Extremist.
Posted on 01/09/2012 8:45:48 AM PST by Dysart
NICK Clegg last night branded those who believed in Scottish independence as “extremists”, as he claimed the Liberal Democrats had won the “centre ground” of the constitutional debate by calling for more Holyrood powers short of separation.
The Deputy Prime Minister underlined his commitment to handing more powers to the Scottish Parliament as he declared that he was a “devolutionist” rather than a Unionist.
On a visit north of the Border, Mr Clegg described independence as “the extreme” – a choice of words that led to the SNP suggesting that the Lib Dem leader should “rethink” his language.
In an interview with The Scotsman, Mr Clegg was asked whether he regarded himself as a Unionist, a term that has already been rejected by the Lib Dem Scottish Secretary Michael Moore and the Lib Dem Scottish leader Willie Rennie.
“No,” replied Mr Clegg. “I would describe myself as a devolutionist, someone who believes in a strong Scotland, in a strong United Kingdom, but where Scotland increasingly takes on more and more of its own powers and responsibilities.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotsman.com ...
Tell that to Queen Mary and William the Bruce
He’s asking for a thumping from Sean Connery.
If the British government believes in self-determination, allow the Sottish people to vote on whether or not they want to stay in union with England. And then respect that vote.
And if the British government doesn't believe in self-determination, quit preaching to the rest of the world about people's rights.
Polls suggest support within Scotland for independence ranges from 28%-38%, although pain from ongoing UK spending cuts could bump that up. Might be why they’re pushing for a referendum now. Without the sharing of tax revenues being wed to England becomes less attractive for Scots.
Extremist.
"Nick, your mother's a whore."
If you are not free to leave, you are not free at all.
I’m no expert on this, but why would any Scotsman not prefer independence? Is the sharing of revenue that important? Do the Scots get back much more than they pay in?
One, to all the people saying that Scotland isn’t “free” because they can’t separate from the United Kingom... is that true of America as well? Just what “free” country, please point out, will let an area secede peacefully?
Second, Scotland will never secede because modern Scots are not your heroic archetypes of the past. There are no more William Wallaces in Scotland, only a majority of people that love the Labour Party dole. In short, Scotland isn’t going anywhere because Scots love their welfare checks and government programs too much.
Scotland is filled with socialists. I’m sad to say many of my kinsmen would rather live on the dole than live free. A lot of Americans with Scottish blood like to look on their heritage with rose colored glasses, but it’s not all fine whisky.
That's a really interesting point. I've always found it ironic that America champions self-determination around the world, yet will not even consider it at home (South Carolina in 1861, for example).
Anyway, I see Scotland as different than South Carolina. The American states freely and without coercion entered into union. The same can't be said about Scotland.
We have freeper from the UK who could likely speak with some authority on the issue. Let's see if he chimes in.
"Sorry, me hands are too bleedin' messy to give you a Picard facepalm for that one, laddie."
Scotland JOINED the United Kingdom in 1707, Ireland and Wales were forced as they had been conquered by England in 1607 and 1284.
Well, “What ‘s done is done”
Robert?
Well, the UK PM is in favor of a Scottish referendum on that very issue, so technically the UK is one.
Scotland imo is stronger IN the union, in the United Kingdom. And most Scots seem to agree. Hence why we remain in the UK.
We over-contribute to the UK, but we also get plenty back.
Scotland is best staying in the UK, with a Parliament in Edinburgh dealing with some Scottish matters and with tax rasing powers (which we have never used), and with the major Scottish/British/international policies being kept at Westminster, where 72 Scottish MP’s vote on our behalf.
Scotland has a Parliament in Edinburgh with 129 MSP’s, and has 72 MP’s at Westminster.
It has been argued that if Scotland been fully independent the last few years, we’d be Greece, as our smaller economy alone could not have saved us. It was the Scottish economy working within a UK/GB framework/support that allowed us to survive. We have an overburden of state jobs and a decreasing manufacturing industry.
Normally, though, a Scotland on its own WOULD be fine. The recent recession isnt the norm. Scotland COULD go it alone and survive, but thats the $64000 question. Is it better to go or is it better to stay and thrive within a greater whole?.
IMO Scotland could survive and thrive on its own, BUT it is stronger if it stays in the UK.
I assume thats a joke.
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.