee." As noted above it was used again in 1604, when King James VI and I styled himself "King of Great Brittaine, France and Ireland."
Hitler was planning to cross the Channel. Which doesn't, so far as I know, have a Scottish shoreline. Leave teh song alone!petemster wrote:"Who do you think you are kidding, Mr. Hitler, if you think old England's done?"
This isn't an attempt to upset Scots. We should realise that Scotland is meant to be included.
It's part of England!
Well, actually, no it isn't.
More likely to be called the Community Bank or some such guff.The Bank of England would become the "Bank of Britain" ( & N.I.) ?
You think Scots would acccept that...? Not really!The (English) Football Association would become the BFA and accept Scottish teams, as it has accepted Welsh teams (Cardiff, Swansea)?
How about it? Good idea ?
EE? Do you mean EU? Just how much clout do you think Scotland would wield in such circumstances? That may not be important, but if that is the case, then the yearning to break free of the English yoke is lessened, wouldn't you say?An independent Scotland wouldn't be parochial. Like other small countries it would be eager to have representation on international bodies, like the E.E. and U.N.O.
So Scotland is leaving the EU too....?It would have its own voice, and it would make its own decisions.
I would hope so, why not? (keep it shortNick
So Scotland is leaving the EU too....?
I would hope not. We need closer ties between countries, not isolation.Alan C. wrote:I would hope so, why not? (keep it shortNick
So Scotland is leaving the EU too....?
)
I stand corrected, you learn something every day.Nick wrote:Hmmm.... I always thought that the "Great" in Great Britain was because of its association with, and relative size to, Brittany, and the Norman Conquest. But perhaps I am wrong....?Altfish wrote:The 'Great' in Great Britain, IIRC, was added when Scotland joined the union, it is meant to be 'Greater Britain'. So, I suppose you could argue that if Scotland devolves the 'Great' should be dropped.petemster wrote:.
Maybe we could all just be, "Britain" (without the misnomer,"Great" preferably).
Scotland would be "North Britain" and England-Wales would be "South Britain".
How does that sound?
ETA: Here's Wiki:
Derivation of "Great"[edit source | editbeta]After the Anglo-Saxon period, Britain was used as a historical term only. Geoffrey of Monmouth in his pseudohistorical Historia Regum Britanniae (c. 1136) refers to the island of Great Britain as Britannia major ("Greater Britain"), to distinguish it from Britannia minor ("Lesser Britain"), the continental region which approximates to modern Brittany, which had been settled in the fifth and sixth centuries by Celtic immigrants from the British Isles[33]. The term Great Britain was first used officially in 1474, in the instrument drawing up the proposal for a marriage between Cecily the daughter of Edward IV of England, and James the son of James III of Scotland, which described it as "this Nobill Isle, callit Gret Britanee." As noted above it was used again in 1604, when King James VI and I styled himself "King of Great Brittaine, France and Ireland."
Yes, indeed. They were all gung-ho for the Euro. Makes them look somewhat silly now, eh?Altfish wrote:Remind me, what are the plans for the devolved Scottish monetary system...it used to be joining the Euro, I assume that has been rethought?
TBH, I think Cameron has exactly the right policy on the EU. (And I'm not saying that because he's a Tory!) here are lots of reasons why the EU ought to be a good thing, eg open markets, co-operation with arrests, climate change etc etc.Alan C. wrote:I would hope so, why not? (keep it shortNick
So Scotland is leaving the EU too....?
)
My friend Lewist has made me very aware of the casual disregard for Scots which pervades society in general, especially in the broadcast media. eg "British education system" etc. I'm learning...petemster wrote:Nick wrote :
>>> Hitler was planning to cross the Channel. Which doesn't, so far as I know,
have a Scottish shoreline. Leave the song alone!
And here I thought he was just using that as a route to the real prize : Hadrian's Wall.
Let's try adifferent song : There'll Always Be An England
- "Red,white and blue; what does it mean to you?"
It means the United Kingdom to me.
- "Britons awake."
So, are we included or not?
My point, which I tried to make in an inoffensive way, is that we, in Scotland, are not English. And, again no offence, we are not grateful to be subsumed under that heading.
But keep up the good work - you could soon be one of Alec Salmond's biggest assets!
I don't think that would prevent your candidacy....!>>> EE? Do you mean EU?
Yes. My mistake. We all do it sometimes, but I am withdrawing my application to be future Scottish dictator - on the grounds of incompetence.
Good answer. But, IMO, not really in tune with the rhetoric, blaming being yoked to England, etc.>>> Just how much clout do you think Scotland would yield in such circumstances?
With regard to issues that require a unanimous vote - the same as other members.
With regard to issues involving Qualified Majority Voting - proportionate to population.
Equal to, or greater than, twelve existing EU member states.
Again, a good answer. Just so long as they don't complain about it later, and expect me to do something about it!>>> That may not be important, but if that is the case, then the yearning to break free
of the English yoke is lessened, wouldn't you say?
I'd say : ask the Republic of Ireland that question.
I'd also say it's more a desire to speak for ourselves - a positive aspiration - irrespective
of who the "yokers" might be.
I'll keep that filed away for future use....>>> And not having control of your own currency and interest rates doesn't strike me
as being very independent ....
We're well accustomed to not having control of our own currency and interest rates.
It could be done - like Denmark or Sweden - but that wouldn't be my preference.
We can't have everything.
I wish? Not exactly (see elsewhere...) And defence is not (yet ) an EU matter, is it?>>> So Scotland is leaving the EU too ....?
You wish! Scotland would still be able to decide whether or not to join those who
attack or invade foreign countries, or whether or not to have a nuclear weapons base situated twenty miles from where I'm sitting at the moment.
I'd describe myself as being devo-max.These would be Scotland's decisions.
But you're right. Scotland would lose its MPs and its influence at Westminster, which seems to be a worry for some anti-Conservative English voters.
Which makes me wonder. Are you really just a closet independence supporter?
The use of terms like ‘squeals of anguish’ and ‘blame England, of course’ is,Their policy (for now) is to keep the pound, even though they won't have any control over interest rates. Wait for the squeals of anguish as their borrowing costs rise, financial assets leave, and there's nothing they can do about it. (Except blame England, of course....
During the initial break-up maybe but a shared currency without shared national interests (and I imagine intensifying competition )doesn't seem likely to be a long term solution. Should Scotland become independent it's possible the English public will agitate for separation of all those shared institutions, and quite possibly the Welsh, and why not the Irish.Lifelinking wrote: If there is an independent Scotland that continues to use Sterling after the referendum, we would in effect have a ‘Sterling Zone’, and the BofE would continue to set interest rates in the best interests of price stability across that zone, just as it does now, free from interference by governments.
Interesting, I would have unequivocally supported that option. But as we're not being offered it....Nick wrote:I'd describe myself as being devo-max.
Maybe, but I suspect not. I think you may underestimate the shared economic interests, business and trade that would continue, not to mention the social and cultural ties. I guess that once the decision is made one way or the other, only time will tell.During the initial break-up maybe but a shared currency without shared national interests (and I imagine intensifying competition )doesn't seem likely to be a long term solution. Should Scotland become independent it's possible the English public will agitate for separation of all those
shared institutions, and quite possibly the Welsh, and why not the Irish.
If there is a yes majority, the decision to block that option may yet be looked back on as a tactical mistake by pro-unionists.But as we're not being offered it...
Quite possibly...Lifelinking wrote:The use of terms like ‘squeals of anguish’ and ‘blame England, of course’ is,disappointing.
Indeed.Setting this aside, I will restrict myself to addressing the underlying point. The Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England (a body owned by taxpayers across the UK) presently makes decisions about interest rates and currency in the interests of the UK economy as a whole. Both the Treasury and the Fiscal Commission Working group have stated that the arrangements for the membership of committees and supervision of the BofE would require to be negotiated in the event of Scottish Independence. The FCWG have proposed that shares in the bank should be allocated according to population / the size of each country's economy, and agreement reached on the supervision of the bank and the membership of committees on that basis. If there is an independent Scotland that continues to use Sterling after the referendum, we would in effect have a ‘Sterling Zone’, and the BofE would continue to set interest rates in the best interests of price stability across that zone, just as it does now, free from interference by governments.
There has been no meaningful discussion to date between the two governments on dividing the existing UK public debt and how an independent Scotland would in practice transfer the funds to the continuing UK. A definitive answer to the currency question is impossible as long as this issue is unresolved.